Exploring the

Unknown

Selected Documents

in the History

of the

U.S. Civil Space

Program

Volume VI:

Space and 

Earth Science

John M. Logsdon

Editor

with 

Stephen J. Garber

Roger D. Launius

R

A

Willi

Exploring

the

Unknown

Selected Documents

in the History

of the

U.S. Civil Space Program

Volume VI:

Space and

Earth Science

John M. Logsdon

Editor

with 

Stephen J. Garber

Roger D. Launius

Ray A. Williamson 
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN
NASA SP-2004-4407

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN

Selected Documents in the History of the

U.S. Civil Space Program

Volume VI: Space and Earth Science

John M. Logsdon, General Editor

with Stephen J. Garber, Roger D. Launius,

and Ray A. Williamson 

The NASA History Series

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA History Office

Office of External Relations 

Washington, DC 2004
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space

Program/ John M. Logsdon, editor ...[et al.]

p. cm.—(The NASA history series) (NASA SP: 4407)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

Contents: v. 1. Organizing for exploration

1. Astronautics—United States—History. I. Logsdon, John M., 1937–

II. Series III. Series V. Series: NASA SP: 4407.

TL789.8.U5E87 1999 96-9066

387.8’0973-dc20 CIP
Dedicated to

William H. Pickering

Space Science Pioneer

and

Jonathan L. Friedman

Manager, Editor, and Friend
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xix

Biographies of Volume VI Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxiii

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxv

Chapter One

Essay: “Solar Physics from Space” by David H. DeVorkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Documents

I-1 W. W. Kellogg, RAND Corporation, “Basic Objectives of a

Continuing Program of Scientific Research in Outer Space,” 9 

December 1957. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

I-2 “Report of the Working Group on Space Research Objectives, 

Special Committee on Space Technology,” 14 November 1958. . . . . .50

I-3 NASA Discussion Group on Orbiting Solar Observatory Project, 

“Minutes of Meeting,” 23 May 1959. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

I-4 Letter from Walter Orr Roberts, President, University Corporation

for Atmospheric Research, to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College 

Observatory, 26 June 1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

I-5 Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences—National 

Research Council, A Review of Space Research, 1962. . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

I-6 Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences—National

Research Council, “Space Research: Directions for the Future,” 

1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

I-7 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, History of Orbiting Solar 

Observatory OSO-B, X-440-66-322, April 1966. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

I-8 Letter from Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, to

Dr. Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, “Astronomy 

Missions Board Resolution,” 25 January 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

vii
I-9 Memorandum from Dr. Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator,

NASA, to Dr. John E. Naugle, NASA, response to letter dated 22

March 1968, from Dr. Leo Goldberg, Chairman, Astronomy 

Missions Board, 9 April 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

I-10–I-12 NASA Headquarters telegram to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard

College Observatory and others, 10 May 1968; Letter from E. M.

Reeves, Harvard College Observatory, to Mr. D. L. Forsythe, NASA,

“Postponement of ATM-A launch into 1972, reference NASA

telegram 1020362 May 1968,” 20 May 1968; and Letter from Dr.

Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, to Dr. John E. 

Naugle, NASA, 21 May 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

I-13 Astronomy Missions Board, NASA, “A Long-Range Program in 

Space Astronomy,” July 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

I-14 J. Allen Crocker, statement of Dr. Leo Goldberg, Director of the 

Harvard College Observatory, ATM/Skylab, 3 November 1970. . . . . .98

I-15 National Academy of Sciences, “Scientific Uses of the Space 

Shuttle,” 1974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

I-16 Andrea K. Dupree, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee, “Report of the

Ad Hoc Committee on Interaction Between Solar Physics and 

Astrophysics,” 18 June 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

I-17 Space Science Board, National Research Council, “Report on 

Space Science,” 1975. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

I-18 Memorandum from Noel W. Hinners, Associate Administrator for

Space Science, to Dr. John F. Clark, Director, NASA Goddard

Space Flight Center, “Solar Maximum Mission System Definition 

and Execution Plan,” 15 January 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

I-19 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Project Plan for International Solar 

Polar 1983 Mission,” November 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

I-20 Memorandum from Goetz Oertel, NASA Deputy Chief, Solar

Physics, to Director, Physics and Astronomy Programs, “Priorities

in Instrumentation Development for Solar Astronomy,” 7 October 

1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

viii
I-21 and I-22 Letter from Harold Glaser, Director, Solar Terrestrial Division,

NASA, to Dr. Thomas A. Mutch, Associate Administrator for Space

Science, 30 May 1980. Source: NASA Historical Reference

Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington,

D.C.; and Letter from James M. Beggs, NASA Administrator, to the

Honorable Larry Winn, Jr., House of Representatives Committee

on Science and Technology, about the Solar Maximum Mission, 16 

April 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

I-23 and I-24 Letter from Peter A. Gilman, Senior Scientist, Head, Solar

Variability Section, High Altitude Observatory, National Center for

Atmospheric Research, to Dr. David Morrison, Acting Deputy

Associate Administrator for Space Science, NASA, 8 April 1981;

and Letter from Dr. David Morrison, Acting Deputy Associate

Administrator for Space Science, NASA, to Dr. Peter Gilman, High

Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 

30 April 1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

I-25–I-27 Memorandum from Edmond M. Reeves, Acting Deputy Director,

Shuttle Payload Engineering Division, NASA, to Director, NASA

Goddard Space Flight Center, “High Resolution Solar Observatory

(HRSO) as a Space Station Program,” 4 November 1986; Letter

from Dr. Eugene N. Parker, The Enrico Fermi Institute, University

of Chicago, to Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate Administrator for

Space Science and Applications, NASA, 4 June 1987; and Letter

from Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate Administrator for Space

Science and Applications, NASA, to Dr. Eugene N. Parker, The 

Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 8 July 1987. . . . . . . . .145

I-28 Space Studies Board, National Research Council, “Space Science

in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 

2015,” 1988. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150

Chapter Two

Essay: “Space Physics” by James Green and Brian Dewhurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

Documents

II-1 “Proposal for Satellite-Borne Cosmic-Ray Experiments,” The 

University of Chicago, 1 April 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

II-2 Memorandum from Presidential Science Advisor James R. Killian, 

Jr., to the President, 23 August 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

ix
II-3 Homer E. Newell, Deputy Director, Space Flight Programs, NASA, 

“The United States Program in Space Research,” 27 October 1958. .184

II-4 “Memorandum from Homer Newell to Dr. Silverstein,” (Abe

Silverstein, Director, Space Flight Operations, NASA)

Transmitting “Policy on Release of Reduced Data Acquired from

Experiments Carried on NASA Sounding Rockets, Satellites, and 

Space Probes,” 15 August 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

II-5 and II-6 Letter from M. (Merrill) A. Tuve, Chairman, Geophysics Research

Board, National Academy of Sciences to NASA Administrator

James E. Webb, 13 September 1968; and Letter from Homer E.

Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, to Merrill A. Tuve,

Chairman, Geophysics Research Board, National Academy of 

Sciences, 12 November 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

II-7 and II-8 Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, to Homer E.

Newell, Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science, 23 April

1969; and Donald P. Hearth, Director, Planetary Programs, Office

of Space Science and Applications, to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard 

College Observatory, 3 June 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195

II-9 H. (Harold) Glaser, Director, Solar-Terrestrial Program, to Dr. Lewis 

(sic—correct spelling is Louis) Lanzerotti, 20 November 1975. . . . .199

II-10 Memorandum from Chief of Magnetospheric Physics (E. R.

Schmerling) to the Director of Solar-Terrestrial Programs, “Status of 

International Magnetospheric Study,” 8 December 1975. . . . . . . . . .200

II-11–II-14 Letter from Andrew Stofan, Acting Associate Administrator for Space

Science, to A. Thomas Young, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center,

27 April 1981; Memorandum from George Pieper, Director of

Sciences, GSFC, to Dr. Franklin Martin, Office of Space Science and

Applications, NASA Headquarters, “International Sun-Earth Explorer3,” June 1982; Presentation by Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., Director,

Astrophysics Division, to Sam Keller, Deputy Associate Administrator

for Space Science and Applications, “ISEE-3: Obtain Approval for InSitu Exploration of Comet Giacobini-Zinner,” 6 August 1982; and

Memorandum from Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications (Burton Edelson) to Director, Goddard Space Flight 

Center (Noel Hinners), “ISEE-3,” 30 August 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201

II-15 Letter from Burton I. Edelson, Associate Administrator for Space

Science and Applications, to Dr. Herbert Friedman, National 

Research Council, 4 May 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221

x
II-16 Stanley Shawhan, Director, Space Physics, Office of Space Science,

NASA, to Professor Minoru Oda, Director General, Institute of 

Space and Astronautical Science, 1 November 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . .223

II-17 and II-18 Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., Director, Astrophysics Division, to Dr. James

L. Matteson, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences,

University of California, San Diego, 30 September 1986; and

Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., Director, Astrophysics Division, to Dr.

Laurence E. Peterson, Assistant Director for Science, “Explorer 

Program Fact Sheet,” 23 October 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224

II-19 Michael A. Calabrese, ISTP Flight Program Manager, “An

Introduction to Science Investigation Cost Control,” 22 January 

1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

II-20 and II-21 Guenter Riegler, Chief, Space Science Operations Branch, NASA

Headquarters, “Charter: OSSA Operations and Data Analysis

(MO&DA) Blue Team,” 17 June 1992; and Guenter Riegler,

“OSSA MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program: 

Implementation Plan,” 6 August 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247

II-22 Memorandum from Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, to

John Dailey, Acting Deputy Administrator, “Program 

Management,” 15 June 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254

II-23 J. R. Dailey, Acting Deputy Administrator and Chairman, Program

Management Council, to Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator,

“Special Review of Global Geospace Science (GGS) Program,” 20 

April 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258

II-24 George Withbroe, NASA, “Living With a Star: The Sun-Earth 

Connection,” 3 August 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261

Chapter Three

Essay: “Life Sciences in Space” by Joan Vernikos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267

Documents

III-1 J. W. Joyce, Head, Office for the International Geophysical Year,

National Science Foundation, ONR Plans for a Biological 

Experiment in Early U.S. Satellite Flights, 4 November 1957. . . . . . .301

III-2 Objectives, Problems, Program, and Budget for the NASA 

Biosciences Program, 3 March 1959. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

xi
III-3 G. (George) M. Low, “Biological Payloads and Manned Space 

Flight,” 16 November 1959. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306

III-4 NASA Bioscience Advisory Committee Report, 25 January 

1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314

III-5 “Interim Report to Space Science Board of Biology Committees,” 

1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .326

III-6 A Review of Space Research, Report of the Summer Study

conducted under the auspices of the Space Science Board of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 17 June–10 August 1962. . . . . . . . . . .333

III-7–III-10 Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Associate Administrator memo to

Albert F. Siepert, Director of Administration, “Bioastronautics,” 6

July 1962; Memorandum from Albert F. Siepert, Director of

Administration, to Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Associate

Administrator, “Coordination of NASA’s Interests in

Bioastronautics,” 19 July 1962; Letter from James E. Webb, NASA

Administrator, to Dr. Norton Nelson, Institute of Industrial

Medicine, New York University Medical Center, on NASA’s Life

Sciences programs and organization; and Memorandum from

Nello Pace, Consultant for Life Sciences to the Administrator, to 

Associate Administrator, 4 October 1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338

III-11 Letter from Homer Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, to Dr. 

Harry Hess, Chairman, Space Science Board, 16 April 1969. . . . . . .350

III-12 NASA Policy Directive 8020.14, 16 July 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .354

III-13–III-15 “Life Sciences in Space,” Report of the Study to Review NASA Life

Sciences Programs, Space Sciences Board, National Academy of

Sciences, 1970; Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA,

Memorandum on Organizational Alternatives for NASA’s Life

Sciences Activities, 9 November 1970; and Memorandum from

George M. Low, Acting Administrator to Associate Administrator 

for Manned Space Flight, 3 December 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359

III-16–III-18 Meeting Record, “Proposal to Undertake Search for

Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” 11 September 1973; Letter from

Bernard M. Oliver, Hewlett Packard Company, to James C.

Fletcher, NASA Administrator, 20 September 1973; and

Memorandum from James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, to Dr.

Homer Newell, Associate Administrator, “Cyclops Proposal,” 4 

October 1973. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .369

xii
III-19 Report, “The Life Sciences Program of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration,” 1 February 1974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .374

III-20 and III-21 Memorandum from Dr. David L. Winter, Director for Life

Sciences, to James C. Fletcher, Administrator, “Report on the

Status of the Life Sciences of NASA,” 16 February 1977; and

Memorandum from John E. Naugle, Associate Administrator, to 

the Deputy Administrator, 24 March 1977. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .391

III-22 Letter from Dr. Robert H. Moser, Chairman, Life Sciences

Advisory Committee, to Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate 

Administrator for Space Science and Applications, 30 July 1987. . . .400

III-23 NASA Life Sciences Strategic Planning Study Committee Report,

“Exploring the Living Universe: A Strategy for Space Life 

Sciences,” June 1988. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .402

III-24 Announcement of Opportunity, Spacelab Lab Sciences-4, 

Neurolab, 21 July 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .408

III-25 Memorandum from Dr. Harry C. Holloway, Associate

Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and

Applications, to the Director of Life and Biomedical Sciences and

Applications, “Implementation of Revised Life Sciences Peer 

Review Policy,” September 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .416

III-26 Letter from Robert A. Whitney, Jr., Deputy Surgeon General, to Dr.

Harry C. Holloway, Associate Administrator for Life and

Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and the attached report,

“Special Study Panel Concerning Animal Research,” 14 September 

1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .418

III-27 Presentation, William Berry, Ames Research Center, to France

Cordova, NASA Chief Scientist; Wes Huntress, Associate

Administrator for Space Science; Bill Townsend, Deputy Associate

Administrator for Space Science; and Dr. Harry Holloway,

Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences, NASA 

Headquarters, 29 March 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .422

III-28 NASA Policy Directive 8020.7E, “Biological Contamination

Control for Outbound and Inbound Planetary Spacecraft,” 19 

February 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .427

xiii
III-29 Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, “A Strategy

for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century,” 

28 November 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .430

Chapter Four

Essay: “The Evolution of Earth Science Research from Space: NASA’s Earth 

Observing System” by John H. McElroy and Ray A. Williamson . . . . . . . . . . . .441

Documents

IV-1 Memorandum from Kenneth S. Pedersen, Director of

International Affairs, to Associate Administrator for Space Science

and Applications, “Global Habitability as a U.S. Initiative at 

UNISPACE 82,” 1 July 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474

IV-2 Richard Goody, Chairman, Workshop Executive Committee,

“Global Change: Impacts on Habitability, A Scientific Basis for 

Assessment,” 7 July 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .477

IV-3 James M. Beggs, Administrator, NASA, to George A. Keyworth II,

Science Advisor to the President, Proposal for “Global 

Habitability,” 14 July 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .497

IV-4 James M. Beggs, NASA Administrator, to George A. Keyworth, 

Science Advisor to the President, July 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .502

IV-5 B. I. Edelson, Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, NASA, with comments from Hans Mark, Deputy 

Administrator, NASA, “Global Habitability,” 8 November 1982. . . . .504

IV-6 B. I. Edelson, Associate Administrator for Space Science and 

Applications, NASA, “Global Habitability,” 24 June 1983. . . . . . . . . .507

IV-7 Herbert Friedman, Chairman, Commission on Physical Sciences,

Mathematics, and Resources, National Research Council, “Toward

an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program: A Study of 

Global Change,” July 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .511

IV-8–IV-10 “Terms of Reference of the Committee on Earth Observations

Satellites (CEOS),” adopted 25 September 1984; CEOS, “Meeting

Minutes,” 24–25 September 1984; and John H. McElroy, NOAA

Assistant Administrator for Environmental Satellite, Data, and

Information Services, “Memorandum to CEOS Conference 

Participants,” 19 October 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .528

xiv
IV-11 Earth System Sciences Committee, NASA Advisory Council, “Earth 

System Science Overview,” May 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .536

IV-12 Sally K. Ride, “Mission to Planet Earth,” in NASA Leadership and

America’s Future in Space: A Report to the Administrator, August 

1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .563

IV-13 Edward Frieman, Chairman, Earth Observing System Engineering

Review Committee, NASA, “Report of the Earth Observing System 

Engineering Review Committee,” September 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .566

IV-14 D. James Baker, Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated, 

“Testimony to Congress,” 26 February 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .575

IV-15 NASA, “Report to Congress on the Restructuring of the Earth 

Observing System,” 9 March 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .586

IV-16 Letter from Frank Press, Chairman, National Research Council, to

Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator, NASA, 9 April 1992, transmitting

National Research Council, Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans, 

“Interim Report,” 9 April 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .614

IV-17 Berrien Moore III, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and

Space, University of New Hampshire, and Jeff Dozier, Center for

Remote Sensing and Environmental Optics, University of California,

Santa Barbara, Executive Summary, “Adapting the Earth Observing

System to the Projected $8 Billion Budget: Recommendations from 

the EOS Investigators,” 14 October 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .628

IV-18 “NASA Management Instruction 1102.16,” 28 June 1993. . . . . . . . . .639

IV-19 Letter from Representative Robert Walker, Chairman of the

House Committee on Science, to NASA Administrator Daniel 

Goldin, 6 April 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .642

IV-20 Congressman Robert Walker, Chairman of the House Committee

on Science, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of

Sciences and Dr. Robert White, President, National Academy of 

Engineering, 6 April 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .644

IV-21 NASA Technical Memorandum 4679, “Spaceborne Synthetic

Aperture Radar: Current Status and Future Directions,” Report to

the Committee on Earth Sciences, Space Studies Board, National 

Research Council, April 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .646

xv
IV-22–IV-24 Office of Science and Technology Policy Concept Paper, “The

Global Observing System,” 18 April 1995; Task Force on

Observations and Data Management, “Concept for an Integrated

Global Observing Strategy,” 9 February 1996; and Letter from

Robert T. Watson, Associate Director for Environment and CoChair, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, to Dr.

Charles F. Kennel, Associate Director for Mission to Planet Earth, 

NASA, 22 March 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .650

IV-25 Rear Admiral J. J. Dantone, Jr., U.S. Navy, Memorandum for

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology),

“Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission with Attached Memorandum

of Understanding Between NASA and the Defense Mapping 

Agency,” 8 July 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .668

IV-26 NASA, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of

America and the National Space Development Agency of Japan for

Joint Development of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission,” 20 

October 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .676

IV-27 Letter from W. F. Townsend, Acting Associate Administrator for

Mission to Planet Earth, to Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 

“Name Change,” 24 November 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .689

Biographical Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .691

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .715

The NASA History Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .741

xvi
Acknowledgments

This volume is the sixth in a series that had its origins more than a decade ago. The

individuals involved in initiating the series and producing the initial five volumes have

been acknowledged in those volumes [Volume I—Organizing for Exploration (1995);

Volume II—External Relationships (1996); Volume III—Using Space (1998); Volume

IV—Accessing Space (1999); Volume V—Exploring the Cosmos (2001)]; those

acknowledgments will not be repeated here.

We owe thanks to the individuals and organizations that have searched their files for

potentially useful materials, and for the staffs at various archives and collections who have

helped us locate documents. James Green of Goddard Space Flight Center, David

DeVorkin of the National Air and Space Museum, and Joan Vernikos, formerly of NASA,

in addition to authoring introductory essays, helped in the identification and acquisition

of key documents. Graduate students Holly Carter Degn, Brian Dewhurst, Jonathan

Krezel, Chirag Vyas, and Avery Sen also helped in the preparation of the volume. 

My thanks go to all those mentioned above, and again to those who helped get this effort

started almost a decade ago and who have been involved along the way.

John M. Logsdon, George Washington University

There are numerous people at NASA associated with historical study, technical

information, and the mechanics of publishing who helped in myriad ways in the

preparation of this documentary history. In the NASA History Division, M. Louise Alstork

carefully edited the entire volume and prepared the index; Nadine J. Andreassen

performed editorial and proofreading work on the project; Charles Brooks and Jennifer

Troxell researched and wrote the entries for the biographical appendix; and Claire

Rojstaczer expertly handled a great number of final editorial tasks. In addition, the staffs

of the NASA Headquarters Library, the Scientific and Technical Information Program,

and the NASA Document Services Center provided assistance in locating and preparing

for publication the documentary materials in this work.

The NASA Headquarters Printing and Design Office developed the layout and handled

printing. Specifically, we wish to acknowledge the work of Cindy Min, who expertly

handled the layout of this book; Michelle Cheston, Lisa Jirousek, and Anne Marson,

whose patient attention to detail is reflected in the excellent copyediting; and Jeffrey

McLean and James Penny, who oversaw the printing of this volume.

Thanks are due to all these fine professionals.

Steven J. Dick

NASA Chief Historian

xvii
Introduction

One of the most important developments of the twentieth century has been the

movement of humanity into space with machines and people. The underpinnings of that

movement-—why it took the shape it did; which individuals and organizations were

involved; what factors drove a particular choice of scientific objectives and technologies to

be used; and the political, economic, managerial, and international contexts in which the

events of the space age unfolded—are all important ingredients of this epoch transition

from an Earthbound to a spacefaring people. This desire to understand the development

of spaceflight in the United States sparked this documentary history series.

The extension of human activity into outer space has been accompanied by a high degree

of self-awareness of its historical significance. Few large-scale activities have been as

extensively chronicled so closely to the time they actually occurred. Many of those who

were directly involved were quite conscious that they were making history, and they kept

full records of their activities. Because most of the activity in outer space was carried out

under government sponsorship, it was accompanied by the documentary record required

of public institutions, and there has been a spate of official and privately written histories

of most major aspects of space achievement to date. When top leaders considered what

course of action to pursue in space, their deliberations and decisions often were carefully

put on the record. There is, accordingly, no lack of material for those who aspire to

understand the origins and evolution of U.S. space policies and programs.

This reality forms the rationale for this series. Precisely because there is so much historical

material available on space matters, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) decided in 1988 that it would be extremely useful to have easily available to

scholars and the interested public a selective collection of many of the seminal documents

related to the evolution of the U.S. civilian space program. While recognizing that much

space activity has taken place under the sponsorship of the Department of Defense and

other national security organizations, the U.S. private sector, and in other countries

around the world, NASA felt that there would be lasting value in a collection of

documentary material primarily focused on the evolution of the U.S. government’s

civilian space program, most of which has been carried out since 1958 under the Agency’s

auspices. As a result, the NASA History Office contracted with the Space Policy Institute

of George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs to prepare such

a collection. This is the sixth volume in the documentary history series; two additional

ones containing documents and introductory essays related to human space flight,

including microgravity research in Earth orbit, will follow.

The documents collected during this research project were assembled from a diverse

number of both public and private sources. A major repository of primary source

materials relative to the history of the civil space program is the NASA Historical

Reference Collection of the NASA History Office located at the Agency’s Headquarters in

Washington, DC. Project assistants combed this collection for the “cream” of the wealth of

material housed there. Indeed, one purpose of this series from the start was to capture

xix
some of the highlights of the holdings at Headquarters. Historical materials housed at the

other NASA installations, institutions of higher learning, and presidential libraries were

other sources of documents considered for inclusion, as were papers in the archives of

individuals and firms involved in opening up space for exploration.

Copies of the documents included in this volume in their original form will be deposited

in the NASA Historical Reference Collection. Another complete set of project materials is

located at the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. These materials in

their original forms are available for use by researchers seeking additional information

about the evolution of the U.S. civil space program or wishing to consult the documents

reprinted herein in their original form.

The documents selected for inclusion in this volume are presented in four major sections,

each covering a particular aspect of the origins, evolution, and execution of the U.S. space

and Earth science program. Section I deals with the scientific study of the Sun. Section II

discusses the study of the physical characteristics of space, including both interactions

between the Sun and Earth, and other areas of investigation. Section III deals with NASA’s

fundamental research in life sciences—space biology. (Issues associated with the study of

the reactions of the human body to the space environment and the health of astronauts

will be covered in the next two volumes.) Section IV discusses the most recent area of

science to which space observations contribute—that intend to advance understanding of

the Earth as a planetary system. 

Volume I in this series covered the antecedents to the U.S. space program and the origins

and evolution of U.S. space policy and of NASA as an institution. Volume II dealt with the

relations between the civilian space program of the United States and the space activities

of other countries; the relations between the U.S. civilian and national security space and

military efforts; and NASA’s relations with industry and academic institutions. Volume III

provided documents on satellite communications, remote sensing, and the economics of

space applications. Volume IV covered various forms of space transportation. Volume V

covered the origins of NASA’s space science program and its efforts in solar system

exploration and astrophysics and astronomy. As noted above, two future volumes will

cover human spaceflight (Volumes VII and VIII). 

An overview essay introduces each section in the present volume. These essays are

intended to introduce and complement the documents in the section, and to place them

in a chronological and substantive context. Each essay contains references to the

documents in the section it introduces, and may also contain references to documents in

other sections of the collection. These introductory essays are the responsibility of their

individual authors, and the views and conclusions contained therein do not necessarily

represent the opinions of either George Washington University or NASA.

The project team in concert chose the documents included in each section with the essay

writer from those assembled by the research staff for the overall project. The contents of

this volume emphasize primary documents or long-out-of-print essays or articles and

xx
material from the private recollections of important actors in shaping space affairs. The

contents of this volume thus do not comprise in themselves a comprehensive historical

account; they must be supplemented by other sources, those both already available and to

become available in the future. The documents included in each section are arranged

chronologically, with the exception that closely related documents are grouped together.

Each document is assigned its own number in terms of the section in which it is placed.

Thus, the first document in the third section of this volume is designated “Document IIIl.” Each document or group of related documents is accompanied by a headnote setting

out its context and providing a background narrative. These headnotes also provide

specific information about people and events discussed. We have avoided the inclusion of

explanatory notes in the documents themselves and have confined such material to the

headnotes.

The editorial method we adopted for dealing with these documents seeks to preserve

spelling, grammar, paragraphing, and use of language as in the original. We have

sometimes changed punctuation where it enhances readability. We have used the

designation [not included, or omitted] to note where sections of a document have not

been included in this publication, and we have avoided including words and phrases that

had been deleted in the original document unless they contribute to an understanding of

what was going on in the mind of the writer in making the record. Marginal notations on

the original documents are inserted into the text of the documents in brackets, each

clearly marked as a marginal comment. Except insofar as illustrations and figures are

necessary to understanding the text, those items have been omitted from this printed

version. Page numbers in the original document are noted in brackets internal to the

document text. Copies of all documents in their original form, however, are available for

research by any interested person at the NASA History Office or the Space Policy Institute

of George Washington University.

We recognize that there are certain to be quite significant documents left out of this

compilation. No two individuals would totally agree on all documents to be included from

the many we collected, and surely we have not been totally successful in locating all

relevant records. As a result, this documentary history can raise an immediate question

from its users: why were some documents included while others of seemingly equal

importance were omitted? There never can be a fully satisfactory answer to this question.

Our own criteria for choosing particular documents and omitting others rested on three

interrelated factors:

• Is the document the best available, most expressive, most representative reflection of

a particular event or development important to the evolution of the space program?

• Is the document not easily accessible except in one or a few locations, or is it included

(for example, in published compilations of presidential statements) in reference

sources that are widely available and thus not a candidate for inclusion in this

collection?

xxi
• Is the document protected by copyright, security classification, or some other form of

proprietary right and thus unavailable for publication?

As general editor of this volume, I was ultimately responsible for the decisions about which

documents to include and for the accuracy of the headnotes accompanying them. It has

been an occasionally frustrating but consistently exciting experience to be involved with

this undertaking; my associates and I hope that those who consult it in the future find our

efforts worthwhile.

John M. Logsdon

Director

Space Policy Institute

Elliott School of International Affairs

George Washington University

xxii
Biographies of Volume VI Editors

Stephen J. Garber is a historian with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

He has worked in the NASA History Office since 1995 and served as the acting head of

this office from July 2002 through October 2003. He has edited a book on the past and

future of human spaceflight, and written on such aerospace history topics as the

congressional cancellation of NASA’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence program,

President Kennedy’s attitudes toward space, the design of the Space Shuttle, and the

Soviet Buran Space Shuttle.

Roger D. Launius is chairman of the Space History Department of the Smithsonian

Institution’s National Air and Space Museum and is the former NASA Chief Historian. He

has produced several books and articles on aerospace history, including Innovation and the

Development of Flight (Texas A&M University Press, 1999); NASA & the Exploration of Space

(Stewart, Tabori, & Chang, 1998); Frontiers of Space Exploration (Greenwood Press, 1998);

Organizing for the Use of Space: Historical Perspectives on a Persistent Issue (Univelt, Inc., AAS

History Series, Volume 18, 1995), editor; NASA: A History of the U.S. Civil Space Program

(Krieger Publishing Co., 1994); History of Rocketry and Astronautics: Proceedings of the Fifteenth

and Sixteenth History Symposia of the International Academy of Astronautics (Univelt, Inc., AAS

History Series, Volume 11, 1994), editor; Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis (Monographs in

Aerospace History, Vol. 3, 1994); and Apollo 11 at Twenty-Five, electronic picture book

issued on computer disk by the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD, 1994.

John M. Logsdon is Director of the Space Policy Institute of George Washington

University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, where he is also a professor of political

science and international affairs. He holds a B.S. in physics from Xavier University and a

Ph.D. in political science from New York University. He has been at George Washington

University since 1970, and previously taught at The Catholic University of America. He is

also a faculty member of the International Space University. He is an elected member of

the International Academy of Astronautics and a member of the board of The Planetary

Society. He is a former member of the NASA Advisory Council and served during 2003 on

the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Dr. Logsdon has lectured and spoken to a

wide variety of audiences at professional meetings, colleges and universities, international

conferences, and other settings, and has testified before Congress on numerous

occasions. The electronic and print media frequently consult him for his views on various

space issues. He has been a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars and was the first holder of the Chair in Space History of the National Air and

Space Museum. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

Ray A. Williamson is a Research Professor of Space Policy and International Affairs at

George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, focusing on the

history, programs, and policy of Earth observations, space transportation, and space

commercialization. He joined the Space Policy Institute in 1995. Previously, he was a

Senior Associate and Project Director in the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of

xxiii
the U.S. Congress. He joined OTA in 1979. While at OTA, Dr. Williamson was Project

Director for more than a dozen reports on space policy, including: Russian Cooperation in

Space (1995), Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach (1994), Remotely Sensed

Data: Technology, Management, and Markets (1994), Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth

Observing System (1994), and The Future of Remote Sensing from Space: Civilian Satellite Systems

and Applications (1993). He has written extensively about the U.S. space program. He

holds a bachelor of arts degree in physics from Johns Hopkins University and a Ph.D. in

astronomy from the University of Maryland. He spent two years on the faculty of the

University of Hawaii studying diffuse emission nebulae and ten years on the faculty of St.

John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland. He is a member of the faculty of the International

Space University and of the editorial board of Space Policy.

xxiv
Acronyms

AAOE . . . . . . . . . .Airborne Antarctic Experiment 

AAS . . . . . . . . . . . .American Astronomical Society 

ACE . . . . . . . . . . .Advanced Composition Explorer

ACRIM . . . . . . . . .Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor

ADCLS . . . . . . . . .Advanced Data Collection and Location System

ADEOS . . . . . . . . .Advanced Earth Observation Satellite

AEC . . . . . . . . . . .Atomic Energy Commission 

AES . . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo Extension Systems 

AGU . . . . . . . . . . .American Geophysical Union

AIMP . . . . . . . . . .Anchored, Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms

AIRS . . . . . . . . . . .Atmospheric Infrared Sounder

AIT . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian Institute of Technology

AMOWG . . . . . . .Astrophysics Management Operations Working Group

AMPTE . . . . . . . . .Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Experiment

AMS . . . . . . . . . . .American Meteorological Society

AO . . . . . . . . . . . .Announcement of Opportunity

AOSO . . . . . . . . . .Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory 

APA . . . . . . . . . . . .Allowance for Program Adjustment

APACM . . . . . . . . .Atmospheric Physical and Chemical Monitor

ARC . . . . . . . . . . .Ames Research Center

ARISTOTELES . .Applications and Research Involving Space Technologies Observing

the Earth's Field from Low Earth Orbiting Satellites

ARPA . . . . . . . . . .Advanced Research Projects Agency

ASI . . . . . . . . . . . .Agencia Spatiale Italiano

ASTP . . . . . . . . . .Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

ATLAS . . . . . . . . .Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science

ATM . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo Telescope Mount

ATOM . . . . . . . . .Astronomical Telescope Orientation Mount

AU . . . . . . . . . . . .Astronomical Unit

AVHRR . . . . . . . . .Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

AXAF . . . . . . . . . .Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility

BAC . . . . . . . . . . .Bioscience Advisory Committee 

BAC . . . . . . . . . . .British Aircraft Corporation

BASC . . . . . . . . . .Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

BMFT . . . . . . . . . .Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (Germany)

BMRC . . . . . . . . . .Bureau of Meteorology Research Center (Australia)

CCP . . . . . . . . . . .Cost Control Plan

CCRS . . . . . . . . . .Canada Centre for Remote Sensing

CEES . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences

CELSS . . . . . . . . .Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems

CENR . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

xxv
CEOS . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Earth Observing

CERES . . . . . . . . .Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System

CES . . . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Earth Sciences

CGED . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data

CIESIN . . . . . . . . .Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network

CLOS . . . . . . . . . .Coordination on Land Observation Satellites

CME . . . . . . . . . . .Coronal Mass Ejection

CNES . . . . . . . . . .Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales

COBE . . . . . . . . . .Cosmic Background Explorer

COMETS . . . . . . .Communication and Broadcasting Engineering Test Satellite

CORSS . . . . . . . . .Coordination on Ocean Remote Sensing Satellites

COSPAR . . . . . . . .Committee on Space Research

COSEPUP . . . . . .Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

COSTR . . . . . . . . .Collaborative Solar-Terrestrial Research

CRIE . . . . . . . . . . .Cosmic Ray Isotope Experiment

CRL . . . . . . . . . . .Communications Research Laboratory (Japan)

CRRES . . . . . . . . .Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite

CSA . . . . . . . . . . . .Canadian Space Agency 

CSAA . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics

CSBM . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Space Biology and Medicine

CSIRO . . . . . . . . .Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

(Australia)

CSSP . . . . . . . . . . .Committee on Solar and Space Physics

CZCS . . . . . . . . . .Coastal Zone Color Scanner

DAAC . . . . . . . . . .Distributed Active Archive Centers

DARA . . . . . . . . . .Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtangelegenheiten

DE . . . . . . . . . . . .Dynamics Explorer

DEM . . . . . . . . . . .Digital Elevation Model

DEP . . . . . . . . . . .Data Exchange Principles

DFRC . . . . . . . . . .Dryden Flight Research Center

DMA . . . . . . . . . . .Defense Mapping Agency

DMSP . . . . . . . . . .Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

DMWG . . . . . . . . .Data Management Working Group

DOC . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Commerce

DOD . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Defense

DOE . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Energy

DOI . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Interior

DOT . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Transportation

DSN . . . . . . . . . . .Deep Space Network

DTED . . . . . . . . . .Digital Terrain Elevation Data

E-SPAN . . . . . . . . .European-Space Analysis Network

ECOM . . . . . . . . .EOS Communications

ELDO . . . . . . . . . .European Launcher Development Organization

xxvi
ELV . . . . . . . . . . . .Expendable Launch Vehicle 

EOIS . . . . . . . . . . .Earth Observation Information System

EOS . . . . . . . . . . .Earth Observing System

EOSAT . . . . . . . . .Earth Observation Satellite

EOSDIS . . . . . . . .Earth Observing System Data and Information System

EPA . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental Protection Agency

ERBE . . . . . . . . . .Earth Radiation Budget Experiment 

ERS . . . . . . . . . . . .Earth Resources Satellite 

ERMAC . . . . . . . .Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council

EROS . . . . . . . . . .Earth Resources Observation System

ESA . . . . . . . . . . . .European Space Agency

ESIPs . . . . . . . . . .Earth Science Information Partners

ESOC . . . . . . . . . .European Space Operations Center

ESRIN . . . . . . . . .European Space Research Institute

ESRO . . . . . . . . . .European Space Research Organization

ESSC . . . . . . . . . . .Earth System Science Committee

ESTEC . . . . . . . . .European Space Research and Technology Centre

ETR . . . . . . . . . . .Eastern Test Range

EUVE . . . . . . . . . .Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer

EVA . . . . . . . . . . . .Extravehicular Activity 

FAA . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Aviation Administration

FAO . . . . . . . . . . .Food and Agriculture Organization

FAST . . . . . . . . . . .Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer

FRG . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Republic of Germany 

FSS . . . . . . . . . . . .Flight Support System 

FUSE . . . . . . . . . .Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer

G-7 . . . . . . . . . . . .Group of Seven Industrialized Nations

GAO . . . . . . . . . . .General Accounting Office

GARP . . . . . . . . . .Global Atmospheric Research Program

GATE . . . . . . . . . .GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment 

GAW . . . . . . . . . . .Global Atmospheric Watch

GCM . . . . . . . . . . .General Circulation Models 

GCOS . . . . . . . . . .Global Climate Observing System

GEMS . . . . . . . . . .Global Environmental Monitoring Systems

GGM . . . . . . . . . . .Gravity Gradiometer Mission

GGS . . . . . . . . . . .Global Geospace Science

GLOSS . . . . . . . . .Global Sea Level Observing System

GLRS . . . . . . . . . .Geodynamics Laser Ranging System 

GMS . . . . . . . . . . .Geostationary Meteorology Satellite

GODAE . . . . . . . .Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment

GOES . . . . . . . . . .Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites

GOME . . . . . . . . .Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment

GOMOS . . . . . . . .Global Ozone Monitoring by Occultation of Stars

xxvii
GOOS . . . . . . . . . .Global Ocean Observing System

GOS . . . . . . . . . . .Global Observing System

GPM . . . . . . . . . . .Global Precipitation Mission

GPS . . . . . . . . . . . .Global Positioning System

GRB . . . . . . . . . . .Geophysics Research Board

GRE . . . . . . . . . . .Gamma Ray Explorer

GRID . . . . . . . . . .Global Resource Information Database

GRM . . . . . . . . . . .Geopotential Research Mission 

GRM . . . . . . . . . . .Geopotential Radar Mapper

GSFC . . . . . . . . . .Goddard Space Flight Center

GTOS . . . . . . . . . .Global Terrestrial Observing System

GZ . . . . . . . . . . . . .Giacobini-Zinner 

HAO . . . . . . . . . . .High Altitude Observatory

HCO . . . . . . . . . . .Harvard College Observatory

HEAO . . . . . . . . .High Energy Astronomical Observatory

HEDS . . . . . . . . . .Human Exploration and Development of Space

HESP . . . . . . . . . .High Energy Solar Platform

HEW . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

HHS . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HIRDLS . . . . . . . .High-Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder

HIRIS . . . . . . . . . .High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer

HMMR . . . . . . . . .High-resolution Multifrequency Microwave Radiometer

HPCC . . . . . . . . . .High-Performance Computing Centers

HRMS . . . . . . . . . .High-Resolution Microwave Survey

HRTS . . . . . . . . . .High-Resolution Telescope and Spectrograph

HRSO . . . . . . . . . .High-Resolution Solar Observatory

HSO . . . . . . . . . . .Heliosynchronous Orbiter 

HST . . . . . . . . . . .Hubble Space Telescope

IACG . . . . . . . . . .Inter-Agency Consultative Group

IAF . . . . . . . . . . . .International Astronautical Federation

ICCA . . . . . . . . . . .Interagency Coordinating Committee on Astronomy

ICE . . . . . . . . . . . .International Cometary Explorer

ICS . . . . . . . . . . . .Interface Control Specifications

ICSU . . . . . . . . . . .International Council of Scientific Unions

IEOS . . . . . . . . . . .International Earth Observing System

IFSAR . . . . . . . . . .Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

IGBP . . . . . . . . . . .International Geosphere-Biosphere Program

IGFA . . . . . . . . . . .International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research

IGOS . . . . . . . . . .International Global Observing Strategy

IGOSS . . . . . . . . .International Global Ocean Services System

IGY . . . . . . . . . . . .International Geophysical Year

ILSSWG . . . . . . . .International Life Sciences Strategic Working Group

IMAGE . . . . . . . . .Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration

xxviii
IMP . . . . . . . . . . . .Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms

IMS . . . . . . . . . . . .International Magnetospheric Study

INPE . . . . . . . . . . .Instituto de Pesquisas Espacials

IOC . . . . . . . . . . . .Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

IODE . . . . . . . . . .International Ocean Data Exchange

IOSWG . . . . . . . . .Integrated Observing System Working Group

IPA . . . . . . . . . . . .Intergovernmental Personnel Act

IPCC . . . . . . . . . . .Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRAS . . . . . . . . . . .Infra-Red Astronomy Satellite

IRS . . . . . . . . . . . .Indian Remote Sensing Satellite 

ISAS . . . . . . . . . . .Institute of Space and Astronautical Science

ISEE . . . . . . . . . . .International Sun-Earth Explorers

ISPM . . . . . . . . . . .International Solar Polar Mission 

ISRO . . . . . . . . . . .Indian Space Research Organization 

ISS . . . . . . . . . . . .International Space Station

ISTPP . . . . . . . . . .International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program

ITHD . . . . . . . . . .Interferometric Terrain Height Data

IUE . . . . . . . . . . . .International Ultraviolet Explorer

IUS . . . . . . . . . . . .Inertial Upper Stage 

IV&V . . . . . . . . . .Independent Verification and Validation 

IWG . . . . . . . . . . .Investigators Working Group

JEA . . . . . . . . . . . .Japanese Environment Agency

JEOS . . . . . . . . . . .Japanese Earth Observing System

JERS . . . . . . . . . . . Japan Earth Remote Sensing Satellite

JMA . . . . . . . . . . .Japan Meteorological Agency 

JPL . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JSC . . . . . . . . . . . .Johnson Space Center 

KSC . . . . . . . . . . . .Kennedy Space Center 

LAGEOS . . . . . . .Laser Geodynamics Satellites

LaRC . . . . . . . . . .Langley Research Center

LASA . . . . . . . . . .Laser Atmospheric Sounder and Altimeter 

LASCO . . . . . . . . .Light Spectrometric Coronagraph

LAWS . . . . . . . . . .Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder

LDEF . . . . . . . . . .Long-Duration Exposure Facility

LERTS . . . . . . . . .Laboratoire d’Etudes et de Recherches en Télédétection Spatiale

(France)

LFFP . . . . . . . . . . .Large Fine-Pointed Platform 

LIDAR . . . . . . . . .Light Detection and Ranging Instrument

LIMS . . . . . . . . . . .Limb Infrared Monitor of the Stratosphere

LIS . . . . . . . . . . . .Light Imaging Sensor

LSAC . . . . . . . . . .Life Sciences Advisory Committee

ISCCP . . . . . . . . . .International Satellite Cloud Climatology

xxix
LSLE . . . . . . . . . . .Life Sciences Laboratory Equipment

ISLSCP . . . . . . . . .International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project

LSO . . . . . . . . . . .Large Solar Observatory

LSSPSC . . . . . . . .Life Sciences Strategic Planning Study Committee 

LWS . . . . . . . . . . .Living With a Star

LZP . . . . . . . . . . . .Level Zero Processed Data

MC . . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetospheric Constellation LS . . . Microwave Limb Sounder

MCC . . . . . . . . . . .Mission Control Center

McIDAS . . . . . . . .Man-Computer Interactive Data Access System

MFE . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic Field Explorer 

MIMR . . . . . . . . . .Multifrequency Imaging Microwave Radiometer

MIPAS . . . . . . . . .Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding

MIT . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MITI . . . . . . . . . . .Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Japan)

MMS . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetospheric Multiscale 

MO&DA . . . . . . . .Mission Operations and Data Analysis

MODIS . . . . . . . . .Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectrometer

MORL . . . . . . . . .Manned Orbital Research Laboratory 

MOS . . . . . . . . . . .Marine Observation Satellite

MOT . . . . . . . . . . .Manned Orbiting Telescope 

MRI . . . . . . . . . . .Meteorological Research Institute (Japan)

MSC . . . . . . . . . . .Manned Spacecraft Center

MSF . . . . . . . . . . .Manned Space Flight 

MSFC . . . . . . . . . .Marshall Space Flight Center 

MTE . . . . . . . . . . .Mesosphere-Thermosphere Explorer 

MTPE . . . . . . . . . .Mission To Planet Earth 

N-ROSS . . . . . . . .Navy Remote Ocean Sensing System

NAC . . . . . . . . . . .NASA Advisory Council 

NACA . . . . . . . . . .National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NAS . . . . . . . . . . .National Academy of Sciences

NASDA . . . . . . . . .National Space Development

NASM . . . . . . . . . .National Air and Space Museum

NCAR . . . . . . . . . .National Center for Atmospheric Research

NFLR . . . . . . . . . .NASA Federal Laboratory Review task force

NIH . . . . . . . . . . .National Institutes of Health

NIMA . . . . . . . . . .National Imagery and Mapping Agency

NITF . . . . . . . . . . .National Image Transfer Format

NOAA . . . . . . . . . .National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOSS . . . . . . . . . .National Oceanic Satellite System

NOZE . . . . . . . . . .National Ozone Experiment

NPOESS . . . . . . . .National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite System

NRA . . . . . . . . . . .NASA Research Announcement 

NRC . . . . . . . . . . .National Research Council

xxx
NREN . . . . . . . . . .NASA Research and Education Network

NRL . . . . . . . . . . .Naval Research Laboratory

NSA . . . . . . . . . . .National Security Agency

NSBRI . . . . . . . . .National Space Biomedical Research Institute

NSC . . . . . . . . . . .National Space Council

NSCORT . . . . . . .National Specialized Centers of Research and Training

NSF . . . . . . . . . . . .National Science Foundation

NSSDC . . . . . . . . .National Space Science Data Center

NSTC . . . . . . . . . .National Science and Technology Council 

NSTL . . . . . . . . . .National Space Technology Laboratories

OAO . . . . . . . . . . .Orbiting Astronomical Observatory 

OCI . . . . . . . . . . . .Ocean Color Instrument

OMB . . . . . . . . . . .Office of Management and Budget 

ONR . . . . . . . . . . .Office of Naval Research 

OOE . . . . . . . . . . .Out-Of-the-Ecliptic missions

OPEN . . . . . . . . . .Origins of Plasmas in the Earth’s Neighborhood

OSB . . . . . . . . . . .Ocean Sciences Board

OSHA . . . . . . . . . .Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970

OSL . . . . . . . . . . .Orbital Solar Laboratory 

OSO . . . . . . . . . . .Orbiting Solar Observatory

OSTDS . . . . . . . . .Office of Space Tracking and Data Systems

OSTP . . . . . . . . . .Office of Science and Technology Policy

PAF . . . . . . . . . . . .Payload Attach Fitting

PETA . . . . . . . . . .People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

PMC . . . . . . . . . . .Program Management Council

POEM . . . . . . . . . .Polar Orbiting Earth observation Missions

POES . . . . . . . . . .Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite 

PR . . . . . . . . . . . . .Precipitation Radar

PSC . . . . . . . . . . . .Physical Sciences Committee

QL . . . . . . . . . . . .Quick Look Data

RA . . . . . . . . . . . . .Radar Altimeter

RCS . . . . . . . . . . . .Reaction Control System

RF . . . . . . . . . . . . .Radio Frequency end-to-end test

RSA . . . . . . . . . . . .Russian Space Agency

RSRP . . . . . . . . . .Rocket and Satellite Research Panel 

SACLS . . . . . . . . .Special Advisory Committee for Life Sciences

SAFIRE . . . . . . . . .Spectroscopy of the Atmosphere using Far Infrared Emission

SAGE . . . . . . . . . .Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment

SAM . . . . . . . . . . .Sensing with Active Microwaves

SAM . . . . . . . . . . .Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement

xxxi
SAMS . . . . . . . . . .Stratospheric and Mesospheric Sounder

SAMPEX . . . . . . .Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer

SAR . . . . . . . . . . . .Synthetic Aperture Radar

SBRC . . . . . . . . . .Santa Barbara Research Center

SBUV/TOMS . . .Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer

SCAPE . . . . . . . . .Self-Contained Atmosphere Protection Equipment

ScaRaB . . . . . . . . .Scanner Radiatsionnogo Balansa

SCIAMACHY . . . .Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric

Chartography

SCOPE . . . . . . . . .Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment

SCOR . . . . . . . . . .Specialized Center of Research

SDI . . . . . . . . . . . .Strategic Defense Initiative

SeaWiFs . . . . . . . .Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor

SEMMS . . . . . . . . .Solar Electric Multimission Spacecraft

SEP . . . . . . . . . . . .Solar Electric Propulsion

SESAC . . . . . . . . .Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee

SETI . . . . . . . . . . .Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

SFFO . . . . . . . . . .Solar Free-Flying Observatories

SFPP . . . . . . . . . . .Small Fine-Pointed Platform

SIR . . . . . . . . . . . .Shuttle Imaging Radar

SIR-C/X-SAR . . . .Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C/X-Band Synthetic Aperture

SIRTF . . . . . . . . . .Space Infrared Telescope Facility

SLS . . . . . . . . . . . .Space Life Sciences

SMEX . . . . . . . . . .Small Explorer

SMM . . . . . . . . . . .Solar Maximum Mission 

SMMR . . . . . . . . .Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer 

SMRM . . . . . . . . .Solar Maximum Repair Mission

SNIP . . . . . . . . . . .Space Network Interoperability Panel

SOHO . . . . . . . . .Solar and Heliospheric Observatory

SOLSTICE . . . . . .Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment

SOT . . . . . . . . . . .Solar Optical Telescope

SPAC . . . . . . . . . . .Space Program Advisory Council

SPAN . . . . . . . . . .Space Physics Analysis Network

SPIS . . . . . . . . . . .Surface Imaging and Sounding Packages

SPO . . . . . . . . . . .Solar Polar Orbiter

SPOT . . . . . . . . . .Systeme Pour l’observation de la Terre

SRTM . . . . . . . . . .Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission

SSAC . . . . . . . . . . .Space Science Advisory Committee

SSB . . . . . . . . . . . .Space Studies

SSC . . . . . . . . . . . .Stennis Space Center

SSEC . . . . . . . . . . .Solar System Exploration Committee

SSMI . . . . . . . . . . .Special Sensor Microwave Imager

SSO . . . . . . . . . . . .Sortie Solar Observatory

SSS . . . . . . . . . . . .Solar Synoptic Satellite

SSWG . . . . . . . . . .SETI Science Working Group

xxxii
STA . . . . . . . . . . . .Science and Technology Agency (Japan)

STC . . . . . . . . . . . .olar Telescope Cluster 

STDN . . . . . . . . . .Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network

STEREO . . . . . . . .Solar-Terrestrial Relations Observatory

STG . . . . . . . . . . .Space Task Group

STIP . . . . . . . . . . .Study of Traveling Interplanetary Phenomena

STP . . . . . . . . . . . .Solar-Terrestrial Probe 

STS . . . . . . . . . . . .Space Transportation System

STSP . . . . . . . . . . .Solar-Terrestrial Science Programme 

SUNY . . . . . . . . . .State University of New York

SUSIM . . . . . . . . .Solar Ultraviolet Spectral Irradiance Monitor 

TDRS . . . . . . . . . .Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 

TDRSS . . . . . . . . .Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System

TFODM . . . . . . . .Task Force on Observations and Data Management

THIR . . . . . . . . . .Temperature Humidity Infrared Radiometer

TIMED . . . . . . . . .Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics 

TIROS . . . . . . . . .Television Infrared Observation Satellite

TMI . . . . . . . . . . .TRMM Microwave Imager 

TOGA . . . . . . . . . .Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Program

TOPEX . . . . . . . . .Ocean Topography Experiment

TOPS . . . . . . . . . .Toward Other Planetary System

TOVS . . . . . . . . . .TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder

TQM . . . . . . . . . . .Total Quality Management

TR&T . . . . . . . . . .Targeted Research and Technology

TRACE . . . . . . . . .Transition Region And Coronal Explorer 

TRMM . . . . . . . . .Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission

TU . . . . . . . . . . . .Technology Utilization

UARS . . . . . . . . . .Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite

UCAR . . . . . . . . . .University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

UCLA . . . . . . . . . .University of California, Los Angeles

UFO . . . . . . . . . . .Unidentified Flying Object

UK . . . . . . . . . . . .United Kingdom

UN . . . . . . . . . . . .United Nations

UNEP . . . . . . . . . .United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO . . . . . . .United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

UNEX . . . . . . . . . .University class Explorers

UNWG . . . . . . . . .User Needs Working Group

US-AID . . . . . . . . .United States Agency for International Development

USDA . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGCRP . . . . . . .U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS . . . . . . . . . .United States Geological Survey

USNC . . . . . . . . . .United States National Committee

USPHS . . . . . . . . .United States Public Health Service

xxxiii
USSR . . . . . . . . . .Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

UV . . . . . . . . . . . .Ultraviolet Radiation 

VIS . . . . . . . . . . . .Visible Infrared Scanner

VLA . . . . . . . . . . .Very Large Array 

VLBI . . . . . . . . . . .Very Long Baseline Interferometry 

WBDCS . . . . . . . .Wide Band Data Collection System

WCRP . . . . . . . . . .World Climate Research Program 

WHO . . . . . . . . . .World Health Organization

WMO . . . . . . . . . .World Meteorological Organization 

WOCE . . . . . . . . .World Ocean Circulation Experiment

WWW . . . . . . . . . .World Weather Watch 

XTE . . . . . . . . . . .X-ray Timing Explorer 

XUV . . . . . . . . . . .Extreme Ultraviolet

xxxiv
1

Chapter One

Solar Physics from Space

by David H. DeVorkin

Introduction

The scientific study of the central body of the solar system—the Sun—has, of course,

a long history. Studies of the Sun and allied research in solar-terrestrial relations

(discussed in Chapter 2) predate access to space; as a result, there is a long history of

attempts to circumvent the obstacles to observation posed by the atmosphere of Earth in

examining both the Sun and its immediate environment, including Earth.1 The problems

critical to knowing the nature of the Sun and its influence on Earth include assessing the

amount and character of its heat output, the origin and maintenance of solar energy, the

question of the constancy of solar radiation (or its inconstancy), the magnetic properties

of the Sun and its immediate environment, and the nature of solar radiation beyond the

ultraviolet cutoff of Earth’s atmosphere. The study of the solar constant and the means to

harness solar energy have long been of interest for both theoretical and practical reasons. 

This essay discusses the evolution of activities in the area of solar physics supported by

the U.S. civilian space program. It is not primarily a history of the intellectual pursuits

involved, but rather an examination of what areas of activity were considered to be

candidates for support by NASA, based both upon advice from the scientific establishment

and from program managers within NASA itself. The essay will explore the advice given

to NASA by various bodies; it will look mainly at specific modes of investigation deemed

to be most effective for the conduct of solar research and search out both scientific and

nonscientific priorities that shaped the NASA research effort. 

Solar physics has been the focus of much historical research, which has resulted in a

critical mass of documentary narrative as well as a highly useful intellectual framework

within which to examine changes in the field. Karl Hufbauer, in particular, has provided

valuable insights into the nature of progress in the field in the modern era, including

theory as well as ground-based and space-based observational trends, and he has set the

stage to fully elucidate the efficacy of the priority-setting process set in place in 1958.2 The

essay will touch upon how the nature of this advice was influenced by the priorities

1. David H. DeVorkin, Race to the Stratosphere: Manned Scientific Ballooning in America (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1989); Science with a Vengeance (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992); Homer E. Newell, Beyond the Atmosphere:

Early Years of Space Science (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4211, 1980).

2. Karl Hufbauer, Exploring the Sun: Solar Science Since Galileo (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1991); A. J. Meadows, Science and Controversy: A Biography of Sir Norman Lockyer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1972); A. J. Meadows, Early Solar Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970). The historical

literature on solar physics (to 1980) has been reviewed in David H. DeVorkin, The History of Astronomy and

Astrophysics, A Selected, Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland Press, 1982). 
2 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

inherent in government patronage, especially those manifest in a highly politicized

mission-oriented agency such as NASA (in contrast to the more research-oriented

organizational culture of the National Science Foundation, for example). 

Studying the Sun

This essay examines the period starting roughly in late 1957 and 1958 and extending

to the present era, looking at how the scope, priorities, and goals of solar physics and, to

some extent, solar-terrestrial relations changed in response to shifting scientific and

programmatic needs in space research and to changes in technical capabilities, including

launch weight, stabilization, and data retrieval and transmission. For instance, between

1958 and 1964, the United States, through its civilian space program and continuing

programs in several branches of the military services (Navy and Air Force), developed the

capability to continuously monitor from space the high-energy output of the Sun; roughly

examine the large-scale features of solar activity as manifest in sunspot, flare,

chromospheric, and coronal phenomena; and link those high-energy events directly to

terrestrial ionospheric phenomena. The last achievement came both through suborbital

and orbital programs and was primarily a result of progressively better systems for

stabilization. In these first years, stabilization was one of the primary technological factors

governing how future missions were planned. Especially in solar physics, this fact was

reflected in the priorities established by scientific review panels as well as by program

officers and panels within the civilian space agency. 

Limits and Nature of Solar Physics

Solar physics in practice, though not in name, predates the rise of astrophysics; in

many respects, astrophysics itself grew out of the physical study of the Sun. Given the

enormous amount of light received from the Sun, it was the first celestial body to be

studied to any great extent, its physical properties determined with any accuracy, and the

amount and character of its heat radiation related to physical processes on Earth.

Historians have identified five distinct eras for solar physics, starting with telescopic

studies in the seventeenth century and progressing to spectroscopic studies in the

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; the establishment of a rational physical basis

within which to interpret spectroscopic and photometric observations, approximately

from 1910 to 1940; the transformation of solar physics by wartime and then Cold War

imperatives from 1939 to 1957; and finally, solar physics since Sputnik.3 Only the last era

is covered here, even though its full appreciation requires some reference to the earlier

periods. For one thing, unlike other disciplines, solar physics enjoyed a robust history in

both military and civilian laboratories devoted to the use of rockets and balloons for

research at high altitudes and near-space environments. These groups, formed in the

wake of World War I in military research centers such as the Naval Research Laboratory

(NRL) or at military-supported facilities such as the Applied Physics Laboratory of the

Johns Hopkins University, were stimulated by the existence and availability of captured

3. Hufbauer, Exploring the Sun.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 3

German V-2 missiles. The groups that formed to do science during V-2 tests defined their

scientific interests in terms of the vehicle, in this case, a ballistic missile acting as a

sounding rocket.4

By the late 1940s, several groups who pushed for improved means of stabilization and

data retrieval were exploring the ultraviolet spectrum of the Sun. Two-axis stabilization

was finally achieved in the early 1950s on Aerobee rockets, allowing observation of the far

ultraviolet region of the spectrum through longer exposures. The primary driver for both

solar physics and ionospheric physics was to determine which spectral features were

responsible for the generation, maintenance, and variation of Earth’s ionosphere, a

critical element in long-range communication, command, and control of ballistic missiles.

Throughout the early 1950s, few of these activities were sophisticated enough to be

interesting to mainstream astrophysicists; thus, much of solar physics from rockets evolved

along lines parallel to geophysical and military goals. By the mid-to-late 1950s, however,

instrument stabilization, rocket reliability, and payload retrieval had improved to the

point where astrophysically useful high-dispersion spectroscopic data were readily

available to civilian groups, which brought astronomers back to consider the use of

rockets, and, in the post-Sputnik era, satellites, as platforms for the study of the Sun. 

Thus, in the wake of Sputnik, groups that had been devoted to scientific rocketry

during the International Geophysical Year (IGY), as well as many mainstream scientists,

began to think in detail about what could be done from satellite platforms. Within weeks

of Sputnik 1, members of the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel (RSRP), the latest

embodiment of the original V-2 Panel that had been created in 1946, met to consider the

implications of research using satellites. Prior to Sputnik and independent of the meeting,

but as a member of the panel, W. W. Kellogg of the RAND Corporation had prepared a

report for the IGY Working Group on Internal Instrumentation of the Earth Satellite

Program, entitled “Basic Objectives of a Continuing Program of Scientific Research in

Outer Space.” (See Document I-1.) Sputnik brought Kellogg’s analysis to the attention of

the National Academy IGY committees as well as the RSRP. He plotted out a scientific

program assuming that development would be gradual and not revolutionary, that each

stage of the program would help to design the next stage, and that human spaceflight

would occur eventually but not immediately. In the immediate future, the primary vehicle

for research would remain the sounding rocket, specifically for atmospheric studies, as

well as solar physics and astrophysics; but, as the capability of building larger Earth

satellites increased, the latter two areas would become the domain of orbiting vehicles.

The bulk of Kellogg’s attention was given over to terrestrial atmospheric studies, as well as

to lunar and planetary studies, in two categories: Vanguard-type “lightweight satellite

experiments” (50 to 75 pounds) and “advanced satellite experiments.” Under the former,

exploratory solar radiation studies using a variety of radiometers and bolometers to span

the entire spectrum were highest on his list, mainly to better assess the radiation heat

budget of Earth and its atmosphere. Time fluctuations of solar ultraviolet and x-ray

radiation, monitoring solar activity, and observing its influence on Earth’s atmosphere

came next.

4. DeVorkin, Science with a Vengeance, pp. 344–45.
4 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

5. W. W. Kellogg, “Basic Objectives of a Continuing Program of Scientific Research in Outer Space,” 

9 December 1957, Dow Papers, Box 8.4. University of Michigan Library. 

6. Working Group on Space Research Objectives, “Minutes of Meeting,” 30 April 1958, Lyman Spitzer

Papers, NACA file, Princeton University Library.

7. Ibid., p. 2.

8. Ibid., p. 5.

9. Kellogg, “Basic Objectives,” p. 38.

Kellogg’s concept of an advanced satellite included two- and three-axis stabilization,

larger power requirements, wider data transmission bandwidth, and the possibility of

physical recovery. Satellites in this category that were devoted to solar studies would be

capable of examining and photographing small regions of the Sun in a wide range of

wavelengths, most specifically the ultraviolet. Pointing controls based upon those already

operational on sounding rockets could be adapted to this purpose. Data retrieval could

be physical, the preferred method at the time, or could be accomplished by scanning the

data “photometrically” on board and then transmitting it electronically to Earth.5

In hindsight, the most interesting characteristic of Kellogg’s assessment was its

prudence. It shared this characteristic with other assessments of the same time period, as

well as a strong conviction that the sounding rocket and balloon projects of the IGY

should be extended beyond that period. This was the opinion of another stakeholder in

space research, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), which in

February and March 1958 convened a series of working groups under the heading

“Special Committee on Space Technology.” One of the groups, on “Space Research

Objectives,” met in the spring of 1958 to deliberate over Kellogg’s report and decided to

extend it, with preliminary priorities and timetables.6

The goal of the NACA working group was to produce a more detailed position paper

for the uses of three classes of Earth-orbiting satellites: 30-pound, 300-pound, and 3,000-

pound. (See Document I-2.) The group envisioned one 30-pound satellite launch per

month, starting immediately and lasting until the capability existed to launch 300-pound

satellites (sometime in 1959, it was hoped). Larger satellites would be launched at the rate

of one every two months. Satellites in the 3,000-pound class would begin to be launched

in 1961 at a rate of one every four months. Although this plan was more explicit and

ambitious than Kellogg’s first assessment, the working group still advised that the number

of “separate experiments” in each satellite in the 30-pound and 300-pound classes be

limited, and that the 30-pound class continue to be launched well beyond 1959.7 Solar and

solar-terrestrial studies to be addressed with the 30-pound satellite included Kellogg’s

categories for a Vanguard class of launches: nondirectional monitoring including

ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma-ray detectors. The 300-pound class had the capability of

stabilization for solar and stellar spectroscopy, as well as an imaging ultraviolet solar

telescope. The 3,000-pound class could be capable of flying a 36-inch solar optical

telescope able to perform a variety of observations; the specific character of these

observations was left largely unspecified in the report.

Both the Kellogg study and the NACA Working Group endorsed human spaceflight

and exploration “as proper objectives of a national program of space research.”8 The

NACA report was otherwise silent on the subject, whereas Kellogg took care to elucidate

human spaceflight as an inevitable goal, yet not currently justifiable on rational grounds.9
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 5

10. Space Science Board, “Minutes,” 27 June 1958, p. 2, NASA Historical Reference Collection, History

Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

11. Ibid., p. 8.

Collective Advice: The Space Science Board

In June 1958, the Space Science Board (SSB) of the National Academy of Sciences was

created as a vehicle to provide for “an orderly extension and continuation of the rocket

and satellite work of the USNC/IGY.”10 (See Volume V, Chapter 1, for a discussion of the

origins of the Space Science Board.) It was directed to gather information on space

science activities and to assess priorities for space research. The Board met in New York

City several times that summer to organize itself around a set of goals in space science and

to become acquainted with projections of payload capability. Herbert F. York of the

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) (NASA had not yet been created, and ARPA

had responsibility for U.S. space activity) summarized future launch vehicle capabilities

that could send 3,000 pounds into orbit by 1960, double that by 1962, over thirty times

that amount by the mid-1960s, and some 50 tons into orbit by the late 1960s. Scientists,

York implied, were to plan accordingly. However, Hugh Odishaw, Executive Director of

USNC-IGY, warned that “the rocket and balloon potentialities for scientific research

should not be neglected in the face of the prospective satellite program.”11 Richard W.

Porter outlined the remaining space program of the IGY. Lloyd Berkner, using Porter’s

findings, summarized them in fifteen topical areas, including the continuing intensive

study of solar corpuscular radiation. Berkner, Chairman of the Board, created twelve

committees to prepare reports on specific fields and assigned astronomy and radio

astronomy, which included solar physics, to a committee headed by renowned solar

astrophysicist Leo Goldberg. He was charged to lead his committee in looking into ways

to extend x-ray, ultraviolet, and corpuscular solar research into space. 

At its second meeting in July, the Board discussed responses from the scientific

community and prioritized specific problem areas for the next two years for satellites and

rockets. Its selections were designed to supplement ongoing IGY projects and were chosen

on the basis of scientific need and technical feasibility. Included in the short-range

program for satellites were low-resolution optical scanning capabilities for the assessment

of solar activity in the gamma, x-ray, and UV ranges. 

The new National Aeronautics and Space Administration began operations on 

1 October 1958. In December 1958, the new NASA Administrator, T. Keith Glennan,

made it clear that the new space agency, not the Space Science Board, was to be the arbiter

of space science policy and mission choices, setting priorities for scientific experiments

and mission profiles. Up to that point, and indeed well into 1959, there were lingering

tensions about who was in control. How Glennan managed to secure this role for NASA

remains to be fully appreciated. (See Volume V, Chapter 1.) But for the purposes here, all

the various deliberative bodies so far identified, and particularly the Space Science Board,

had become advisory to NASA by the end of 1959.

In addition to the newly constituted review panels and institutions engaged in

planning for space research, academics supported on military contracts were also

encouraged to state their opinions on what kind of solar problems could be addressed in
space. This encouragement came from military as well as industrial patrons, all eager to

stake a claim on outer space. In the late 1950s, few observatories and universities were

engaged in space research and solar studies in a large way; only a few of the largest—the

new Kitt Peak National Observatory, the University of Michigan, Princeton, and the

Harvard-Smithsonian complex—were active. Some in the wings were interested; Jesse

Greenstein, an astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology who had attempted

solar spectroscopy with the V-2 in the 1940s, was invited to address the Fourth Ballistic

Missile and Space Technology Symposium at UCLA in August 1959 and looked forward to

a “rapid evolution” of payload capability from 5 to 5,000 pounds.12

Missions

With NASA setting overall policy, the structure of the solar physics program evolved

as NASA itself grew and reorganized, always promoting a mission-oriented approach to

exploring space. As a result, in the fifteen years after Sputnik, space solar research became

defined by the launch of a sequence of progressively larger spacecraft, each undertaking

a series of flights and each with more sophisticated means of stabilization and pointing

controls. As originally envisioned by York, Kellogg, and their colleagues, the program

consisted of an evolutionary series of satellites defined by payload weight capabilities,

rather than being based on order-of-magnitude increases in technological sophistication.

The latter would come into play only by the 1980s and 1990s, allowing for far wider

bandwidths, bigger data streams, and more complex batteries of simultaneously operated

instruments. Between 1960 and 1975, Americans launched some fifty-three spacecraft that

studied the Sun; forty-four contained up to three instruments; nine had more than four

instruments. In comparison, the Soviet Union launched twenty payloads with three or

fewer instruments each, and ten payloads were launched by all other nations combined.

Accordingly, it has been claimed that “American leadership in studying the Sun from

space was a testament both to the prominence of American scientists in the making of

space policy and to the prowess of American engineers—especially in electronics and

computing—in implementing that policy.”13 That policy included developing and

maintaining a robust infrastructure that could produce a wide and varied array of new

design prototypes, and both programmatic and developmental suborbital programs using

balloons, aircraft, and sounding rockets. The mission-oriented approach, therefore,

reflected launch vehicle capabilities as well as the acknowledged need to achieve specific

levels of instrument performance. The advice given NASA reflected not only scientific

interests and goals, but the range of choices NASA could make in how it would manage

space science.

6 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

12. Jesse Greenstein, “Astrophysical Research in Space,” p. 2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, TN59-907, 21 September 1959, Greenstein Papers, California Institute of Technology.

13. Hufbauer, Exploring the Sun, table 5.1, p. 167.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 7

Explorer- and Observatory-Class Missions—The OSOs

So-called “Explorer-” and “Observatory-” class missions evolved more or less

simultaneously. Both grew out of instrumentation requirements set in the sounding

rocket era, but only the latter reached a level of sophistication that was attractive 

to mainstream solar astronomers and physicists. Thus, the most significant solar program

that attracted the attention of astronomers in the 1960s and 1970s was the Orbiting Solar

Observatory (OSO). After its first several flights in the early 1960s, it was enthusiastically

supported by review bodies and by NASA advisory panels. How then did it come 

into being?

The first OSO was a partially spin-stabilized craft carrying thirteen scientific

experiments. The 460-pound craft was launched by a Thor-Delta. During operation, the

spin section rotated at some thirty rpm, and the biaxial pointing control, consisting of

both coarse and fine adjustment modes, was capable of maintaining the solar-oriented

instruments (x-ray spectrometers and gamma-ray monitors from Goddard Space Flight

Center) to within one minute of arc of the center of the solar disk, or one-thirtieth of the

angular diameter of the Sun.14

OSO was considerably more sophisticated than an Explorer-series craft, which

typically would contain three or fewer instruments. Instruments in the OSO were

clustered in two sections: an upper “sail” encrusted with solar panels that continually

pointed toward the Sun, and a lower, nine-sided spin section that contained instruments

that did not require two-axis stabilized pointing. But OSO was considerably smaller than

the early ambitions of senior NASA space science managers like Homer E. Newell, who

campaigned for a series of four stabilized orbiting astronomical observatories, including

a fully dedicated solar observatory capable of handling a complex of instruments weighing

some 500 to 700 pounds.15 Arguments for and against the OSO program within NASA,

compared to Explorer and to more advanced systems, were usually contained within

briefing papers that described the program as complementary to the established Explorer

series. 

OSO’s champion was an experimental physicist named John C. Lindsay. He had

moved with Newell to NASA from the Naval Research Laboratory in 1958 and became a

project manager in the Explorer program at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

According to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Lindsay was successful because “he was an experimenter

himself, and a very good one.”16 In contrast to his boss’s desire for huge orbiting

observatories that fit Herbert York’s optimistic predictions of future payload weights,

Lindsay believed strongly that multiplexed instruments on the scale of those familiar to

rocketsonde experimenters were a more practical route to a cost-effective program. The

infrastructure for satellites on that scale would be a straightforward extension of

rocketsonde technology and Explorer technology. Central to the effort was the existence

of an established industrial capability: the founders of the Ball Brothers Research

14. NASA, Orbiting Solar Observatory I (Washington, DC: NASA SP-57, 1965), p. 219.

15. Dr. Leo Goldberg oral history, 17 May 1978, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, p. 119.

16. Ibid., p. 120.
8 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

17. DeVorkin, Science with a Vengeance, chapter 12.

18. Goldberg oral history, p. 121.

19. NASA Discussion Group, “Minutes of Meeting,” 8 June 1959, NASA Historical Reference Collection.

Corporation of Boulder, Colorado, had over a decade of experience in building stabilized

platforms for rocket spectrographs; monochromaters; and cameras flown on balloons,

sounding rockets, and aircraft.17

Lindsay’s campaign attracted Ball engineers, as well as influential astronomers and

solar physicists. One such was Leo Goldberg of Michigan, who had initially agreed with

Newell to instrument a large solar-oriented Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO)

but was relieved when NASA, for the moment, dropped the idea. The decision was made

only after a review by the President’s Science Advisory Committee concluded that the

combined platform concept was impractical.18 Part of this decision was due to Lindsay’s

persistence.

In May 1959, Lindsay organized an ad hoc “NASA Discussion Group on Orbiting Solar

Observatory Project” to explore ways to perform solar research in orbit (see document I3). Twenty-three astronomers from universities, military laboratories, and NASA Centers

gathered to hear Lindsay describe what became OSO: a 300-pound payload capable of a

pointing accuracy of one minute of arc in a sustained circular orbit of 300 to 500 miles

altitude. Lindsay envisioned a gyroscopically stabilized spherical satellite with an

operational lifetime of at least one month. He also invited others to describe possible

payload instruments, calling upon astronomers from the Smithsonian Institution, the

University of Michigan, the University of Colorado, the High Altitude Observatory, and

the Naval Research Laboratory. Their responses made it plain that few were clear about

the exact nature of their experiments, or whether the satellite would be a dedicated solar

observer or a multifunctional solar and astronomical platform. Yet when Lindsay pressed

the point about the need for a “smaller, less expensive solar observatory,” he obtained

both general endorsements and specific support from Michigan and NRL.19

In April 1959, measurements of the Sun from a pointed and stabilized platform were

among the priorities identified as NASA’s immediate flight objectives. By August, an

Orbiting Solar Observatory was identified in an “Office of Space Sciences Ten-Year

Program” document, and by October, the first contracts with Ball Brothers Research

Corporation were signed to design and build the first two spacecraft and instrument

systems. Some $250,000 was earmarked for OSO in the 1959 NASA budget, and this

amount rose rapidly to $1.9 million in 1960 and $3.9 million in 1961. Small by space and

military standards, OSO was still the most expensive solar physics project in history, and,

of course, it would soon be dwarfed by NASA’s other programs in stellar astronomy and

human spaceflight. This level of funding seemed enormous to solar astronomers, who

began to look with interest at the new program after the first successful flight. 

The first OSO flew in March 1962. Later that year, the Solar Physics Subcommittee of

NASA’s Space Science Steering Committee approved the third through the fifth satellites

in the OSO series. The subcommittee report reflected the opinion of a much broader

group of scientists who had convened in June 1962 at the University of Iowa and who had

called for better angular resolution, better access to a broader wavelength range, and the

ability to isolate precise wavelength ranges for high-resolution spectral studies. 
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 9

What came to be known as the Iowa Summer Study, convened by NASA program

managers and funded by NASA, looked at all modes of space research. It was organized

into a series of specialist “working groups,” each reporting on a specific area of activity. A

working group on astronomy was convened to comment on solar and stellar needs. For

example, reflecting well-established priorities in solar physics and solar-terrestrial

relations, the group agreed at the outset that it was more important to perform a

complete reconnaissance of the ultraviolet and x-ray regions of the spectrum than the

infrared, since the latter was partially observable from the ground.20

Even though the Iowa summer study endorsed the continuation of small Explorerclass satellites and OSO for studies of methods of solar flare prediction, it was clear that

the top priority for solar physicists remained precision pointing accuracy to improve

knowledge of the fine structure of the solar atmosphere in order to understand the

physical mechanism responsible for producing solar flares. The first OSO provided for

selective capability to continuously monitor solar activity. (The earlier NRL SOLRADS

provided continuous monitoring but were not area-selective.) Scientists looked forward to

the launch of the next OSO, which would have the added capability of scanning the solar

disk with 1-arc-minute resolution, and endorsed a continuing program of two OSO

launches per year by NASA. 

The working group also wanted to see significant improvements in other related

areas. Ground-based observations of the solar limb during the few moments of a solar

eclipse had yielded information equivalent to a resolution as fine as 0.1 arc second, and

balloon-based systems such as Stratoscope demonstrated that 0.5-arc-second resolution

was possible at an altitude of 80,000 feet. There were many unknowns about the structure

of the solar atmosphere and of the limitations of spacecraft design that made it impossible

to predict what resolutions were needed and how they would be achieved, but the

committee concluded that an angular resolution of 0.1 arc second was a meaningful goal

for future solar observatories. The planned OAO series was set to meet that goal, and the

committee concluded that there was no reason why true three-axis stabilization could not

be adapted to a solar observatory.21 Still, this requirement was several orders of magnitude

beyond what had been possible with OSO and eventually led to calls for an advanced solar

observatory series (see below). 

The OSO program, however, soon came under scrutiny by scientists, NASA

management, and Congress. Congressional attention led to a Government Accounting

Office investigation in late 1963 and 1964; the result was allegations of serious cost

overruns, up to some $800,000, attributed to mismanagement. The OSO budgets for

those years were $10.0 and $20.0 million, respectively, which brought the motives for the

investigation into question. 

One factor may have been delays: OSO-2 fell far behind the two launches per year

expected by the astronomical community. On 14 April 1964, a disastrous accident killed

20. Not stated explicitly at the time, but subject to future study, is the question of how the availability of

infrared, as well as ultraviolet and x-ray, detector technology influenced this decision, since the former was still

highly classified.

21. Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, Space Science Summer Study, 1962, pp. 2-6–2-7.
10 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

three men when OSO-B’s third stage ignited on the test stand, deeply clouding the future

of the program. Some of the parts of the craft were retrieved and refurbished, and a new

satellite was built and flown successfully in February 1965. A history of the OSO-2,

prepared at the Goddard Space Flight Center in April 1966, reported on the details of the

fatal fire.22 (See Document I-7.) 

A “Fact-Finding Committee,” composed mainly of Goddard employees, was quickly

convened by the Goddard Space Flight Center directorate. Others were invited from Ball

Brothers, Douglas Aircraft, the Air Force, the Army Ballistics Laboratory, NASA’s Langley

Research Center, and the Wallops Island launch facility. They reviewed the electrostatic

environment of the components and concluded that the igniter squib was triggered by an

electrostatic charge that had built up because the testing system and craft were not

properly grounded. The parts were being handled under a large plastic shroud, which

brushed up against the payload, creating the electrostatic charge.23

In contrast to the political ramifications of the 1967 Apollo 204 fire, this unfortunate

incident did not catch the public eye.24 Appropriate design changes were recommended,

and the project resumed in June at Ball, using a rebuilt OBO-B prototype spacecraft, flight

spares, undamaged components, and new procurements. Of the two pointed instruments,

the NRL ultraviolet telescope and coronagraph needed little repair, but Harvard’s

ultraviolet spectrometer and spectroheliograph were ruined. A new instrument was built

out of Harvard’s flight spare unit and was delivered to Ball in late August 1964. Weight,

balance, and other acceptance tests were performed throughout the fall, and the payload

was shipped to Cape Kennedy in November. This time, it took only five months to produce

a flyable payload. The short time was a testimony to the efficiencies of multicraft

production. After routine tests at the Cape, the launch took place on 3 February 1965. 

Everything went well until orbit fourteen, when the Harvard pointed experiment was

turned on. It was quickly turned off due to anomalies in the readout, which raised the fear

of internal electrical arcing. It was turned on again periodically during the next sixty

orbits and then turned off until 11 May 1965. Although a protocol was established to turn

the instrument on and off periodically, no useful data were gathered.25 Goldberg, the

Principal Investigator, who had been at Michigan but had moved to Harvard during the

course of the project, painfully recalled that even though he and his team had taken every

precaution to be sure that their instrument had properly outgassed, “one of the transistors

in the output of the counter had just burned out, and that was the end of that

experiment.” He then added:

Our hearts sank well below our boots. So it was back to the drawing board. We

got some good advice from places like the Raytheon Corporation (who were

building electronics for the Apollo mission), and we redesigned the circuitry so

that nothing would be damaged, no matter how severe the arcing. We subjected

it to very severe tests. We put it in a vacuum chamber and let it arc for 25 or 30

22. NASA, “Section 2—Goddard” in History of Orbiting Solar Observatory OSO-2, Report X-440-66-322, 1966.

23. The History of OSO-2 cited above mentions the shroud but does not explicitly state that it was the cause

of the electrostatic buildup. That link was made in the Goldberg oral history interview, p. 123.

24. Homer Newell, Beyond the Atmosphere, p. 164.

25. History of OSO-2, pp. 5–27.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 11

hours, and everything was still working. But that was already 1967. We’d missed

OSO-1. We were now on OSO-4.26

Space research was not without considerable risk. Throughout its lifetime, the rest of

OSO-2 maintained its pointing ability to within the specification set of ±1 arc minute of

the center of the solar disk. Most of the other instruments worked nominally, and NASA

deemed the flight a success.

The first OSOs were designed around a spinning wheel divided into nine chambers,

with five reserved for instruments and the rest for flight systems. Their stabilized sail

sections still depended upon the ability of the spin section to maintain azimuthal

orientation. OSO-5 and OSO-6 were very much like the first four and were flown in 1969,

but OSO-7 was a refined and more complex design. Instead of the deployable swinging

ballast arms used on the first six satellites, OSO-7, launched in September 1971, used a

simpler, kinematically more stable ballast system within a larger and heavier wheel. It also

carried about twice the instrument payload weight, including an improved coronagraph. 

OSO-7 was an intermediate step to an “advanced” or upgraded OSO series.

Funding for OSO peaked in 1964 and remained high until 1966, when programmatic

funding dropped to $10 million for 1967 and stayed in that range for about three

years before rising again to the $20-million level in 1972 and 1973. Administrator

Thomas Paine approved a follow-on program to OSO in January 1969, the larger

OSO-I, -J, and -K series; by December 1970, a contract had been awarded to Hughes

to build the spacecraft. During the authorization and appropriations cycle for the

next year, however, NASA, expecting severe budget cuts, threatened to terminate the

program. By March 1972, J and K were deferred, but work proceeded on I, even

though Hughes simultaneously announced major cost overruns. NASA accordingly

slipped OSO-I and cancelled J and K. OSO-8 (I) was launched successfully on 21 June

1975, and the program tapered off in the late 1970s, with funds drastically reduced to

the $1-million level in 1977.

Each succeeding OSO was an incremental advance over previous craft. By the time of

Goldberg’s second flight on OSO-6, his team found that the spacecraft was stable enough

to allow precise positioning and scanning over the entire solar disk. Goldberg’s

instrument was able to raster-scan small areas of the Sun “on command,” which was very

helpful in localizing and imaging short-lived solar events.27

The OSO program always had to compete with other NASA programs that emerged

around it, and it suffered on a number of occasions from unfavorable comparisons and

priority disputes between it and the far more costly Orbiting Astronomical Observatory

series. (See Volume V, Chapter 3, for a discussion of this program.) In addition, the

success of OSO revived some of the early dreams for an “advanced OSO” series, which had

been promoted by NASA and endorsed by scientists at the 1962 Iowa Summer Study.

26. Goldberg oral history, p. 123.

27. Ibid., p. 124.
The Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO)

NASA representatives reported at the 1962 Iowa Summer Study that an advanced

series of solar satellites was being planned that could accommodate instruments up to 10

feet long and 22 inches in diameter, with a pointing accuracy of better than ±5 arc seconds

(the angular size of a golf ball at 1 mile, equivalent to about 2,000 miles of solar surface),

and the stability of 1 arc second for at least 5 minutes, which theoretically would make it

possible for some of the instruments to reach the desired 0.1-arc-second resolution. (See

Document I-5.) These larger instruments would be comparable to ground-based solar

instrumentation and could theoretically extend the spatial and spectral resolution of solar

observations by several orders of magnitude. “The proposed spacecraft,” the Summer

Study concluded, “is therefore the next logical step needed to advance solar physics.”28

Initial planning for an AOSO at NASA had begun in the spring of 1961 and led to a

scientific requirements meeting held in June of that year at the High Altitude Observatory

in Colorado. (See Document I-4.) But even by late 1962, John Lindsay, who had become

the AOSO project scientist, could not be very specific about the instruments or even goals

of the new program. The first of the series, originally to be called “Helios,” was to provide

the spatial and wavelength resolution necessary to better understand flare phenomena,

with the capability of studying all forms of the energy released during these short-lived

“transient” events. Helios was also to have a strong solar-terrestrial component, with

experiments designed to better understand the mechanisms of energy transport between

the Sun and Earth. 

At the end of 1962, AOSO was still in its formative stage. Engineering studies were still

being carried out, specifically to decide on options for pointing and stabilization. Mission

definition continued for several years, and by the time of the Space Science Board’s 1965

Summer Study, system design and the definition of the payload instruments were both

well along. Solar telescopes for the first two flights were under development at Harvard

under Dr. Leo Goldberg, at Goddard under Lindsay; at the High Altitude Observatory

under Gordon Newkirk, and at the Naval Research Laboratory under J. D. Purcell, who

was part of Richard Tousey’s pioneering solar physics team. These instruments would

examine all parts of the solar atmosphere, from the photosphere to the corona, in the

visible, ultraviolet and x-ray portions of the spectrum. They had to fit into a cylindrical

satellite about 3 meters long and 1.5 meters in diameter, with eight radial solar panels.

AOSO was also intended to fly in a high-inclination, full sunlit orbit; far higher than the

typical OSO orbit.

Faced with meeting this greater challenge, solar specialists realized that they also

needed a broader base of support. The Working Group on Solar Astronomy, chaired by

Goldberg with members from HAO, Sac Peak, Mount Wilson, Indiana, Minnesota,

Hawaii, Michigan, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and NRL, met with NASA

program managers including Lindsay, John Naugle, Henry Smith and W. B. Taylor. They

deliberated at Woods Hole over the various modes of research needed in solar astronomy

and accordingly made a strong appeal for unity between solar astronomy and solar space

12 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

28. Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, Space Science Summer Study, 1962, pp. 2–8.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 13

astronomy, especially with respect to how both were needed to meet the scientific

challenge of answering current solar questions. (See Document I-6.) They also ratified the

conclusions of the 1962 Iowa Summer Study on the need for fine pointing and triaxial

stabilization. Arguing that all types of platforms were needed because they were

complementary, they recommended in particular that the OSO program be augmented

and that AOSO not be canceled in favor of programs employing human crews for solar

research. The committee argued that “a satellite with AOSO specifications is an

indispensable next step in NASA’s solar program, and must be flown close to the coming

solar maximum.”29 

Although the group report supported AOSO, it was clear that the group did not have

unalloyed enthusiasm for the project. It was, as they implied in its recommendation, an

interim step. AOSO was pinched between the group’s strong promotion of an augmented

OSO series and the fact that not everyone believed that AOSO would meet the 0.1-arcsecond resolution requirement needed to address current solar questions. The group

report also expressed concern that the 20-million-bit-per-orbit data capacity of AOSO was

a “severe limitation on the performance of certain classes of observation in that

spacecraft.”30 Many of the experiments could collect data at rates greater than any tape

recorder could record. Reflecting the enthusiasm NASA held for human spaceflight, the

group observed that “recovery of photographic data by return of the astronaut thus

appears attractive as one way of breaking through the data barrier.”31 The group looked

for alternatives appropriate for a robotic system: onboard data processing, automatic film

return from an unpiloted AOSO (a capability demonstrated as early as 1960 by the

CORONA reconnaissance satellites), or “real-time video-bandwidth telemetry” by relay to

a high-altitude communications satellite. 

Given these options, the group strongly considered doing solar observations from a

crewed platform. Specific programs the group was asked to examine included ATOM, an

Astronomical Telescope Orientation Mount that could be flown with some of the early

Apollo Earth orbital missions in the 1965–70 period. They also examined Apollo

Extension Systems (AES) for the 1970–75 period but argued in both cases that ATOM

should not replace AOSO and that AES would be an appropriate follow-on to AOSO. Next

came MOT, the Manned Orbiting Telescope, which would achieve the needed spatial

resolution demanded by the problems in solar physics. One to 1.5 meter telescope

apertures, up to 10 meters long; film recording; and physical recovery would meet the

theoretical needs of the astronomers. However, the astronomers also knew that the

presence of humans, although good for operating complex instruments in space and

retrieving the data, would introduce unwanted shifting and vibration in the instruments;

“even his breathing and involuntary muscular activity may be a major problem to the

engineer developing an automatic stabilization system.”32

AOSO also experienced budget and program pressure at just the time that the NASA

budget stopped growing; this has been the usual reason given for its cancellation.

29. Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, Space Research: Directions for the Future (1965), 

p. 194.

30. Ibid., p. 200.

31. Ibid., p. 200.

32. Ibid., p. 199.
14 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

However, Leo Goldberg felt that it was also a “very marginal project” because “the

pointing accuracy, the performance probably couldn’t be achieved by that spacecraft. It

just wasn’t big enough . . . . We were after one second of arc pointing accuracy. It was

supposed to be comparable to OAO—it was to be launched by a Thor-Agena, and that was

the limiting factor.”33 Goldberg also felt that the positive report on the crewed option at

Woods Hole in 1965 reflected the pressure felt from the human spaceflight side of NASA:

“[NASA] wanted to operate in the Apollo extension program. George Mueller [head of

the Office of Manned Space Flight] and his boys wanted to do scientific work, and solar

work looked good. At first, there was a very crude concept, but it sure got to be

sophisticated, and eventually led into the ATM, which was more than a match for

AOSO.”34

In August 1965, Homer Newell testified before Congress that AOSO would fly by

1969 and be in operation for a decade. In October 1965, Goddard signed a $58-million

contract with Republic Aviation for the AOSO, and the Principal Investigators were

directed to continue the development of their instruments. In December 1965, hardly

two months later, the project was canceled “because of budgetary considerations.”

After the cancellation, Henry J. Smith, Chief of the Solar Physics Program in OSSA,

lamented the decision, given the support the Woods Hole Summer Study expressed for

AOSO. He noted that a cancellation because of “funds [that] were not available” wiped

out any possibility of obtaining high-resolution observations during the forthcoming

maximum in solar activity. He suggested various alternatives, such as adding a solar

component to OAO to obtain continuous monitoring capabilities. But at least, he

added, mission definition had proceeded to the point where the major instruments

had been defined and partially funded, and support was forthcoming to continue their

development at Harvard (building a scanning UV spectrometer), American Science

and Engineering (imaging x-ray telescope), the High Altitude Observatory (white light

coronagraph), and the Naval Research Laboratory (coronal and chromospheric

spectroheliographs).35 These were all to be general-purpose instruments, Smith added,

which meant that they could be flown on an OAO, deployed from the Apollo Service

Module, upgraded for the proposed Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM), or even operated

from a lunar-based observatory. One way or the other, Smith drew the line; these

instruments “represent the minimum scientific program necessary to carry on our

investigations of the structure and behavior of the Sun.”36 By designing these

instruments for any carrier, Smith suggested, solar physics was maximizing its chance

to gain a flight opportunity.

The option that soon emerged was the ATM, which, for Smith and his astronomical

colleagues, represented “a spaceborne equivalent of the equatorial solar telescope

mounting at [ground-based] solar observatories.” The ATM under design at that time

33. Dr. Leo Goldberg oral history, 22 February 1983, pp. 35–38, National Air and Space Museum. 

34. Ibid., pp. 37–38

35. Henry J. Smith, “Solar Astronomy,” in Homer Newell et al., Astronomy in Space (Washington, DC: NASA

SP-127 1967), pp. 17–21. 

36. Ibid., p. 22.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 15

could handle instruments at least 3.7 meters long and provide stability of better than five

arc seconds. But since they would be manually operated in low-Earth orbit, these

instruments could not continuously monitor solar activity. 

Smith outlined the various pros and cons of the ATM compared to AOSO in a

document that was apparently part of a briefing package used sometime in 1966 to keep

the robotic option alive. It argued that the Physics and Astronomy Program Office “must

consider them complementary and not redundant flight programs.” AOSO provided for

continuous monitoring of the Sun, whereas the ATM could only observe intermittently.

AOSO also provided for simultaneous instrument operations, whereas ATM was capable

only of sequential operation of the various instruments. AOSO, on the other hand,

required digital recording and was limited by bandwidth. The ATM utilized retrievable

photographic recording with very high data capture rates, which would be needed to

record all the details of transient events. The AOSO had to be programmed in advance,

whereas the ATM would be comparatively flexible in its programming. The continuous

operation of an AOSO was considered of paramount importance, however, because it

stood the best chance to capture the highest intensity flare events. The briefing document

therefore concluded that an ATM could not replace AOSO capabilities. Its “irreplaceable

role in the Solar Physics Program” called for the “reinstitution of a high-resolution

unmanned solar satellite to replace AOSO.”37

The Apollo Telescope Mount

The history of the Apollo Telescope Mount and the steps taken to define the program

have been reviewed extensively.38 The focus in this discussion is on the nature of the advice

given to NASA by scientists as the program was defined and their reactions as the 

program developed.

Before the cancellation of AOSO, the Solar Physics Program within OSSA, headed by

Smith, looked forward to a three-pronged attack on the Sun: a Solar Explorer Satellite to

be launched in late 1965 to study the continuous solar x-ray emissions during a quiet

period of solar activity; the continuing OSO series, which had by then been extended to

a total of eight launches through 1969; and, of course, the AOSO series, which was to have

four launches starting in 1969 to examine the Sun during the active portion of its elevenyear cycle. More advanced capabilities, reaching to 0.025 arc second for a humanoperated, Earth-orbiting, 100-inch diffraction limited telescope, capped the present

program extrapolation. Smith also argued that smaller telescopes placed into lower solar

orbits could achieve the same effective resolutions. These “solar probes” were thought to

be best for the study of localized phenomena on the solar surface, not for large-scale

synoptic observations.39

Before 1965, then, the possibility of an ATM-type mission was not prominent in the

priorities of the Solar Physics Program. All this changed with the cancellation of AOSO,

37. “ATM vs. AOSO,” Briefing, NASA Historical Reference Collection.

38. W. David Compton and Charles Benson, Living and Working in Space: A History of Skylab (Washington,

DC: NASA SP-4208, 1983)

39. NASA, Significant Achievement in Solar Physics 1958–1964 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-100, 1966), p. 86.
40. George E. Mueller, “Expanding Vistas in Astronomy,” in Newell et al., Astronomy in Space, p. 49.

41. Ibid., p. 58.

42. Ibid., p. 62.

16 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

and the lobbying efforts for ATM by NASA human spaceflight personnel. George

Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, wrote passionately in March

1966 that “we are entering a new period in which it is becoming possible to place the

astronomer in the space environment, near his instruments.”40 He was able to marshal

support from prominent astronomers who had signed on to provide instruments for

astronauts to use in the human spaceflight program. Earth-orbit flights would carry

instruments for airglow photography, x-ray astronomy (Riccardo Giacconi), ultraviolet

stellar astronomy (K. G. Henize), and UV and x-ray solar photography (Richard Tousey).

“The Apollo hardware is capable of a wide variety of missions other than the manned

lunar landing,” Mueller claimed; larger payloads could replace fuel and oxidizer in

intermediate Saturn stages.41 He looked forward to using the instruments planned for

AOSO on Apollo Applications flights, installing a telescope mount on the Apollo

spacecraft for periods up to 14 days at a time. Deferring to Smith as well as to scientists

for the details of the science, he felt this would be a valuable experience in assessing “the

effectiveness of an astronaut in erecting, alining [sic], and operating relatively large

astronomical instruments.”42

By spring 1966, OSSA head Homer Newell had come to terms with George Mueller’s

vision of incorporating a major scientific project into the Apollo Applications Program,

although the details still had to be worked out. In a March 1966 memorandum on the

“Establishment of the Apollo Telescope Mount Project,” Newell spelled out the “cluster

concept” of nested experiments and how it would fit into the Apollo Applications

Program in time to meet the 1969 solar maximum, which was the projected launch date

for the new program. 

Within a year, however, it became painfully clear to the scientists who had been

recruited to build instruments for this crash program that there would be no flights

during the next period of maximum solar activity. Some of the leaders in the community,

notably Goldberg, began to express dissatisfaction with the pace of development, arguing

that their instruments had been designed specifically for maximum solar activity, and

would not be scientifically effective at any other time. Goldberg had always held

prominent roles as an advisor on various committees, but in September 1967, he obtained

an even greater role as the first chairman of NASA’s Astronomy Missions Board,

established by OSSA to advise on the design and conduct of astronomical experiments in

space, and, most important, to achieve a greater degree of consensus formation between

OSSA and academe. (See Volume V, Chapter 3, for a discussion of the creation of the

Astronomy Missions Board.) The Board would also act as a new pressure point within

NASA to further special interests of astronomers.

At its second and third meetings in late 1967 and mid-January 1968, the Astronomy

Missions Board heard a series of extended briefings by NASA program officers on what

had become by then the ATM-A mission. The Board ratified NASA’s contention that the

mission was a “logical and technically appropriate next step” for advancing knowledge,

increasing the ability of humans to live and work in space; the mission would also provide
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 17

43. Astronomy Missions Board, “Resolution,” 17–18 January 1968, attached to letter from Dr. Leo Goldberg

to Dr. Homer Newell, 25 January 1968, NASA Historical Reference Collection.

44. Letter from Dr. Leo Goldberg to Montie Wright, 17 June 1980, NASA Historical Reference Collection. 

45. Memorandum from Dr. Homer Newell to Dr. John Naugle, 9 April 1968, NASA Historical Reference

Collection.

a means to gather knowledge about the Sun. Accommodating what was clearly NASA’s

mandate, the Board urged NASA to select appropriately trained astronauts to conduct the

scientific observations and to improve expertise in “failure circumvention.” Goldberg

added in a cover letter, however, that the Board was concerned that the mission take place

before the end of the coming solar maximum, expected to last until 1971.43 (See

Document I-8.)

Even though the Board acknowledged that the chief rationale for ATM was to

demonstrate the utility of humans working in space, it still lobbied hard for a timely

launch to maximize scientific return. At the least, it wanted to be assured that NASA would

be sensitive to scientific needs in scheduling launches. Goldberg and the Board well knew

that achieving the initial launch date of 1969 required serious compromises. In July 1967,

Goldberg recalls, George Mueller visited his office, asking if there were some way that

Harvard could have its instrument ready for a 1969 launch. One of Newell’s primary

conditions for OSSA’s endorsement of ATM-A was that the Harvard experiment fly.

Goldberg was willing to substitute a simpler instrument, a spectrum scanner optimized for

the solar maximum and its expected high-energy solar flares, provided that Harvard’s

original experiment would still fly on ATM-B. Goldberg and Newell went ahead with this

plan. But by May 1968, when the launch date had slipped into 1971, and looked like it

would slip even further, Goldberg insisted that Harvard’s original instrument, still under

development, be reinstated. Harvard in fact had to threaten to withdraw from ATM

entirely before NASA acquiesced.44

Not known to Goldberg in May 1968 was that slips for ATM launches were projected

far beyond 1971, reaching to 1973 and even 1975. Newell, reacting to a series of inquiries

from Goldberg, instructed John Naugle to respond, knowing full well that then-present

“planning for the Saturn V workshops suggest[ed] that launches in 1973 and 1975 might

be possible, but that these workshops [were] expected to be devoted primarily to the study

of man himself.” (See Document I-9.) Possible payloads, including ATM, as well as a large

UV stellar package and a large x-ray and gamma-ray package, all competing for berths,

could not possibly fly before 1975 and probably would not fly until much later. In an effort

to meet Goldberg’s demands, however, Newell instructed Naugle to search for “other

equally effective means” to launch large-scale astronomical instruments. Options included

extending the OAO program, converting the OSO and OGO programs from proprietary

instruments to “guest observatory” status, expanding the Astronomy Explorer program, or

modifying later OSOs to accommodate larger solar physics instruments and smaller stellar

instruments. Above all, Newell wanted a “candid assessment of our space astronomy

program, both in the unmanned and the manned spacecraft.”45

Goldberg was, of course, distressed when he started hearing of the expected slips in

the spring of 1968. Telegrams from NASA in April indicated at first a slip to 1972, which

Goldberg argued would greatly diminish “the scientific importance of the payload.” Then,
18 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

Naugle and Newell, despite their internal correspondence, somehow led Goldberg to

believe that the slip would only be to June 1971, which hardly comforted the Harvard

astronomer, who remained convinced that there would be further slips of “at least two to

three months.” There was a silver lining however, for Goldberg: this delay would give

Harvard enough time to reinstate its original experiment. Goldberg urged Naugle to do

this.46 (See Documents I-10, I-11, and I-12.) Goldberg’s frustrations were shared by the

members of the Astronomy Missions Board, as well as by the Principal Investigators for the

other major ATM instruments. A brief glance at the chronology of the definition of ATM,

and eventually the Skylab mission, will reveal why this was so.

Skylab and the Apollo Telescope Mount

The Apollo Applications Program was born at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)

in September 1965, and the orbital workshop concept grew from that within the next

month. In February 1966, MSFC submitted a proposal for an Apollo Telescope Mount

based upon an engineering study by Ball Brothers. By that summer, plans called for

building and launching no fewer than four ATMs involving some nineteen Saturn

launches and twenty-six Saturn IB launches, with three Saturn-IVB wet workshops and

four ATM payloads. The “wet” workshop concept (meaning that the stage would be

launched with instruments mounted and its fuel tanks full, and unused fuel vented before

the stage was used as a scientific laboratory) was the framework for the definition of the

Apollo Applications Program.

In July 1966, Mueller’s OMSF was given full responsibility for Apollo and Apollo

Applications missions; Newell’s OSSA would select experiments and analyze the data.

Throughout the rest of that year, as OSSA identified major experiments, OMSF and NASA

Headquarters personnel debated using a dry (launched with no fuel in the stage)

workshop as a viable alternative. The dry workshop solved severe “habitability problems.” 

In January 1968, budget cuts reduced the Applications Program to one ATM flight,

slated for April 1970, the first major slip, but well within the boundaries set by the

Astronomy Missions Board. Further budget cuts, however, caused NASA to slip the first

launch to November 1970. A major schedule shift occurred when NASA Administrator

Thomas Paine finally approved the dry workshop in May 1969; this decision was

announced on 22 July 1969 (two days after the Apollo 11 lunar landing). This was a

good choice in terms of the design of the workshop, but inevitably it led to further

slips; an 11 December 1969 press release stated that the change to a dry workshop

would not cause any further slips but set the launch date at “mid-1972.”47 By August

1970, the Apollo Applications Program, now named Skylab, announced another slip to

1 November 1972, although internal planning dates were far more pessimistic. By April

1971, the launch was slipped to April 1973; the first Skylab was launched late that

month. 

46. D. L. Forsythe, Telex, 10 May 1968, NASA Historical Reference Collection.

47. NASA News Release 69-164, “Orbital Workshop Design Changes,” NASA Historical Reference

Collection.

48. Compton and Benson, Living and Working in Space.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 19

The history of Skylab has been treated in some detail.48 There were many problems

that had to be overcome after the deployment of the laboratory, particularly the loss of

one of the primary Skylab solar panels. In August 1973, NASA canceled plans for a second

Skylab/ATM flight. Within a year, the program was closed down except for lingering

support to process the data. The backup Skylab workshop, Multiple Docking Adapter, and

Apollo Telescope Mount ended up at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington,

D.C., as one of the most costly museum exhibits ever. 

Looking back in 1980, however, astronomers like Goldberg expressed satisfaction with

the Skylab program, once all the data had been retrieved and processing and analysis were

well underway. Only then did Goldberg admit that the mission had evolved “into a marvel

of engineering and scientific perfection (thanks in large measure to lengthy delays in the

schedule).”49 He and his colleagues recall their deep skepticism during the early years of

the program, brought about by constant redefinition, budget cuts, and slips in almost

every milestone. Nevertheless, Goldberg was among those who endorsed ATM/Skylab

when called upon to do so by Homer Newell’s office in preparation for budget briefings

in November 1970. (See Document I-14.) As a quid pro quo, one month earlier, speaking

for the Astronomy Missions Board, Goldberg urged that NASA improve support for

ground-based facilities and analysis: “Full interpretation [of the ATM observations] will be

possible only if ground-based observations are available and relevant laboratory studies

have been carried out.”50

Despite the Astronomy Missions Board’s endorsements, making ATM a high priority

for NASA was not supported by many in the astronomical community. It was neither

discussed nor endorsed in the National Academy of Sciences’s 1972 report Astronomy and

Astrophysics for the 1970s. Headed by Caltech’s Jesse Greenstein, the panel assessed all forms

of astronomical practice, including space research. Even though Goldberg, by then

Director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, was on the central committee, he was not

part of the study group that deliberated over priorities in solar research. There were deep

fault lines in the community in the late 1960s and early 1970s, especially over spending

priorities and maintaining the health of the disciplinary infrastructure, which was still

perceived as optical and ground-based. As Greenstein noted in his introduction to the

report, for the time period 1968 to 1971, NSF funds for basic research in astronomy (basic

research grants alone) had flattened out at $6 million annually, whereas some 400 new

Ph.D.s had entered the field in the same period, looking for support. Astronomy had

made incredible advances in the 1970s but was heading for a period of retrenchment. He

suggested that the field regain a balance over all areas of endeavor. Highest priority for

the committee was that ground-based facilities not suffer due to overemphasis on spacebased observatories.51 Throughout the 1960s, total annual federal support for basic

research in astronomy had been on the increase, averaging over $100 million from NASA

(including all instrumentation) and between $10 and $20 million from the NSF. By far,

49. Goldberg to Wright.

50. Memorandum from Dr. Leo Goldberg to Dr. Homer Newell, 30 September 1970, NASA Historical 

Reference Collection.

51. Jesse Greenstein, “Introduction,” in National Academy of Sciences, Astronomy and Astrophysics for the

1970s (1972), p. xii.

52. Ibid., Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6, pp. 61–64.
20 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

the largest single expenditure identified was for ATM, which reached the $70 million

mark in the 1968–69 timeframe. By 1970, the funding was down to $30 million, which was

still twice that of OSO and thirty times greater than levels of support for data analysis.52

In this fiscal state, the eleven members of the solar working group of the Greenstein

committee, dominated by ground-based observers, endorsed continuing an everimproving OSO program, with OSO-8 capable of one arc second of spatial resolution.

“This program of continuous development and gradual improvement has made the OSO

program among the most successful and productive of all astronomical satellite

programs.” They strongly recommended extending the OSO program to thirteen flights

through the next solar maximum, expected to occur in the 1977–81 period. They called

the OSOs and an upgraded sounding rocket program “the backbone of the solar space

program.”53 Not included as a high priority for the coming decade, but definitely within

the committee’s sights, was a high-resolution solar telescope in space, of some 40-inch

aperture, and capable of a guiding accuracy of 0.1 arc second. 

The Space Science Board was hardly more sympathetic to scientific programs based

on using astronauts as investigators. At its conference center at Woods Hole in July and

August 1970, it articulated programs that would be possible at three levels of funding for

the period 1971 to 1980. Among other projects, the working group on astronomy called

for active design studies leading to a robotic solar observatory with capabilities equal to

that of ATM-A: stability to one second of arc or better and payloads comparable to ATM.

But the group also endorsed a crewed space station, for reasons reminiscent of those of

the Working Group at the Iowa Summer Study in 1962: such operations offered a “great

opportunity for solar research because of the high data rates inherent to solar

observations.”54 More immediate priorities included a continuing OSO program for timedependent studies of solar phenomena and the need to support allied solar-terrestrial

programs, which depended upon continuing flights of the Navy’s SOLRAD monitoring

satellites, as well as the continued development of OGOs, the Atmospheric Explorer, IMP,

and the Solar-Terrestrial Probe. Reflecting NASA’s and national priorities, the astronomy

working group highlighted the close relation between solar physics and Earth’s

environment.55

Given the complexity of the data-gathering requirements and perceived deficiencies

in digital recording and transmission, coupled with the multiple goals of its advisory

panels, NASA was always able to collect sufficient endorsements to demonstrate the

general support of scientific advisory bodies for programs like ATM. By May 1971, for

instance, NASA pointed to some seven different reports ranging from the 1965 Woods

Hole study to a February 1971 Space Science Board summary in support of the program.56

(See Document I-13.)

53. Ibid., pp. 92–93.

54. Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, Priorities for Space Research, 1971–1980 (1971), 

p. 78.

55. Ibid., p. 83.

56. J. Allen Crocker, “Advisory Group Comments on Skylab and ATM,” 21 May 1971, NASA Historical

Reference Collection.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 21

The State of Solar Physics During the 1970s

After fifteen years of solar research from space, NASA’s program officers and

administrators could point to many valuable things learned about the Sun. The OSO era,

1962 to 1974, saw the first detailed studies of the sharp transition zone between the

chromosphere and the corona and the first highly detailed images of the outer corona

from rocket-borne and then satellite-borne coronagraphs. The extreme temperatures of

flares were confirmed by OSO measurements, including studies of flare-related nuclear

gamma-ray spectra. Coronal holes, the solar wind, and coronal transients were detected in

a wide range of energies with resolutions capable of providing detailed information on

energy transport. 

The ATM and Skylab era saw highly detailed studies of chromospheric networks,

prominences, and high-resolution x-ray imaging of solar photosphere and coronal

structure. The post-Skylab era saw a return to AOSO-scale observatory-class programs

using improved detectors and broadband data transmission, filling in the picture of the

high-energy solar environment. During this period, NASA did begin to pay greater

attention to solar-terrestrial relations, reflecting political pressures, societal trends, and

institutional changes. Also of greater priority were joint international programs, which the

United States initially embraced but, more than once, did not follow through to

completion. During this period, priorities in NASA shifted from Apollo and Apollo

Applications to supporting the Shuttle program. 

The 1970s also saw significant changes in the relationship of specialists in solar physics

to the general astronomical community, and this change may have been reflected in the

advice given to NASA from its various boards and panels, which calls for comment here.

Solar physicists were among the first specialists, along with planetary scientists, to feel that

the mainstream American Astronomical Society was not able to meet their growing needs

as a discipline. In the mid-1960s, a number of solar physicists and astronomers, including

Henry J. Smith of NASA and Goldberg of Harvard, began to worry that fewer and fewer

solar physicists attended AAS meetings. Smith in particular suggested that NASA-funded

solar physicists meet periodically to air issues of mutual concern, whereas Goldberg, very

much a leader of mainstream optical astronomy, preferred that these specialist meetings

be held somehow under the aegis of the national society. Goldberg was, in fact, president

of the AAS in the mid-1960s, and he was well aware of the concerns many of his colleagues

had over the “Balkanization” of the society into specialist groups. Astronomy was one of

the few disciplines in the physical sciences small enough to retain a unified national focus,

and no one wanted that to change. For one thing, this unity gave the National Academy

Decadal Surveys (the so-called Whitford and Greenstein Committees) significant political

weight in Washington.

The result of this movement was the establishment of a Solar Physics Division (SPD)

within the AAS in 1968, after several years of successful specialist meetings, rather than the

creation of a new society. The planetary scientists, high-energy astrophysicists, dynamical

astronomers, and even astronomy historians also established divisions, preserving to some

extent the unity of the discipline under the parent society. The SPD sponsored many

special sessions based upon space activities; in 1973, it convened a lengthy discussion of

observations of the solar corona from Skylab. It also formed a conduit for interdisciplinary
57. See John H. Thomas, “The Solar Physics Division” in David DeVorkin, ed., The American Astronomical

Society’s First Century (College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics, 1999), pp. 238–44.

58. Andrea Dupree et al., “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Interaction Between Solar Physics and

Astrophysics,” Draft (18 June 1976), American Astronomical Society, Solar Physics Division; Hufbauer, Exploring

the Sun, pp. 192–93; Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, Report on Space Science, 1975 (1976),

chapter F.

22 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

meetings with the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological 

Society in areas of strong NASA interest, such as solar-terrestrial relations, and became a

forum for the preservation and improvement of critical ground-based facilities in 

solar astronomy.57

One of its most significant efforts came in the mid-1970s, when the Division

sponsored an ad hoc committee on “Interaction Between Solar Physics and Astrophysics.”

(See Document I-16.) Headed by Andrea K. Dupree of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center

for Astrophysics, what came to be called the “Dupree Committee” recommended ways to

improve the relations between the two fields. Noting that “Communication and crossfertilization among the subdisciplines of astrophysics has declined,” the committee

suggested ways to reestablish meaningful contact, partly through solar physics specialists’

taking a more active role in advisory panels and boards. Reflecting concerns expressed by

a similar committee convened by the National Academy, the effort was intended to

highlight the continuing importance and relevance of solar physics to astrophysics by

educating astronomers generally as to how knowledge of the workings of the Sun aided

non-solar investigations. 

Important too were solar-terrestrial relations, less an interest of the Dupree

Committee than of its counterpart at the National Academy of Sciences, led by Eugene

Parker. (See Document I-17.) The Parker committee’s “Solar Physics Study” also explicitly

identified the contributions of solar physics to mainstream astronomy: solar physics

stimulated “new instruments, new diagnostic techniques, new interpretive insights, and

new observational tests for existing theory.”58 The Parker committee was especially

enthusiastic about a new AOSO-scale mission NASA was proposing—the Solar Maximum

Mission (SMM)—to try once again to capture the Sun at the maximum point in its activity

cycle. This was of great importance for solar-terrestrial relations, the Parker committee

concluded, because the OSO and Skylab eras had established “exploratory observations

that define the general nature of the complex atmosphere and activity of the sun” and

provided the first detailed studies of the “inner working” of these high-energy

phenomena. “The next stage is the detailed diagnostics,” the committee added,

“coordinating the necessary high-resolution observations to determine the precise

physical nature of each phenomena.” This was the job of SMM, considered timely and

most critical for probing active regions, especially flare phenomena, and “a pivotal step in

space research.” SMM could lead to a series of Solar Synoptic Satellites (SSS), free-flyers

that could monitor the evolution and life cycles of coronal structures and active regions,

the drivers of solar-terrestrial phenomena. Although SMM was clearly the Parker

Committee’s top priority, it also mentioned a “Large Solar Observatory” (what was to

become the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT)) and acknowledged that NASA was

considering no fewer than five “facility-class” instruments to complement the NASA-ESA
59. Space Science Board, Report on Space Science 1975, p. 149.

60. Hufbauer, Exploring the Sun, p. 195, table 5.2.

61. Space Science Board, Report on Space Science 1975, p. 6.

62. Federal Council for Science and Technology, “Report of the Solar Astronomy Task Force to the Ad Hoc

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Astronomy,” June 1975, p. II-63.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 23

Spacelab program. Ever mindful of NASA’s priorities, the Parker Committee argued that

the competing Spacelab series, consisting of 1-meter optical UV, XUV, soft x-ray, EUV, and

hard x-ray telescopes, could not be considered as a substitute for SMM or SSS due to their

short flight times.59 This warning was very much in tune with priorities in the solar

community and the old debate between AOSO and ATM.

Solar physicists were prompted to seek common ground with astrophysics because

funding for both ground-based and space-based solar physics had peaked in the early

1970s and was steadily declining. The number of spacecraft used for solar science

declined after the mid-1970s, due both to tightening budgets and to launch delays created

by NASA’s decision to use the Shuttle as its primary launch system. The decline was also

due to greater competition from non-solar astrophysical programs, especially the

emergence of NASA’s “Great Observatories” program and its immediate precursors.60 (See

volume V, chapter 3, for a discussion of the Great Observatories.) In light of increased

competition and lengthening lead times for developing new and larger missions, the 1975

Space Science Board “Report on Space Science” bluntly called into question the future of

the space sciences and was uncharacteristically sharp in its commentary. Although it still

gave highest priority to already-approved NASA programs such as the High Energy

Astronomical Observatory (HEAO) series, to Pioneer Venus and Mariner Jupiter-Saturn,

it also urged new starts in 1976 and 1977, including SMM, the Large Space Telescope, and

the Gamma Ray Explorer. But the SSB also questioned the effectiveness of the “mission

concept,” feeling that it constrained science too much and fixed priorities too rigidly in

an era of ever-dwindling support for science: “This trend, if not reversed, could lead to a

national space program with minimal science, in contradiction to the stated objectives of

the Space Act.”61

The interdisciplinary nature of solar physics was also emphasized in 1975 when a “Solar

Astronomy Task Force to the Ad Hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee on Astronomy”

was convened under NASA solar physics program manager Henry J. Smith. Here, once

again, the solar physics connection to solar-terrestrial relations was highlighted in order to

broaden its support as far as possible among federal agencies. The many connections

between solar physics and other problem areas, such as stellar and general astrophysics,

magnetospheric physics, and plasma and nuclear physics, were all used to emphasize the

importance of SMM, which the group saw as an “essential next step” in studying flares in

high spatial and temporal resolution and coordinating observations across a wide

spectrum. High time, spatial, and spectral resolution were all key to understanding the

physical processes driving flares; SSM was “optimized for studying the dynamical processes

associated with the energy buildup and release in flaring regions.”62

During a period of deepening budget constraints and growing competition from

other programs, both within astronomy and in space science generally, solar physicists

found that their best course of action was to utilize the Solar Physics Division of the AAS
63. Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, Scientific Uses of the Space Shuttle (1974), pp.

138–39. 

24 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

as an important platform from which to state their case. Solar physicists therefore

remained a part of mainstream astrophysics under a parent society because they

recognized that their primary audience still lay among astronomers, and astronomers

offered, potentially, the most stable of audiences to support their goals. 

The Shuttle Era

The Solar Maximum Mission was, in fact, the last significant solar physics satellite not

to be launched by the Shuttle. When the Apollo Applications Program ended in the mid1970s, NASA had already shifted much of its long-range planning to the Shuttle.

Originally conceived as a means of establishing and supplying a space station, the Shuttle

became an end unto itself when the space station was canceled. Throughout the 1970s

and early 1980s, virtually all of NASA’s scientific programs became redefined in terms of

the Shuttle program, and solar physics was no exception. The lingering memory of ATM’s

failure to meet the previous solar maximum only heightened the need to monitor the

active Sun at high spatial resolution during the next maximum. This time, meeting again

at Woods Hole during the first two weeks of July 1973, the Space Science Board’s solar

physics panel made it clear that launching the SMM during a period of maximum solar

activity was top priority. Drawing upon several recent studies emerging from NASA Shuttle

workshops and European studies of the use of Spacelab for science, the various panels of

the Board were convened to consider the scientific uses of the Space Shuttle. Most of the

reports dealt with the various modes of doing science from the Shuttle. Notably at odds

with this goal was the solar physics panel’s view that, because of the “timing requirement

imposed by the eleven-year solar cycle, we regard a free-flying satellite, with a carefully

coordinated complement of instruments for the study of the next solar maximum, as the

highest immediate priority item for solar physics.”63 The Shuttle could launch solar

satellites but not operate them. The panel also noted that the chance of observing a truly

major flare was rather slight, even during maximum activity, during the expected 7-day

duration of a Shuttle flight. (See Document I-15.)

By 1973, Goddard Space Flight Center had already developed operational

guidelines for SMM. It would be a free-flyer and was in fact suggested as a prototype for

this class of Shuttle-related experiments. SMM itself would be launched on a Delta

rocket and would carry some 500 kilograms of instruments in a stabilized cylindrical

platform, not so different from the original AOSO concept but highly refined and far

more feasible with the advances in electronic detector technology and higher

bandwidth communications capabilities that had emerged in the intervening years. Its

proposed capabilities were compared to the typical later OSO: it would be four times

more precise in pointing than the projected OSO-I and would provide this precision

over a greater area of the solar disk. It would also provide twice the power to the

instruments, allowing them to be bigger and more robust than those limited by the OSO

framework. The instruments themselves would be capable of detecting and imaging
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 25

from the visible range down to the MEV x-ray and gamma-ray range, to catch the flood

of high-energy particles and radiant flux expected from both the thermal and nonthermal phenomena associated with the biggest flares. The Woods Hole solar panel gave

top priority to the SMM mission, provided that it was flown during the next solar

maximum, 1977 to 1979; that the pointing accuracy be better than one second of arc

over five minutes of time; and that the spacecraft be serviceable from the Shuttle

“throughout the Shuttle era.”64

Serviceability was a major design feature that defined all later Shuttle-based missions;

it was to be demonstrated by SMM through the new mission design policy of building craft

with modular units. Known as a “Multimission Modular Spacecraft,” SMM was intended to

act as a blueprint for a wide range of spacecraft missions. SMM inherited this role due to

the downgrading and ultimate cancellation of the Gamma Ray Explorer (GRE), which

had been in trouble for several years. Thus, alterations to the SMM program to take on

this added technical capability had been under development for quite some.65 As Noel

Hinners described it in January 1976, the cancellation of GRE’s Execution Phase Project

Plan required that the System Definition and Execution Plan for SMM be altered to

include, as its priority, the ability to “advance the concept of standardizing spacecraft

subsystems.” These standards would then be used “by many of NASA’s future missions.”

(See Document I-18.) Hinners also confirmed that SMM would be launched by a Delta

but had to be retrievable by the Shuttle, if necessary. “In-orbit servicing of the SMM,”

however, was “not a requirement.”66

SMM and its relation to Shuttle was only one of the issues addressed by the 1975

Woods Hole solar study panel. It also examined the Shuttle-based “sortie” mode, using an

astronaut as an observer, operator, or technician for performing solar research. Basic to

the hardware would be the development of two general-purpose pointing platforms. One

would be capable of handling telescopes over 2 meters in length and pointing them with

an accuracy of one second of arc; the other would be able to handle instruments twice as

long. The panel urged that the instrument integration design of the overall system be as

transparent as possible, allowing the development of a wide range of instruments to

proceed independently of the Shuttle program. 

The Woods Hole panel used the experience of Skylab to discuss the role of the

astronaut. Drawing upon the success of the second Skylab mission, the panel concluded

that the role of astronaut as observer had been proven: suitably trained astronauts could

make effective “real-time decisions” about what part of a flare to examine in detail; they

could carry out “complicated observing sequences” when out of reach of ground control;

and they could perform ad hoc procedures to correct mishaps, such as installing the

thermal shield and cleaning dirty optics, fixing jammed film cameras, and correcting

minor glitches in the instruments.67 On the other hand, it was clear that the crew had

contaminated the local space around Skylab, resulting in the need for cleaning the optics

64. Ibid., p. 140.

65. Memorandum from Anthony J. Calio to Director, Solar Terrestrial Programs, 19 December 1975, NASA

Historical Reference Collection.

66. Memorandum from Noel Hinners to John F. Clark, 15 January 1976, NASA Historical Reference

Collection.

67. Space Science Board, Scientific Uses of the Space Shuttle, p. 145.
68. Hufbauer, Exploring the Sun, pp. 197–98 and chapter 7.

69. D. H. DeVorkin, “Defending a Dream: The Abbot Years,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 21 (1990):

121–36.

70. “NASA Satellite Detects Changes in Energy Output from Sun,” NASA News Release 80-124, 

6 August 1980. 

26 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

in the first place. The panel therefore recommended that suitable precautions be taken

for Shuttle and that the experience from the Skylab missions be used as a basis 

for improvement.

SMM was launched on 14 February 1980, carrying seven instruments designed and

built by American and European consortia. Hufbauer68 has reviewed in detail how some

of the more significant instruments for SMM were chosen and how these choices were a

reflection of critical issues being addressed by members of the solar community. One of

the most significant problems was coming to closure on how much energy the Sun

radiated into space and, accordingly, how much was being collected by Earth. Although

error bars on this value had been localized to a few percent in the early twentieth century

by the Smithsonian’s Charles Greeley Abbot, far greater accuracy was required over long

time periods to assess how constant this “solar constant” output of energy was, how and

where it changed across the electromagnetic spectrum, and, finally, whether it oscillated

periodically or not. Abbot had claimed to have detected major cyclic changes of several

percent, and though few believed his statistics, the issue was very much alive when he died

in 1972 at age 102.69

In late 1976, NASA approved flying multiple instruments to measure solar radiation

characteristics, including solar irradiance, that would allow for an unequivocal

measurement of the solar constant and some indication of the source of its variation, if it

were verified to exist. An active cavity radiometer was included in SMM; this was the first

instrument placed into orbit that had sufficient sensitivity to make the measurements. By

the fall of 1980, SMM had detected minute changes in solar energy, amounting to only 10

degrees Celsius in the photosphere’s average temperature of 5,700 degrees Celsius. The

active cavity radiometer was capable of measuring changes in the bolometric flux as small

as 0.001 percent and was an excellent example of the importation of new technical talent

into solar physics, since it was promoted and built by a specialist in radiometric instrument

development, not by a solar physicist.70

The data flow SMM was returning degraded and finally halted after some 300 days,

when “Solar Max” lost its fine pointing capabilities on 11 December 1980. The problem

was a set of fuses in the main electronics box that controlled stabilization and fine

pointing. This failure, in fact, gave NASA an excellent reason to mount a Shuttle repair

mission to demonstrate the utility of the human space program to science. (See

Documents I-21 and I-22.) The repair mission was flown by Challenger in April 1984 and,

among other tasks, replaced the main SMM electronics box for guidance and stabilization.

This was far from a routine mission, however, since the grapples on the satellite turned

out to be slightly different from those the astronauts carried in their maneuvering units.

A contingency plan to use the large grappling arm succeeded in capturing the satellite,

however, and the rest of the repair went smoothly, vindicating the whole modular concept

and the utility of human-tended free-flyers. 
71. Robert Kraemer, Beyond the Moon: A Golden Age of Planetary Exploration, 1971–1978 (Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000).

72. Harold Glaser to Director of Spacelab Program, 2 November 1975, NASA Historical Reference

Collection.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 27

In the Shuttle era, reflecting continually tightening budgets and increased costs, solar

research with space satellites and probes dwindled further. A number of major programs

were proposed, but all were either redefined or canceled outright. The Solar Max repair

mission did not come cheaply, of course. Far more expensive than any ground-based

projects, still it has been said to have cost less than flying a new mission. It was, moreover,

funded primarily as a means to demonstrate the utility of NASA’s space transportation system. 

Competing Solar Programs in the 1980s and 1990s 

The Shuttle era not only redefined the manner in which space solar physics could be

done, but also created greater pressure on all of space science to search for more efficient

ways to operate. Both the Carter and Reagan Administrations made it clear that the

“golden age” for the space sciences (particularly planetary exploration), as the decade of

the 1970s had been described by practitioners, was now over.71 A clear NASA priority,

therefore, was to find new ways to generate interest in scientific experiments that could be

performed in orbit from the Shuttle and that would have appeal as part of a new

international cooperative program between ESA and NASA called Spacelab. As early as

1975, however, Harold Glaser, Director of Solar-Terrestrial Programs, grew concerned that

these programs would proceed without sufficient input from scientific experimenters. He

petitioned the Director of Spacelab Programs in November of that year, noting that in

order for NASA to “demonstrate to the public as early as possible the utility of the

Shuttle/Spacelab as a valuable experimental facility,” it was imperative that

“experimenters and responsible payload personnel [were] involved in the trade offs which

establish[ed] the payload constraints.”72 There were indeed many problems with a humantended scientific experiment that required a high degree of stability and lack of

environmental pollution. For instance, the acoustic and electrical environment of the

Shuttle bay, as well as the influence of “shifting dynamic loads” (crew movements), all

threatened to reduce the effectiveness of both solar and stellar investigations requiring

sub-arc-second stability. Guarding against these sources of error vastly increased the

expense and lead times of preparing suitable payloads.

The inevitable increase in costs, along with a general tightening of all budgets,

amplified the difficulty of mounting major solar programs in the 1980s and 1990s. One of

the most frustrating casualties was the International Solar Polar Mission (ISPM), put in

place by a formal agreement between NASA and ESA in 1979.

The ISPM Saga

International cooperation was important for both political and economic reasons

throughout the Cold War, but especially in the post-Apollo era. At first, in the 1960s, NASA
73. “Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States National Aeronautics and Space

Administration and the European Space Agency for the International Solar Polar Mission,” p. 1.

74. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Project Plan for International Solar Polar 1983 Mission,” Document 628-1,

pp. 1–3.

75. Ibid., pp. 1-3–6.

28 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

had made launchers available to send British satellites like the Ariel series into orbit. The

next phase of international cooperation grew out of a need to share costs and expertise:

the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), the Infra-Red Astronomy Satellite (IRAS),

and even SMM were just a few of the many examples of this trend. Then, in March 1979,

NASA and ESA agreed to develop a cooperative International Solar Polar Mission to make

“coordinated observations of the interplanetary medium and the Sun simultaneously in

the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun.”73

The key to the Solar-Polar mission was the ability to make stereoscopic, simultaneous

viewing of the Sun possible in order to assess global solar behavior. Fifteen separate

experiments from ESA and NASA Centers, JPL and Goddard, the University of Chicago,

Bell Labs, and Los Alamos were proposed and partially developed. The rationale for the

mission was that much solar phenomena was latitude-dependent, and thus far

observations had been from the ecliptic plane only. For instance, the nature of the solar

wind was only known within the narrow equatorial band, and scientists knew it was not

wise to extrapolate to higher latitudes to assess the overall character of the solar wind. The

technology was now available; by the mid-seventies, NASA felt that its ability to target

probe trajectories to take advantage of gravity-assist maneuvers had advanced to the point

where out-of-the-ecliptic missions were feasible. The swingbys of Jupiter by Pioneers 10

and 11 had provided ample proof of concept.74 Two nearly identical SMM-type probes

would be launched by the Shuttle and then inserted into a Jupiter encounter by an

Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) system consisting of three or four stages. A February 1983

launch date was proposed to meet a narrow window for the Jupiter encounter.75 (See

Document I-20.)

The complex history of the cancellation of the American portion of the mission has

been described as a result of congressional infighting and oversight, the incoming Reagan

Administration’s draconian reorganization of the budget process, and finally NASA’s own

shifting priorities. In December 1979, the Senate Appropriations Committee was worried

that the IUS would not be adequate to launch both probes and that Shuttle development

might be delayed, necessitating a slip in the launch schedule beyond the proposed Jupiter

flyby window. The committee suggested slipping the mission until the next window. NASA

also tried to slip the mission later that year when, during hearings on the 1980

Supplemental Appropriations Bill, the House side called for the termination of the

mission and for rescinding funds already appropriated. This call was eventually reversed

on a technicality, but it was evident throughout Fiscal Year (FY) 1979 and FY 1980 that

NASA’s priorities lay with funding the Shuttle over any one scientific mission. Throughout

this phase, NASA kept ESA informed, and they both agreed to the delay even though the

initial cuts were rescinded. 

The incoming Reagan Administration overhauled the entire budgetary process,

which resulted in deep cuts for NASA. NASA was directed by the White House to cut one
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 29

of its three large space science missions—the Large Space Telescope, Galileo, or ISPM.

NASA reacted by canceling ISPM outright in the FY 1981 budget. “In just over one month,

drastic cuts had been made, and made very quickly.”76 This time, ESA was informed after

the fact, just hours before the Reagan Administration announced the cuts. (See Volume

II, Chapter 1, for more details on this episode.) European officials were told that NASA

would still launch the European spacecraft, but that the launch would be delayed until

1985 or 1986.

It came as no surprise to members of the Space Science Advisory Committee (SSAC),

meeting at NASA Headquarters in early March 1981, that ESA quickly protested at the

ambassadorial levels of its member countries, claiming that there was a “unilateral breach

of the ISPM Memorandum of Understanding.” ESA had approved the program over

others specifically because of its international, transatlantic character.77 To ESA observers,

this event exposed an important difference between ESA and NASA priorities; it seemed

as if NASA did not share ESA’s sense of obligation to international agreements. To the

SSAC’s Leonard Fisk, NASA’s decision did not bode well for any future collaborations,

especially since a wholly domestic mission, Gamma Ray Observatory, was allowed to live.

Answering his own question in the minutes of the SSAC meeting, he argued that the

“magnitude of cut demanded that an existing [mission] must go. In addition, ISPM is

slaved to solar cycle epoch and Hill anger over [delay and cost-growth] scenario.” Andrew

Stofan further explained that NASA’s decision to save “near-term costs” at the expense of

“run-out total” was not acceptable to Congress, “and NASA has been told so in no

uncertain terms.” David Morrison was recorded as feeling that the cut was not on scientific

grounds, but on “programmatic” grounds, since NASA had not yet sunk much funding

into the mission compared to what it had committed to the Space Telescope and Galileo.78

(See Documents I-23 and I-24.)

ESA proposed several compromise solutions to NASA through the spring of 1981,

some of which NASA sent on to Congress, the State Department, and OMB. A mix of

positive but noncommittal reactions resulted, which gave ESA hope that it could reverse

things. In late April, NASA petitioned the White House for additional funds, but the

petition was rejected. NASA was left with the option of redirecting internal funds and

priorities to keep ISPM a two-spacecraft mission. Deciding whether to follow this path

became James Beggs’s responsibility when he took office as NASA Administrator in late

June 1981. By September, Beggs decided that NASA’s priorities could not include the

reduced two-spacecraft mission; no new funds would be requested for ISPM in the FY 

1983 budget. 

Though some observers hoped to dismiss the cancellation of ISPM because of its

unusually complex nature, calling it an aberrant example of international collaboration,

others pointed out that it was ESA’s failure to appreciate the volatility of the “highly

political US budget process.”79 This failure, however, was largely due to NASA’s inability to

76. Joan Johnson-Freese, “Canceling the US Solar-Polar Spacecraft,” Space Policy (February 1987): 24–37;

quote is from p. 26.

77. Ibid., p. 28.

78. Space Science Advisory Committee, “Meeting Minutes,” NASA Headquarters, 2 March 1981, NASA

Historical Reference Collection.

79. Johnson-Freese, “Canceling the U.S. Solar-Polar Spacecraft,” p. 32.
80. Ibid., p. 37.

81. J. David Bohlin to Lennard Fisk et al., 21 June 1989, NASA Historical Reference Collection.

82. JPL Press Release, “Ulysses Studies the Sun’s Polar Cap at Sunspot Maximum,” 6 September 2000.

83. Memorandum from Goetz Oertel, Deputy Chief, Solar Physics, to Director, Physics and Astronomy

Programs, 7 January 1970, NASA Historical Reference Collection; Astronomy Missions Board, 1969, p. 135.

84. “The Solar Telescope That Saw No Light,” Appendix B in Commission on Geosciences, Environment

and Resources, National Academy of Sciences, A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been

Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?, 1994. 

30 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

bring ESA into the budget process itself, before Reagan’s public announcement, as well as

NASA’s failure at the time to “accept partners, rather than subordinate participants, and

to treat them as such.”80 In 1989, looking back on the episode, NASA’s chief of solar

physics, J. David Bohlin, warned that “the real lesson, of course, is not just the facts, but

that this episode colored our relations with the European Space Agency for many years

(and still does).”81 

The original ISPM concept was thus reduced to a single ESA probe, renamed Ulysses,

which was launched by the Shuttle and a two-stage IUS on 6 October 1990, after several

years of delay due to the 1986 Challenger disaster. Ulysses flew by Jupiter in February 1992

and has since reached both extremes of the northern and southern latitudes of the solar

heliosphere. This first orbital cycle came during the solar minimum, but the program has

been extended and has now lived long enough to execute another full orbit of the Sun at

high latitudes during the most recent solar maximum.82

The Solar Polar mission, in the form of Ulysses, was conceived in the late 1970s,

launched in 1990, and to date has provided some ten years of valuable heliospheric

data. Ulysses is, however, only a moderate-sized craft, and the planetary program had

already proved the programming involved. Other, larger programs in solar physics

would not fare as well in the face of continuing budget stagnation, NASA’s growing

dependence on maintaining the Shuttle, and its focus on establishing a permanent

presence in space. 

The Solar Optical Telescope

A large, ultra-high-resolution solar telescope in space had long been suggested as a

means of refining knowledge about the Sun. In 1979, Goetz Oertel, Deputy Chief of Solar

Physics at NASA, reviewed his office’s internal “Priorities in Instrumentation Development

for Solar Astronomy.” (See Document I-20.) The goals of solar physics as outlined by the

Astronomy Missions Board in 1969 still created a serious challenge for spacecraft and

instrument design: the ability to study structures on the Sun with angular sizes between 1

arc second and 0.1 arc second. This would require a 1.5-meter diffraction limited solar

telescope in orbit.83

Called, among other titles, the “Large Solar Observatory” by SSB panels in the mid1970s, what became the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) was planned as a Shuttle-based,

high-resolution solar observatory capable of a wide range of spectroscopic, photometric,

and area imaging studies. The goals of SOT and its predecessors, however, were highly

varied, and their evolution illustrates how “excessive planning can undermine the nation’s

efforts to achieve important scientific goals.”84
The origins of SOT have been traced to efforts in the mid-1960s by two solar

physicists, Harold Zirin and Robert Howard, to build a 65-centimeter solar telescope for

the second Skylab mission that would be capable of examining the fine structure of

magnetically driven phenomena in the solar photosphere. They soon realized that a 1.5-

meter telescope would be required to gain sufficient resolution, and when Skylab II was

dropped, they decided to regroup and build a ground-based prototype. Meanwhile, NASA

had a number of larger telescopes under study in the early 1970s. In 1976, Zirin and

Howard jointly proposed with astronomers at Kitt Peak National Observatory to build and

fly a larger Spacelab Orbital Telescope. NASA adopted the characteristics of the proposal,

renaming it the Solar Optical Telescope, or SOT, and designating it as a NASA facility

mission to be managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center.85

What started out as a $25-million mission for Spacelab was, by the end of 1985,

estimated to cost $360 million. Study phases were complete, but design and construction

were deferred, partly due to pressures caused by budget and management problems with

the Large Space Telescope, by now known as the Hubble Space Telescope. But SOT’s

rising costs were also criticized by Congress, and in February 1986, in the wake of the

Challenger disaster, OMB deleted the funds for SOT. 

Goddard project managers retrenched, trying to downsize SOT to a $100-million

program by reducing the size of the telescope to 1 meter, removing one of the focal plane

instruments, and narrowing the wavelength range. They did not get even close, and even

rejected an offer from the Naval Research Laboratory and Marshall to provide the

complete system for $85 million. In the wake of Challenger, however, Goddard did accept

the NRL’s proposal for what became the High Resolution Solar Observatory, based upon

the successful instrumentation designs of Richard Tousey’s group at NRL.

The Shuttle flight of Spacelab 2 on 29 July 1985 carried the High Resolution

Telescope and Spectrograph (HRTS) built at NRL. It verified and refined previous

sounding rocket flights equipped with advanced stabilization systems called SPARCS that

were able to resolve finely detailed structure at the point in the solar atmosphere where

temperature is at a minimum. Getting at the fine structure of this region and its relation

to upper regions was one of the central goals of SOT, shared by Richard Tousey and many

other scientists like Zirin and Howard. Such observations might untangle the relative

roles of “wavelike-matter” oscillations, magnetic fields, and random motions as agents

promoting the transport of energy from the photosphere and chromosphere to the solar

corona. In other words, SOT was directed at determining the source of heating of the

million-degree corona, the first question posed about the solar corona when its extreme

temperature was deduced in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Always thinking

incrementally, in 1983, Tousey felt that more SPARCS-stabilized sounding rocket flights

were needed to prepare this new technology for spaceflight. With the launch of Spacelab

2, he was happily reconciled to a human-tended platform, though he still held out hopes

for SOT on the eve of its cancellation.86

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 31

85. Ibid., p. 92.

86. Richard Tousey, “Our Star—V2 to SOT,” Transcript of Goddard Lecture, March 1983; “Solar

Spectroscopy from Rowland to SOT,” Vistas in Astronomy 29 (1986): 175–99.
Renamed the High Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO), the program was revised

as a space station payload (See Document I-25) but soon was changed into a robotic

mission to save money. To restore its original capabilities, NASA looked for international

support while it continued to support Tousey’s experimentation. Even this retrenched

position failed when OMB deleted all funds for the project in the FY 1988 budget.87 (See

Documents I-26 and I-27.) By then, HRSO had been redefined again, as Solar Physics was

transferred out of NASA’s Astrophysics Division and placed into a new Space Physics

division. The new reincarnation, a free-flyer called the Orbiting Solar Laboratory (OSL),

quickly ballooned into a $500-million and then an $811-million program. In 1986, it had

been called a “truly marvelous and versatile laboratory” incorporating a wide range of

instruments and facilities for simultaneous and synoptic studies of the Sun, in tune with

the huge programs NASA was then campaigning for, such as the HST and the Earth

Observing System (EOS). But as it grew larger, more complex, and costlier, OSL also

began to lose support within NASA and, especially, among many solar physicists who

either left the project in frustration or proposed different methods of gathering data.

Finally, in the late summer of 1991, NASA slipped the OSL from 1993 to 1998, suggesting

instead that the Space Physics Division think in terms of smaller missions.88 There were a

number of efforts to revive the program as a multifaceted assault on the Sun, but none of

them materialized. 

Shifting Support

Other factors influencing the lives of long-term projects included the 1987

introduction of a strategic planning process (See Volume V, Chapter 1) within NASA’s

Office of Space Science and Applications, which changed the character of its internal and

external advisory structure. Influenced by the advice it received, NASA also changed its

perception of disciplinary boundaries, which led to a number of internal reorganizations

of OSSA offices.

Starting in the summer of 1984 and continuing through early 1986, the Space Science

Board once again convened several task groups to explore the needs and directions of the

various disciplines of space science. Initially, the SSB projected scientific goals between

1995 and 2015, but in the wake of Challenger, it revised its time frame. The Board also

made a significant change in its advisory structure by linking solar physics to space physics,

removing it completely from deliberations by the Astronomy and Astrophysics task group,

and thereby foretelling the actual shift of the Solar Physics program out of the

Astrophysics Branch at NASA. Accordingly, the astronomy and astrophysics task group

called for the development of high-resolution optical interferometers and NASA’s Great

Observatories. But the task group’s report made no mention of solar astronomy or any

solar initiatives, whereas other related activities (such as gravitational wave physics) were

covered.89

32 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

87. “Solar Telescope That Saw No Light,” p. 94.

88. Ibid.

89. Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Imperatives

for the Decades 1995 to 2015 (1988).
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 33

The advisory structure had changed significantly, and solar physics was in a new

playing field, called “Solar System Space Physics” by the SSB coordinating panel but “Solar

Space Physics” by members of the task group itself, since it was separate from planetary

and lunar exploration. The structure of the Solar Space Physics Task Group’s report

identified the two major foci of the area as the physics of the Sun and “the processes that

link solar variations to terrestrial phenomena.”90 (See Document I-28.) Emphasis in the

first category was on the Sun’s outer atmosphere and its influence on the magnetospheres

and atmospheres of Earth and the other planets. Among prospective pre-1995 missions,

only Ulysses was noted, along with Galileo, an Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, and

the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program. The recommended program post1995 included new starts for large high-resolution UV and x-ray solar telescopes to

examine small-scale transient structures in the solar photosphere, a solar probe to fly to

within 2 million kilometers of the solar photosphere to investigate the sources of the solar

wind, and continued development of advanced spacecraft for observing the Sun, Earth,

and the solar-terrestrial environment.91 The latter included reviving a solar polar mission

as a follow-on to Ulysses, as well as the completion of SOT and its integration into an

Advanced Solar Observatory on the Space Station. 

The details of the Solar and Space Physics task group’s report were fleshed out in an

extensive appendix on the importance to astrophysics of studying small-scale features on

the Sun, giving several examples of how small-scale processes could be of great

importance generally. These included refining understanding of the nature of

granulation and the relation of magnetic phenomena to turbulence, and gaining better

knowledge of the physics behind the flow of matter and energy outward from the

photosphere, chromosphere, corona, and solar wind. None of this was new, of course.

What distinguished the Solar Space Physics Task Group from its predecessors was

its appeal to a new level of instrument and spacecraft technology. Instruments capable

of making these observations from Earth orbit required ultra-high resolution and

stability and the capability of working to their theoretical limits in the extreme

ultraviolet and x-ray regions of the spectrum. The task group was able to point to only

one instrument flown on Spacelab 2 in 1985 that had operational capabilities near to

its instrumental limits, called SOUP, the Solar Optical Universal Polarimeter, a 30-

centimeter-aperture visible light device. Significant advances in instrument

development were therefore urged, including interferometric instruments in space

capable of examining solar features beyond the 0.1-arc-second range and new

technologies to achieve up to 0.001-arc-second accuracy in the x-ray and UV regions.

Overall, however, the task group’s priorities remained in line with those of its

predecessors, calling for instruments capable of studying small-scale features on the

solar surface and the details of its atmospheric structure. 

In calling for these new technologies, the task group also called for improvements in

spacecraft systems and propulsion. These included sustained low-thrust propulsion

devices for the solar probes and possible interstellar probes (solar electric propulsion

90. Ibid., p. 27.

91. Ibid., p. 34.
34 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

systems); heat shield technologies capable of protecting craft flying to within 4 solar radii

of the solar surface; high-reflectivity, multilayer coating technologies for extreme

ultraviolet and x-ray imaging devices, allowing for normal-incidence reflectivity; and the

development of a Lagrangian point platform for a wide array of studies.92

The task group expressed confidence that the interferometric and multilayer coating

techniques that would make possible spatial resolutions better than 0.1 seconds of arc,

over a wavelength range from 30 angstroms to the visible, “can be achieved with

techniques that will be perfected in the twentieth century.”93 The task group then

considered alternative sites for placing these devices, including near-Sun orbit,

heliosynchronous orbit, lunar basing, solar orbit at one AU, Earth-orbit free-flyers, and

crewed vehicles such as the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. The

advantages of each were identified for specific missions. The lunar base was cited as being

a particularly stable location for long-term studies. Earth-orbit free-flyers were preferred

for similar reasons. Crewed vehicles, on the other hand, drew mixed comments. As before,

the short duration and discontinuity of coverage of Shuttle flights was a continuing

limitation on scientific return. Contamination was another lingering problem, especially

the presence of thin polymerized hydrocarbons that block light in the extreme ultraviolet.

Yet, the task group felt that the positive experience from Skylab indicated that it should

not totally discount this mode of transport and operation. Thus, it looked kindly on the

use of future space stations as platforms, while recognizing the problems inherent in an

extended mechanical structure, which included lowered rigidity and an extended

spectrum of vibrations and disturbances, making precise pointing and tracking difficult or

impossible. Some form of isolated platform was suggested as a remedy, including 

co-orbiting platforms.94

Although the Solar Space Physics Task Group identified SOT as a desirable new

mission, they did so only in passing and did not explore SOT priorities to any depth.

Indeed, the implication might be that, in light of the advanced technologies proposed

and the stated problems inherent with Shuttle-based or Space Station-based observatories,

SOT had become obsolete, killed by its own long lead time and unrestricted growth. 

The Role of Advice in Space Solar Physics

Further historical research needs to be done to be able to evaluate fully the process

of consensus formation that produced the advice given to NASA by various elite task

groups, panels, and commissions. NASA’s influence in the process, especially, must be

better understood, as well as other social and economic factors that evidently framed

and informed the opinions of advisory groups. One especially fruitful path of new

inquiry might be to explore more fully the relationship between scientific program and

project managers within NASA and members of the various advisory bodies, especially

in light of the historical fact that projects tend to balloon and expand themselves out of

92. Ibid., pp. 112–39.

93. Ibid., p. 133.

94. Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives

for the Decades 1995 to 2015: Solar and Space Physics (1988), pp. 133–35.
existence. What causes projects to balloon? Is there a correlation, for instance, between

the size of a scientific mission or project and its ability to acquire internal and external

support? Small projects may suffer from having only small constituencies among

builders and users. Do larger projects have proportionally larger constituencies? And do

very large projects suffer because they impinge on other constituencies? Is there an

optimum point for project size, and to what extent does external scientific advice

influence where this point lies? The importance of coalition building, so well illustrated

in the case of the Hubble Space Telescope by Robert Smith,95 may well turn out to have

had a far different effect within solar space research, where a fluctuating set of

disciplinary communities was involved.

This essay has only scratched the surface in assessing the degree to which NASA was

able to follow external advice and how it interpreted and exploited the opinions of its

advisory bodies in forming new programs and policies. Even at the superficial level

examined here, it is evident that there were strong scientific motivations for achieving

greater stability, pointing accuracy, and spectral resolution. These long-term goals are

ongoing and are indeed seen in recent missions, such as Transition Region and Coronal

Explorer (TRACE), one of the early products of NASA’s Small Explorer (SMEX)

program. Planned as the fourth mission in the “faster, better, cheaper” program

championed by former NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, TRACE was developed in less

than four years to refine knowledge of the relationship between solar magnetic fields and

coronal heating. It was designed to observe the three-dimensional magnetic structure in

the solar photosphere that determines the dynamics of the chromosphere and corona.

TRACE, launched in April 1998, only a month behind schedule, aboard an air-launched

Pegasus, is international and short-term, and it embodies many, if not all, of the

characteristics desired by NASA’s advisory groups. By 2000, TRACE had returned

unprecedented high-resolution images of magnetic field phenomena in the lower corona.

From the standpoint of the nature of scientific advice reviewed here, TRACE and the

SMEX program were appropriate NASA responses, given the economic and political

pressures facing the space agency. But they are also a very positive reaction to earlier

criticisms of NASA’s mission-oriented policy: that the “emergence of a new generation of

spacecraft does not . . . stem from demand by users.”96 Another indicator of NASA’s ability

to learn from past difficulties is its increased sensitivity to establishing and maintaining

meaningful international partnerships. Possibly the most significant recent mission in

solar physics is the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO, built by ESA,

instrumented by teams in fourteen of its member nations, as well as by NASA, and

launched aboard a U.S. Atlas booster in December 1995. NASA also is responsible for

communications and daily operations of the craft.

The SOHO spacecraft is 4.3 meters long in the Sun-pointing direction and orbits a

Lagrangian point in space between Earth and the Sun, allowing its battery of twelve

instruments (nine from Europe and three from the United States) to maintain constant

monitoring of solar activity. SOHO worked nominally in spite of various battery problems

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 35

95. Robert W. Smith, The Space Telescope: A Study of NASA, Science, Technology, and Politics (revised, New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1993), Chapters 4 and 5.

96. André Lebeau, “The Astronaut and the Robot,” Space Policy (February 1987): 211–12.
until June 1998, when attitude control and telemetry were completely lost. The 305-meter

Arecibo radar dish in Puerto Rico was able to confirm SOHO’s rotation rate and orbital

position, which made it possible to direct commands to the craft to regain control. This

was done by late September 1998; the satellite has been working well ever since, sending

back critical information about the Sun that helps us to better appreciate its internal

dynamic structure, as well as the onset of coronal bursts and mass ejections that would

affect solar-terrestrial relations. 

Recent programs like SOHO and TRACE bode well for the future health of space

solar physics. They stand in contrast to the hugely ambitious programs like SOT-OSL, as

well as those defined in terms of a human spaceflight program. In solar physics, the OSO

series of missions has had the strongest continuing support from the scientific community

and its elite deliberative panels. Least supported were those with the longest lead times

and where mission control did not reside in the scientific community, such as SOT-OSL.

Almost without exception, lead times were drastically lengthened as payloads had to be

reconfigured to meet new NASA launch vehicle priorities. It is true that NASA’s scientific

advisors did respond positively to NASA’s shifting priorities, but one would have to go well

beyond the published literature and even the semipublished documents provided in

connection with this essay to be able to assess how these reports were constructed and

what other choices, if any, the advisory groups considered. It does seem that the advice

given in later review panels and boards that were convened at the request of NASA,

funded by NASA, and to some extent managed by NASA, though still under the aegis of

the National Academy and other academic groups, was definitely constrained by NASA

interests and priorities. One need go no farther than noting that many of the review

panels were asked explicitly to provide scientific goals that could be met by NASA’s

continually changing priorities, starting with Explorer-class satellites, then Observatoryclass, then Apollo and Apollo Applications, the Space Shuttle, and, at present, the

International Space Station.

The extent to which these constraints have colored the advice given by the panels

cannot be evaluated without extensive historical research using primary sources and oral

history interviews. For example, one might speculate that the lessons learned from

NASA’s growing propensity for huge missions with long lead times, criticized widely by the

scientific community, resulted in NASA’s reworked “smaller, faster, cheaper” policy in the

1990s, which resulted in success stories like TRACE.97 But this advice was couched in the

context of a Shuttle-based and Shuttle-driven political economy, together with the

spectacularly frustrating failures of many of the missions supposedly designed under this

rubric. Because SMEX missions like TRACE and international missions like SOHO were

not dependent upon the Shuttle, it remains to be seen whether this new policy will

eventually result in a more cost-effective solar physics program that is responsive to the

stated needs of the community it serves, and if, indeed, it is a policy reflecting a desire to

promote scientific knowledge of the Sun.

36 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE

97. See Howard McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper: Low-Cost Innovation in the U.S. Space Program (Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001) for an assessment of the “faster, better, cheaper” approach.
Document I-1

Document Title: W. W. Kellogg, RAND Corporation, “Basic Objectives of a Continuing

Program of Scientific Research in Outer Space,” 9 December 1957.

Source: Dow Papers, Box 84, University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan

This document represents one of the several general proposals for initial space science activities which

were developed in the aftermath of the launches of Sputniks 1 and 2 in late 1957. Scientists who were

interested in placing their instruments into orbit and beyond had clearly been giving a lot of thought

on how best to proceed even before the initial satellite launches, and Kellogg’s proposals reflect the ideas

that sounding rockets would continue to be an important part of initial space science efforts and that

human space flight was still some time in the future and not scientifically justified.

[cover letter]

9 December 1957

TO: Members Rocket and Satellite Research Panel

As agreed at our meeting last Friday I am sending a draft of a report prepared by me

for the Working Group on Internal Instrumentation of the Earth Satellite Program

entitled “Basic Objectives of a Continuing Program of Scientific Research in Outer

Space.” This was originally intended as a working paper for the National Academy of

Sciences, but it can also serve the Executive Committee of our panel as a working paper

and a back-up to our proposal.

If you have any comments I suggest you send them in duplicate to Van Allen and

myself.

Sincerely yours,

[signature]

W. W. Kellogg

The RAND Corporation

1700 Main Street

Santa Monica, California

cc: W. W. Berning 

L. A. Delsasso 

W. G. Dow 

K. Ehricke 

C. F. Green 

M. Greenberg 

L. M. Jones 

M. H. Nichols 

M. Rosen 

N. W. Spencer 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 37
K. Stehling 

H. J. Stewart 

W. G. Stroud 

H. Strughold 

E. Stuhlinger 

J. W. Townsend 

W. Von Braun 

P. H. Wyckoff 

M. Zelikoff

**********

[no page number]

BASIC OBJECTIVES OF A CONTINUING PROGRAM

OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN OUTER SPACE

(Prepared for the National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council by the Technical Panel 

for the Earth Satellite Program of the U.S. 

National Committee for the I.G.Y. November, 1957)

1. Introduction

The International Geophysical Year marks the beginning of man’s exploration of

outer space. There have been previous rocket firings into the fringes of the earth’s

atmosphere, but the expanded rocket-sounding program on an international scale and

the advent of artificial earth satellites represent by far the largest steps taken so far towards

the scientific exploration and eventual habitation of outer space and the planets.

The interests of human progress and our national welfare now demand that a long

term program of space exploration be formulated and pursued by the United States with

the utmost energy. Although there will inevitably be benefits from such a program of a

very practical nature, the basic goal of this exploration must be the quest of knowledge

about our solar system and the universe beyond.

The scientific program proposed here has been formulated with the following ideas

in mind:

• Technology of space flight will probably develop gradually. Therefore, the

payloads and distances traveled will be relatively small at first, and the scientific

experiments and observations will be correspondingly modest in the early stages.

• The scientific program should be designed to give information at each stage

which will help in the planning of later flights.

[2] • Manned space flight will occur in the course of the program, but before this 

occurs certain crucial experiments must be performed which are aimed 

specifically at the design of a manned vehicle.

38 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
• In the quest for outer space we must not lose sight of the tremendous implications

to life on earth which the occupation of space will have.

[3] 2. Sounding Rockets

Sounding rockets have provided so much information about the upper atmosphere

and its effects on incoming radiation of various kinds that they will continue to be useful

in this area. A continuing program using such rockets should be aimed at determining the

distribution in the vertical of such quantities as:

• Atmospheric composition.

• Atmospheric pressure, temperature, and density.

• Winds in the upper atmosphere.

• Atmospheric ionization.

• The absorption of electromagnetic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the

intensities of sources of such radiation in the atmospheric layers.

• The absorption of cosmic ray or solar particles, and the secondary effects of 

these particles.

• The geomagnetic field (also covered under satellites).

• Detection and location of electric current systems in the atmosphere.

• Experiments requiring recovery of packages (see below).

With a sufficiently intense program, it will be possible to detect latitudinal, diurnal,

and seasonal changes of these quantities, and also the ways in which they are modified

during periods of solar activity and magnetic storms.

Until the techniques for the recovery of packages from a satellite have been 

worked out in more detail and demonstrated, there will be a class of experiments

requiring the return of various kinds of samples for which the vertical rocket is required.

These may involve:

[4] • Film samples: Photographs, spectrographic data, cosmic ray packets, or data

recordings where the quantity of information is too great to telemeter.

• Biological samples.

Experiments which will probably not be suitable for sounding rockets in the future,

with the availability of earth satellites of progressively larger payloads, are solar or

astrophysical observations, particularly those in which time changes are sought. Clearly, a

satellite platform is superior for such observations.

[5] 3. Earth Satellites

An earth satellite is considered, for these purposes, to be a vehicle which is on an orbit

controlled primarily by the earth’s gravity. (This means, in effect, something less than

1,000,000 miles from the earth and with insufficient velocity to carry it further.) Even

when the technology of space flight has progressed far beyond the ability to put satellites

on orbit and vehicles are being directed on heliocentric and interplanetary missions, the

earth satellite will surely continue to be a base for fruitful observations.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 39
Fundamentally, a satellite well outside the earth’s atmosphere can be used to observe

only three kinds of things, namely: photons, particles, and fields.

The photons, since they represent electromagnetic radiation, may range from Xradiation and ultraviolet radiation to radio waves. In general, when dealing with photons

coming from remote sources in the sun or beyond, the purpose of a satellite is to observe

the wavelengths which do not penetrate the earth’s atmosphere. This implies that the

radiation of primary interest is at Wavelengths below the ozone cutoff in the ultra-violet

(about .32 microns) and at wavelengths above the ionospheric cutoff in the radio wave

region (about 30 m, or 10 Me). Most of the radiation inbetween these limits penetrates

the atmosphere and can therefore be observed on the ground or from balloons, except

for some important, but limited, regions in the infrared where water vapor, carbon

dioxide, and ozone cause absorption.

In addition to observing these highly significant radiations from above, the satellite

will be of great value in observing the earth, its [6] changing cloud patterns, its infrared

radiation, etc. These are discussed further below.

The particles which can be observed from a satellite are solid meteoroids of various sizes

and atomic nuclei with great energy emanating from the sun and beyond (auroral particles

and cosmic rays). These are both of great significance to the development of manned space

vehicles, since the solid particles constitute a hazard to the vehicle due to their ability to

puncture its skin, and the atomic particles may be a hazard to the man inside.

The fields which are measurable from a satellite are the field of gravity and the

magnetic field. The first, the field of gravity, is related to the masses and shapes of the

earth and moon, and satellite observations promise to greatly improve the precision of

our knowledge of these quantities. Magnetic field measurements not only tell about the

magnetization of the earth and moon, but also tell about the electric current systems

which flow in the vicinity of the earth.

Since a great deal has already been written about the uses of an artificial satellite, the

following experiments are presented in outline rather than in detail. First are those which

could be done in Vanguard-type satellites, assuming a growth potential in payload to 50

or 75 lbs and a wider choice of orbits than is available under the I.G.Y. program. With

larger payloads and more advanced techniques there are some more elaborate

experiments which could be done, experiments which require stable platforms, large

transmission power and information bandwidth, recovery of packages, etc. Finally, there

will be manned satellites.

[7] Light Weight Satellite Experiments

a. Creation of Visible Objects

There are a number of reasons for wishing to have an easily visible satellite. In

particular, precision orbit determinations will probably be done optically, and it is clearly

desirable to have a satellite which reflects or emits a considerable amount of light. At night

a flashing light with a brightness of 105 candlepower or more would be just visible at about

1000 mi range, provided the duration was about 0.1 sec or more. An alternative method

is the creation of a large reflecting object such as a balloon or erectable corner reflector.

Such an object to be seen optically or visually must be near the twilight zone of the earth,

so that the observer can see the sunlit reflector against a darkened sky. Under such

40 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
conditions a 100 square foot diffuse reflector appears like a first magnitude star at about

200 mi (depending on the angle between the Sun and observer), and can still just be seen

by the naked eye at about 2000 mi range. Naturally, with telescopes one can do much

better, if one knows ahead of time where to look for the satellite.

With the sort of precision orbit determinations which can be obtained with optical

tracking it is possible to do a number of important things, namely:

• Determination of air drag at high altitudes, from which atmospheric density can 

be derived.

• Geodetic measurements on the size and shape of the earth.

• Lunar mass, for orbits passing near the moon.

• Ion densities, when coupled with certain precision radio techniques.

[8] b. Total Atmospheric Thermal and Solar Radiation Measurements

A satellite is in an ideal position to measure the total flux of radiation in and out of the

top of the atmosphere. The incoming radiation, being primarily from the Sun, is largely in

the visible part of the spectrum, while the outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is infrared

plus the solar radiation which is scattered and reflected upwards. These various fluxes can be

sampled by a set of omnidirectional bolometers with coatings which are designed to absorb

selectively a certain part of the spectrum. For example, a bolometer which is white in the visible

but black in the infrared beyond about four or five microns, will respond to the thermal radiation

from the earth and atmosphere, while one with the reverse spectral characteristics will measure

the direct and reflected sunlight. Further, a directional detector of visible radiation pointed

towards the Sun would, of course, monitor the incoming solar radiation alone. (Such a

scheme is included in one of the I.G.Y. earth satellites.)

The purpose of this set of measurements is to determine the radiational heat budget

of the earth and atmosphere. It is known that an excess of radiational energy is added to

the atmosphere in low latitudes and that there is generally a net loss of energy from the

Polar regions. An understanding of this energy imbalance is basic to an understanding of

the general circulation of the atmosphere. Further, such a set of radiation measurements,

provided that there were a reasonably fast response, would give a rough indication of the

thermal inhomogeneity of the atmosphere and earth. It is likely that a measure of this

inhomogeneity would provide an indication of the strength of the cyclonic and

anticyclonic circulation. During periods of strong meridional transport of energy by the

atmosphere there are rapid migrations north and south of warm and cold air masses, [9]

and these could probably be distinguished by their thermal characteristics.

c. Mapping the Cloud Cover

On the sunlit side of the earth the contrast in the visible and near infrared between

clouds and ground or open water is considerable, and it has been demonstrated

dramatically by the use of rocket and balloon photography that the existing weather can

be traced by the large area cloud patterns. These cloud patterns can be determined from

a satellite by various means. A first approach, in which the scanning of the surface by

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 41
photocells is performed by the uncontrolled rotation of the satellite, is being developed

for the IGY program. In this case the reconstruction of the picture is complicated,

however, and the data handling capacity of the telemetering link places an upper limit on

the amount of coverage and degree of resolution.

The purpose of such an observation would be to show the cloud patterns over a large

area of the earth with a degree of completeness unobtainable with present surface

observation networks. For research in meteorology, this will throw new light on the way in

which storm systems start and develop, on the broad pattern of flow, on the effects of

mountain barriers, etc. If refined to the point where the observations can be made

available to meteorologists immediately, it would represent one of the greatest advances

ever made in meteorological data gathering, and would surely improve short-term

forecasting-and hurricane predictions.

d. Time Fluctuations of Solar Ultraviolet and X-Radiation

Solar ultraviolet and X-ray intensities are quite variable, and appear to depend greatly

on solar activity. Both X-rays and the ultra-violet are enhanced during a solar flare, in

some wavelength regions by an order of [10] magnitude or more. These fluctuations have

corresponding effects in the earth’s atmosphere. Increased output of hard X-rays, for

example, causes a pronounced D-layer and an associated interference with radio

communications. An increase in the intensity of near ultraviolet solar light could

contribute to the marked temperature excursions that have been noted in the ozone layer,

and such temperate excursions undoubtedly interact with the surrounding wind patterns.

Since solar ultraviolet light and X-rays have such a pronounced effect on the

atmosphere and since their fluctuations are associated with important related effects, it

should be very fruitful to monitor these solar wavelengths over a long period of time, say

for a year, for the purpose of correlating the ultraviolet and X-ray intensity-time curve with

weather, radio, the ionosphere, airglow, winds, etc. Because these solar radiations are

absorbed by the atmosphere, the logical place to monitor them is from above the

appreciable atmosphere. This could be done in an artificial satellite orbiting entirely

above 200 miles altitude. By using suitable windows and gas fillings, photon counters and

ionization chambers can be constructed to respond only to radiation within a restricted

band. (Such a photon counter, sensitive to Lyman-alpha radiation, is being flown on an

early I.G.Y. satellite.) With such detectors, various bands from the near ultraviolet down to

the hard X-rays could be monitored. Payloads on the order of fifty pounds should be

adequate to permit coverage of a number of important wavelength bands in a single

installation having indefinite duration of operations.

e. Distribution of Hydrogen in Space

The hydrogen population of interplanetary and interstellar space has [11] been a

subject of much interest and speculation. On the basis of astrophysical observations, the

current estimate is about 1000 atoms per cc in interplanetary space and about 1 atom per

cc in inter-stellar space, but the basis for this is uncertain.

42 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
The density of hydrogen in space could be determined by observing the hydrogen

Lyman-alpha radiation received from space and comparing it with solar Lyman-alpha

radiation. Hydrogen ions in space would emit a more or less steady background of Lymanalpha as they captured electrons. Hydrogen atoms would fluoresce under irradiation by

solar Lyman-alpha, and this fluorescence would fluctuate directly with the solar curve. By

analyzing the total Lyman-alpha intensity into the steady and solar-dependent

components, one could then determine the relative densities of hydrogen ions and atoms.

With suitable calibration the absolute densities could be determined.

The ionization chambers to be used to study solar Lyman-alpha radiation from an IGY

satellite could also be used as the detectors for the hydrogen density experiment.

f. Extragalactic Light

Among the many radiations which strike the top of the earth’s atmosphere, the light

frown sources beyond our own galaxy is one of the most interesting, insofar as it

contributes to the profound understanding of the astrophysical nature of the universe.

The intensity of this extragalactic is already known to be quite weak in comparison with

the light from our own galaxy, and its spectral character is known to be heavily shifted to

the red. These facts alone are subject to an immediate cosmological interpretation viz. the

expanding nature of the universe.

[12] The expanding universe hypothesis can be submitted to more specific test by

detailed. measurements of the spectrum of extragalactic light and by the distribution of

its intensity with respect to galactic latitude.

Such observations are impossible with ground-based or balloon-borne apparatus due

to the great overburden of other radiations originating in the earth’s upper atmosphere.

They might be thought possible with vertically fired rockets which surmount the major

emitting layers of the atmosphere; but the intensity is judged to be so weak that the several

minutes of a rocket flight provide an inadequate period of time for significant

measurement. The long time duration of a satellite’s flight appears to be necessary in

order to accumulate significant data.

The proposed apparatus consists of several high sensitivity, photoelectric telescopes

equipped with a variety of spectral filters – all operating in the visible region of the

spectrum. This experiment seems properly classified as an exploratory one. Results are

not assured, but if they are obtained they will be of very far-reaching and 

profound significance.

g. Cosmic Ray Observations

The objectives of a cosmic ray experiment would be: (a) to make comprehensive

observations on the total intensity of the cosmic radiation as a function of latitude,

longitude, altitude, and time; (b) to investigate the presence of the nuclei of lithium,

beryllium, and boron in the primary cosmic ray beam, and if present, to measure their

intensities; and (c) to study, as in (a), the intensity of the heavy nuclei separately from the

total intensity. Interpretation of the results of (a) and of (c) should yield a crucial test of

the theory of the deflection of charged cosmic ray [13] particles approaching the earth

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 43
through the geomagnetic field and should yield new information on the nature and

importance of interplanetary magnetic fields. The data of (b) should settle one of the

leading questions on the astrophysical origin of cosmic rays and on their propagation to

the earth. The data from (a) and (c) should provide a greatly improved understanding of

the systematic and sporadic fluctuations of the primary radiation, their astrophysical

causes and their consequences on the rate of secondary cosmic ray phenomena within the

atmosphere. A special question is whether the solar sources of cosmic rays yield the same

distribution of nuclear species as that of the usual primary beam.

h. Primary Auroral Particles

The polar aurorae (“northern and southern lights”) are caused by the interaction of

energetic charged particles with the upper atmosphere. Due to their charges, they are

deflected by the earth’s magnetic field and are focused on the polar regions. It has been

established that the intensity of these streams of auroral particles change rapidly,

apparently due to changes in the Sun.

In order to observe these particles it would be necessary to have a satellite on a high

inclination orbit, since the flux is concentrated towards the poles. By means of simple

satellite-borne detectors it will be possible to map out the impact zones of the primary

auroral particles on the top of the earth’s atmosphere and to observe their changes locally

and worldwide with time to a degree not ever likely to be approached by ground

observatories. It will be possible to rapidly compare the northern and southern zones of

incidence and to efficiently study the ways in which the position and configuration of

these zones are influenced by and correlated with geomagnetic [14] field disturbances.

The temporal variations of the incidence of auroral radiations can be

comprehensively correlated with observable activity on the Sun to an extent not presently

conceivable by any other method. In addition, the nature of the primary auroral

radiations (e.g. protons, electrons, heavy particles, etc.) can be comprehensively studied,

as can their intensities and energy spectra. A comparison of these data with those from

ground observatories should be very fruitful in establishing the physical processes which

are induced in the earth’s atmosphere.

These auroral observations are closely related to observations of the geomagnetic

field. Indeed it would be desirable, for mutual support, to have two satellites aloft

simultaneously – one carrying a magnetometer and the other carrying auroral radiation

detectors. Eventually it may be possible to have a single satellite carry both types 

of apparatus.

i. Micrometeorites

There are various estimates of the number of micrometeorites striking the earth’s

atmosphere, but few actual measurements. For the IGY it is planned to count such

particles in one or two satellites. The limited instrumentation and limited time of

operation of the equipment will, however, leave unanswered such questions as: What is the

mass spectrum? What is the energy spectrum? What are the fluctuations in total intensity?

How are these particles related to visible meteor showers? In a satellite capable of

44 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
operating over a period of a year most of these questions could be answered using

calibrated microphones, thin diaphragms with photocells to observe punctures,

electrostatic analyzers, and the like.

[15] j. Magnetic Field

The earth’s magnetic field is mainly due to the magnetization of the Earth itself, a

property which can be quite accurately measured by ground level surveys. However, the

variations in this main field of external origin, amounting to as much as 7 per cent, say,

are due to a variety of current systems in the ionosphere and above. (There are current

systems induced in the earth also, but these are presumably secondary effects due to the

phenomena at great altitudes.) A major source of geomagnetic variations are the direct

current systems in the lower part of the E-region, which are below the satellite altitudes.

However, at much greater distances, perhaps an Earth radius or more, there may be

another highly variable current system known as the “ring current.”

With a satellite borne magnetometer flying over a monitoring magnetometer on the

ground making a simultaneous measurement of the magnetic field, it is possible to

determine the horizontal flow of current between the ground and the satellite. The same

technique can be used with two satellite magnetometers as they pass over each other.

Thus, it is possible to map the electric current systems throughout the region of the 

ring current.

The use of vertical rockets to do this same thing has already been mentioned. In some

ways a rocket is superior to a satellite for magnetic measurements, since it can make a

vertical profile from the ground up and thereby determine where the electric currents lie.

However, these currents are highly variable, and a satellite permits a determination of how

they vary in time, how they are related to solar activity, and how they may vary in the

horizontal. The ideal approach would be to use rockets and satellites in combination,

thereby obtaining a more complete map of the [16] geomagnetic field in three

dimensions and in time.

k. Ionospheric Observations

The ionized layers of the ionosphere (D, E, F1, F2, G) generally lie between 80 and 300

or 400 km. They are therefore mostly below the level of the satellite. A number of effective

methods have been suggested for measuring the total free electron density between the

satellite and the ground, one being a measure of the difference between the angle of

incidence of the radio tracking signal and the optical line-of-sight as the satellite passes

over a tracking station. This requires no additional experimental equipment beyond the

minitrack and optical networks set up for the I.G.Y. program. Another observation

yielding total electron densities is the rotation of the plane of polarization of the radio

wave due to the Faraday effect. Such an observation requires a high gain antenna with a

dipole to sense the plane of polarization.

Another class of satellite radio experiments would make use of the satellite as a known

source of radiation to measure certain aspects of the fine structure of the ionosphere. It

is observed that radio stars fluctuate, and these fluctuations are in part due to ionospheric

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 45
inhomogeneities of various sorts, some of which are in the F-region. A satellite would

permit a mapping of these horizontal inhomogeneities (sometimes known as

“ionospheric lenses”), both in the horizontal and in the vertical, since the satellite may at

times be below the F-region. An especially interesting aspect of the irregularities in

ionization of the upper atmosphere is the pattern of the auroral clouds, streamers,

draperies, etc. These patterns are marked by visual radiation, as is well known, but they

are also regions of intense local ionization. The radio signal from a satellite in the auroral

zone [17] would be influenced by the auroral ionization, and presumably a study of the

fluctuations would tell a great deal about the character and distribution of the ionization

in this region.

It should be borne in mind that the gross structure of the ionized layers can be

measured from the ground continuously with ionospheric recorders, and that the general

features of the ionosphere are already quite well understood. Furthermore, it was pointed

out above that the fine structure of the ionospheric layers can probably best be obtained

by a rocket which penetrates rapidly through the ionosphere, recording successive

changes in “radio depth” as it goes. Until such additional experiments have been made it

will be difficult to design satellite experiments specifically for ionospheric studies; it is

certain, however, that the experiments described above can be invaluable by-products of

any satellite experiment which provides a more or less steady signal with stable frequency

and known polarization.

To date, no experiment has been proposed which can measure the free electron

distribution above the top of the ionosphere from a single satellite without serious

difficulties due to the dominant effects of inhomogeneities in the ionosphere itself, which

tend to mask any second order effects at the satellite altitude. However, the distribution

of free electrons above the ionosphere would be of great significance. The use of two

satellites, with a two-frequency transmission link between them, offers an apparently

feasible solution.

l. Biological Experiments

Biological experiments should be instituted at the earliest opportunity in the satellite

program, since they will be crucial to the eventual attainment of manned space flight.

There appear to be two main areas of [18] concern: The biological effects of prolonged

exposure to the radiation in space, ranging from cosmic rays to the various solar

emissions; and the subtle and complicated effects of prolonged weightlessness. With

regard to the first, a program of exposure of biological samples and live animals to cosmic

radiation at high altitude by balloons has been underway for some time, and at the

altitudes atainable [sic] by balloons (over 100,000 feet) the cosmic radiation is essentially

the same as at satellite altitudes. There are other kinds of radiation, such as solar ultraviolet and X-rays, which do not penetrate to balloon altitudes, but these can be

reproduced conveniently in a laboratory. Thus the use of a satellite for the study of

radiation effects on biological specimens does not appear to be too rewarding. However,

for the study of prolonged weightlessness there is no known substitute for a vehicle

floating freely in space. Biological specimens and live animals have been successfully flown

and recovered from high-altitude rockets, having been exposed to a few minutes of

weightlessness. The second Soviet satellite carried a dog, thereby lengthening the

46 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
duration of the period of weightlessness ad mortuum. The U.S.I.G.Y. satellite program

includes a biological sample (yeast). These first attempts to study weightlessness will have

to be greatly expended in the future. 

Advanced Satellite Experiments

a. Selective and Directional Thermal Radiation Measurements

Since certain constituents of the atmosphere, such as water vapor, ozone, and carbon

dioxide, have strong absorption lines in the infrared region of the spectrum, a detector

looking downward which is sensitive only in these regions does not “see” the earth’s

surface. Instead, it detects the radiation emitted upward from the upper levels of the

constituent, the [19] radiation from the layers below having been absorbed by the

atmosphere. Thus, for example, a detector looking down at around 9.6 microns (in a

strong ozone band) would receive the thermal emission from the top of the ozone region

at about 10 to 30 km altitude; a detector looking down at around 6 microns (in a strong

water vapor band) would receive the emission from the top of the troposphere at 8 to 10

km, above which there is relatively little water vapor. A quantitative measurement of the

thermal radiation in one of these narrow spectral intervals gives a measure of the

temperature (and, to a second order, density) of the emitting layer. A more detailed

analysis of the variation of this emission with zenith angle can give the vertical

distribution of temperature in the emitting layer. This experiment would require a

considerable degree of orientation control, particularly the measure of the “limb

darkening” just described. To be most meaningful, the record for an entire satellite

circuit should be complete, probably requiring data storage and retransmission over a

telemetering station.

The purpose of such a set of measurements would be to map the effective

temperature of various layers high in the atmosphere. Some of these layers are

inaccessible to conventional sounding balloons, and even those which are accessible can

only be sampled at a few points. As meteorologists have obtained progressively more

information about the synoptic conditions in the upper atmosphere (using balloons and

occasional rockets to date), they have gained more insight into the behavior of the

atmosphere, and weather forecasting ability has gradually improved. However, balloons

cannot penetrate the part of the atmosphere which is affected by solar ultraviolet

radiation below about 0.3μ (the ozone cutoff). It seems [20] reasonably certain now that

short-term changes in solar radiation have an immediate effect on parts of the upper

atmosphere, and that these effects propagate slowly downward in a complicated and as yet

unexplained way. A synoptic satellite observation of the kind described would probably

provide a direct measurement of the immediate effects of a solar disturbance on the

thermal structure of the atmosphere. It would, therefore, be a key to the development of

a physical basis for long-range weather prediction.

b. Astronomical Spectrograms

A spectrograph mounted in an artificial satellite would be able to photograph the

Sun, planets, and stars completely free from interference by the atmosphere, thus

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 47
extending the sensitivity far into the ultraviolet end of the spectrum and permitting a

much more detailed study of these bodies than is now possible.

Spectrographs to do this job are in essence available. Suitable light collectors would

have to be designed. A pointing control would be necessary. Such a control could

probably be worked out much along the lines of those now used in rockets, and would

have a total weight less than thirty pounds. To retrieve the film, it would be necessary to

work out techniques for recovery of a capsule from the satellite orbit (or of the satellite

itself); however, such techniques have already been proposed and are considered to be

feasible within the expected weight limitations. A less desirable alternative would be to

analyze the data photometrically and transmit it back via the radiotelemetry link.

c. Ultraviolet Photographs of the Sun

Much of the photochemical and dynamical activity in the Sun is associated with the

emission of ultraviolet radiation. Photographs of the [21] Sun in various regions of the

ultraviolet should permit localization of regions associated with the respective wavelength

emissions, and would be an important aid to understanding solar activity.

Suitable filters and U.V. sensitized films are available for making such photographs. If

necessary, pointing controls similar to those already used in rockets could be constructed

for directing a camera at the Sun. It would probably be desirable (but not necessarily

essential) to recover the film after the pictures had been taken; however, as indicated in

experiment b, it is believed that suitable techniques could be developed.

d. Planetary Spectrograms

A variation of experiment b. would measure the spectra of the various planets in the

ultraviolet and infrared. All of the central. planets have visible atmospheres, but the

composition of these atmospheres is difficult to observe spectrographically from the

ground due to the presence of the, same or similar gases (in differing proportions) in our

own atmosphere. For example, the solar ultraviolet radiation reflected from these planets

is completely absorbed by our atmospheric ozone, and large segments of the infrared

radiation which is emitted are absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, plus

other trace constituents such as methane, nitric oxide, etc. A satellite would have a clear

view of these planets.

The radiation from than is very weak, however, and would require quite accurate

positioning of the spectrograph in order to provide long exposures with limited angular

fields (in order to minimize the cosmic and stellar background). Moreover, it would

probably be most desirable to recover the spectra in the form of exposed plates, though

it is possible to telemeter the information to the ground 

[22] e. An Experimental Test of the General Theory of Relativity

One of the predictions of the general theory of relativity is that the fundamental time

scale of atomic phenomena (e.g. frequency of emitted spectral lines) is influenced by the

gravitational potential in which the emitting system is located. This prediction has received

48 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 49

thus far only a very few observational verifications and even these remain in a somewhat

controversial state. It is conceivable to mount a so-called caesium or thalium “clock” in a

satellite and a similar one at a ground station and intercompare the rates of these two

clocks over an extended period of time. By the general relativistic theory, it is expected that

there would be a systematic difference in the rate of running of these two “atomic clocks”

due to the known difference of gravitational potential to which they are subjected.

The effect is a small one and it appears that accumulated observation over a period

of the order of a month may be required to surmount reasonable experimental errors in

location of the position of the satellite and in ionospheric conditions. (Both effects, of

course, influence the transit time of the transmitted intercomparison signal from the

satellite to the ground station.)

A proposal is known to be currently under consideration for a similar

intercomparison between clocks, one of which is located on a mountain and the other in

a neighboring valley. However, if the technical problems can be adequately solved, it may

be desirable to utilize a satellite for a more sensitive test of this very profound theoretical

hypothesis under different conditions.

f. Solar (Cosmic) Radio Noise in the HF and LF Spectrum

High frequency radio waves below about 5 Mc cannot penetrate the [23] ionosphere,

and even radio waves at 20 Mc are sometimes totally absorbed. Thus, it is not possible to

observe from the ground the lower frequency end of the radio noise which comes from

the Sun and beyond.

A satellite would, of course, not suffer from ionospheric absorption, but the signal

levels in this region are low and the antennas required to obtain much gain have to be

large. However, by using large erectable reflectors or lenses to concentrate the signals and

to obtain directionality measurements could be made.

g. Collection of Micrometeoritic Sales

If techniques can be worked out for recovery of the satellite or of small capsules from

the satellite, a long-period collection of micro-meteorite particles could be obtained.

These samples could be collected in containers filled with something like silicone grease,

which could be opened while the satellite is on orbit and then closed just before the

recovery operation was begun.

********

[38] 6. Manned Space Flight

Although it is impossible to predict how quickly man himself will follow his exploring

instruments into outer space, the inevitable culmination of his efforts will be manned

space flight and his landing on the nearer planets. It is clear that he can develop the ability

to do this, and it is hard to conceive of mankind stopping short when such a tempting goal

is within reach.
The attainment of manned space flight, however, cannot now be very clearly justified

on purely rational grounds. It is possible, at least in principle, to design equipment which

will do all the sensing needed to explore space and the planets. Mobile vehicles could be

designed to land and crawl across the face of each of these distant worlds, measuring,

touching, looking, listening, and reporting back to earth all the impressions gained. They

could be remotely controlled, and so could act like hands, eyes, and ears for the operator

on earth. Moreover, such robots could be abandoned without a qualm when they ran out

of fuel or broke down.

Though all this could be done in principle, there may be a point at which the

complexity of the machine to do the job becomes intolerable, and a man is found to be

more efficient, more reliable, and above all more resourceful when unexpected obstacles

arise. It is, in a sense, an article of faith that man will indeed be required to do the job of

cosmic exploration personally– and, furthermore, that he will want to do the job himself,

whether required to or not.

With man’s first venture into outer space a new program of research and exploration

will begin. The program described above will therefore be the dramatic prelude to the

even more dramatic conquest to follow.

Document I-2

Document Title: “Report of the Working Group on Space Research Objectives, Special

Committee on Space Technology,” 14 November 1958.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics created a Special Committee on Space Technology

in the aftermath of Sputnik, and that committee continued its work even as NACA became the core of

the new space agency, NASA, which came into existence on 1 October 1958. The committee expanded

on Kellogg’s report and other suggestions for initial steps in space science; its thinking formed an

important basis for NASA’s initial space science program.

[Stamped: Official Use Only]

[no page number]

Report of the

WORKING GROUP ON SPACE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Special Committee on Space Technology

The Working Group’s recommendations to the Special Committee on Space

Technology with regard to the scientific objects of a National Civil Space Research

Program are concerned with the following categories of space flight:

50 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
I. Vertical Atmospheric Probes

II. Earth Satellites

III. Lunar and Solar System Probes

IV. Manned Space Flight and Exploration

and are summarized in the following paragraphs.

I. Vertical Atmospheric Probes

There are apparently no firm plans for continuing the experiments on the upper

atmosphere beyond the expiration of the International Geophysical Year program. It is

the recommendation of the Working Group that the IGY effort in probing the earth’s

atmosphere by vertically fired rockets and by balloon flights be extended beyond the IGY

period at substantially the present level of activity. The Working Group further

recommends that immediate attention be given to maintaining and operating the IGY

research facilities at Ft. Churchill, Manitoba, and to providing rocket launching facilities

in the Antarctic and from suitable islands.

II. Earth Satellites*

A program of scientific research with earth satellites is naturally tied closely to the

practical matter of vehicle and propulsion system capabilities. From consideration of the

possibilities it appears convenient to classify the recommended experimental objectives

and research equipment in terms of compatibility with satellite payloads in three order-ofmagnitude categories, 30 pounds, 300 pounds, and 3,000 pounds, as follows:

[2]

A. 30-pound (or smaller) satellite payloads

1. Non-directional monitoring of radio-frequency radiations. Of particular

interest are those wavelengths absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere.

2. Observations in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum – wavelengths 1,000 to

3,000 angsgroms [sic] – in which the astrophysically important lines lie. This

region of the spectrum is inaccessible to observation below an altitude of

about 100 kilometers due to atmospheric absorption.

3. Exploratory ultra-violet observations in the far ultra-violet region of the

spectrum – wavelengths less than 1,000 angstroms.

4. Studies of auroral radiations and of the interplanetary plasma.

5. Cosmic ray exploration.

6. X-ray exploration.

7. Gamma ray exploration.

8. Extra galactic radiation.

9. Observations on meteors, particularly meteor showers.

10. Magnetic field measurements (scalar magnitude).

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 51

*“Research in Outer Space - The Basic Objectives of a Continuing Program of Satellite Research”. U.S. National

Committee for the International Geophysical year, SCIENCE, Vol. 127, No. 3302, 11 April 1958, presents more

complete discussions pertinent to most of the investigations suggested in this section.
11. Measurements of radiation energy balance of the earth.

12. Observations of cloud cover.

13. Measurements of atmospheric density.

14. Measurements of refraction of radio waves by the ionosphere.

15. Experiments with powered communications repeaters (10 kc/sec 

band width).

16. Biological experiments.

It is the opinion of the Working Group that a firing rate of one satellite per month in

the 30-pound-payload class would represent a proper level of national effort for the abovelisted [3] research program, at least until such time as 300-pound satellites become

available. It is the further recommendation that the number of separate experiments per

satellite flight be kept to a minimum in the interest of simplicity and reliability. It follows

from this recommendation that it may be wise to continue the use of small satellites even

after larger ones become available.

B. 300-pound satellite payloads

1. Ultra-violet stellar spectrometer (star tracking required).

2. Directional and selective cosmic ray experiments.

3. Solar ultra-violet telescope.

4. Mass spectrometry of low-energy particles.

5. Vector magnetic field measurements.

6. Meteorological reconnaissance satellite for observations and facsimile

transmission of cloud patterns, etc.

7. Passive communication sphere (100-foot diameter reflective balloon).

8. Relativistic red-shift experiment (precision required is 1 part in 1011, which

may be possible with atomic clocks).

9. Biological experiments with small animals.

10. Navigational radio beacon.

The Working Group suggests that a firing rate of satellites in the 300-pound class of

approximately one every two months, beginning in 1959, would provide the proper level

of support for the program outlined.

C. 3,000-pound satellite payloads

1. Large solar telescope (of the order of 36-inch diameter).

2. Large stellar telescope (36-inch diameter).

3. Long-wave (λ >10 meters) radio telescope or interferometer (telescope

diameter in the order of 300 feet or larger).

[4] 4. Gamma ray telescope and spectrometer.

5. X-ray telescope and spectrometer.

6. Manned vehicles – prelude to space flight.

7. Meteorological satellites for routine, continuing operations.

8. Broad-band communication repeater (6 mc/sec band width).

52 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
A firing rate of satellites in the 3,000-pound class of approximately one every four

months, beginning in 1961, is considered to represent a proper level of effort in support

of the research program outlined.

III. Lunar and Solar System Probes

1. Radio telescopic tracking beacons for vehicles on and in the vicinity of 

the moon.

2. Seismic measurements on the moon’s surface by means of explosions and

suitable detectors.

3. Magnetometer or plasma measurements for lunar magnetic field studies.

4. Measurement of density and composition of lunar atmosphere.

5. Study of interplanetary plasmas and interplanetary magnetic fields.

Experiments of, the kind listed above appear to be possible with the propulsion

systems capable of putting large satellites in orbit. For example, it is estimated that a

vehicle capable of launching a 3,000-pound earth satellite can be used alternatively to

accomplish the following: Send a payload of. about 700 pounds to a hard landing on the

moon; send a 500-pound payload to the vicinity of Mars or Venus; send a 100-pound payload to a soft landing on the moon. From a longer range viewpoint, the following broad

exploratory objectives with respect to the moon and with respect to other planets may

be listed:

6. Planetary and-satellite surfaces.

7. Planetography.

8. Atmospheric circulation – clouds.

[5] 9. Chemistry – rocks, erosion.

10. Magnetic fields

11. Ionosphere.

12. Biology, ecology, paleontology.

IV. Manned Space Flight

The Working Group endorses manned space flight and exploration as proper

objectives of a national program of space research.

SUPPLEMENTARY. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMARKS

A. Component development.

In connection with the implementation of the space research objectives, the Working

Group calls attention to the vital need for reliable, long-lived, and efficient instrumentation

system components, and strongly recommends an early beginning of a sustained program

for their development. An expenditure of approximately 10 percent of available space

research funds for component development is suggested as a reasonable level of support.

The following list compiles some of the important items in need of early 

development effort:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 53
Equipment, Components, and Techniques:

(With emphasis on low weight, high reliability, operation over wide temperature

ranges, mechanical ruggedness, and long life).

1. Electrical power supplies for on-board instrumentation.

a. Storage batteries with increased reliability and cycling efficiency with specific 

outputs of greater than 40 watt-hours per pound.

b. Photovoltaic cells with high efficiency and low weight.

c. Solar heat engines.

d. Power supplies using radioactive isotopes.

e. Nuclear reactors in the range from 5 to 10 kilowatts.

[6] 2. Communications and electronic components.

a. Long-lived and reliable microwave tube with low power consumption (minimum 

life 10 hours).

b. Information storage devices.

c. Photoelectric image tubes with long integration time (of order 1 hour) and 

long life.

d. All passive components, which include resistors, capacitors, insulation, etc.

e. Vacuum tubes.

f. Transistors, diodes and other semiconductor devices.

3. Equipment for control of orientation of apparatus and entire vehicles.

4. Devices for control of temperature of on-board apparatus.

B. Operational Control, Data Reception and Processing.

The Working Group recommends that there should be an adequate worldwide

network of tracking and data receiving stations. In addition, it is proposed that there

should be established a central laboratory or station for direction and coordination of

flights, reception and processing of telemetered data, computation of orbits,

communications, and the like.

C. Launching Sites and Nature of Orbits Required.

The Working Group calls attention to the vital importance of high inclination orbits

for the proper execution of many of the programs of research observations listed above.

For other of the programs equatorial orbits are more desirable. Hence the establishment

of new launching sites suitable for these purposes is recommended as an 

early undertaking.

A perigee altitude of approximately 250 miles will likely be adequate for most of the

experimental satellite programs for the next several years. For certain experiments (e.g.,

magnetic field and auroral observations) orbits of high eccentricity are desired. For others

(e.g., communications relays) low eccentricity orbits are preferable.

54 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
[7] D. Use of Obsolescent Military Vehicles.

In many cases large economies can be effected by using obsolescent military vehicles

or combinations of such vehicles. It is recommended that close liaison be maintained with

the military establishment in this connection.

E. Recovery.

Physical recovery of payloads is of special importance in biological and medical

experiments and as a preparation for manned space flight. It will also be of value in

certain physical experiments; though it is not as essential there

F. Grants and Contracts.

The Working Group recommends a greatly expanded program of grants and

contracts for the accomplishment of many of the objectives listed herein.

G. Biological and Medical Research.

The Working Group on Space Research Objectives has given relatively cursory

consideration to biological and medical research in view of two facts:

(a) The Special Committee on Space Technology has another Working Group on 

Human Factors and Training.

(b) The National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the 

American Institute of Biological Sciences will hold a four-day symposium (14-17 

May 1958) on these specific topics.*

H. Classification and Security.

It is recommended that the national space research program be conducted on an

unclassified level insofar as feasible without risk to the national security in order that the

scientific talent of the country may participate to the fullest extent and in order that

fruitful international cooperation may be developed.

Document I-3

Document Title: NASA Discussion Group on Orbiting Solar Observatory Project,

“Minutes of Meeting,” 23 May 1959.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 55

*The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Possible Uses of Earth Satellites in Life Sciences Experiments will

be published by the University of Michigan Press, probably in mid-1959.
In 1958, John Lindsay, along with several of his colleagues, moved from the Naval Research

Laboratory to the new NASA to form the core of NASA’s initial space science staff. In May 1959,

Lindsay assembled a “discussion group” of those who were interested in solar research to discuss an

initial NASA project in the area. Out of these discussions emerged what became known as the Orbiting

Solar Observatory project.

[1]

8 June 1959

MINUTES OF MEETING

NASA Discussion Group 

on 

Orbiting Solar Observatory Project

NASA Headquarters

Washington, D. C.

23 May 1959

SUMMARY OF GROUP ACTION

1. The initial meeting of a group interested in the NASA Orbiting Solar Observatory

Project was held at 9:00 a.m. in the 9th Floor Conference Room of the NASA Technical

Building, Washington 25 [sic], D. C.

2. There was no action that required the attention of the Administrator.

3. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the technical, scientific, and engineering

possibilities of placing a solar observatory in orbit.

4. The first Working Group meeting will be arranged by the Chairman; no date nor

location was suggested.

[2] In attendance were:

John C. Lindsay, NASA, Office of Space Sciences - Chairman 

Edward T. Byram, Naval Research Laboratory 

Talbot A. Chubb, Naval Research Laboratory 

Robert M. Crane, NASA, Ames Research Center 

Robert Davis, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 

Richard B. Dunn (for Walter O. Roberts), High Altitude Observatory 

Laurence Dunkleman, NASA, Office of Space Sciences

Warren Gillespie, NASA, Langley Research Center 

Harry Goett, NASA, Ames Research Center 

Leo Goldberg, University of Michigan 

Fred T. Haddock, University of Michigan 

Robert Jones, NASA, Ames Research Center 

56 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
James E. Kupperian, NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center 

William Liner, University of Michigan 

James Milligan, NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Roger C. Moore, NASA, Office of Space Sciences 

Joseph J. Nemecek, Naval Research Laboratory 

William A. Rense, University of Colorado 

Nancy G. Roman, NASA, Office of Space Sciences 

Gerhard F. Schilling, NASA, Office of Space Sciences 

Morton J. Stoller, NASA, Office of Space Sciences 

William C. Triplett, NASA, Ames Research Center 

William A. White, NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center

After a short introduction by G. F. Schilling in which the purpose of the meeting – to

discuss the technical, scientific and engineering possibilities of placing a solar observatory

in orbit – was stated, the meeting was turned over to J. C. Lindsay.

Lindsay opened the discussion by presenting some of the background material and

requirements for the project. An instrument will be used to point a satellite at the Sun.

Three satellites are being considered. The launching vehicle in each case is expected to

be the Thor-Delta which has a total payload capacity of the order of 300 pounds. The

pointing control system with a desired pointing accuracy of 1o of arc will approximate

about half the payload weight, leaving about 150 pounds for the experiment and its power

supply. A circular orbit of 300-500 miles is contemplated and the satellite should have a

minimum lifetime of one month. The [3] package, probably spherical, should withstand

a temperature range of 15o-115o F and vibration testing of 20g.

Two types of pointing control instruments are being considered. One system

essentially is a gyroscope spinning 2 rps with the spin axis perpendicular to the radius

vector to the Sun. Attitude is accomplished by using the satellite’s precession motion.

Equipment can be mounted on the pointing control platform and in the rim of the

spinning fly wheel. The second pointing control system removes the initial angular

momentum by transferring it to a set of throw-away fly wheels. This system is more

complex than the above scheme which is basically a one-step increase over rocket controls

now in use.

Many questions were raised regarding optical packaging and equipment

arrangements within the satellite. It was pointed out that since a fixed time schedule and

known vehicle were involved elaborate ideas should be kept to a minimum. Since no final

decisions have been made, however, the only set requirements are those originally stated

regarding weight, etc.

The expected operational lifetime of one month was questioned and raised some

concern. The lifetime of the first scheme depends on the helium needed to run the jets. Of

course, a larger supply of helium at the expense of equipment for experiments would result

in longer life. The lifetime of the second scheme, also one. month, depends on the batteries

to run the stabilization fly wheels. Solar batteries would increase the expected lifetime, but

the system-would be less economical and require a longer time scale for development. No

firm answer was given regarding a desired lifetime for the observatory although it wasmentioned that six months to a year would be desirable. On the other hand, it was suggested

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 57
that a six-month life was important if individual solar regions could be studied. The group

agreed that the lifetime problem should be investigated very thoroughly.

Possible Experiments

Robert Davis – Smithsonian – was interested in a tag-along experiment on the solar

camera pointing at something other than the Sun or in a slit spectrograph pointed at

Sirius. This experiment, it was felt, was more suited to a rocket or X-15 airplane. Further

discussion raised the possibility of need for an interim vehicle to point at stars.

[4] Leo Goldberg – University of Michigan – was interested primarily in the large

orbiting astronomical observatory and would like to use this vehicle as a preliminary

experiment. They Would install one of their three spectrographs, perhaps in the 600-1500

Å range. The scheme requires 3-axis stabilization but might be workable with 2-axis.

Details of the experiment would depend on the answers to the questions raised regarding

equipment arrangements and expected lifetime. Goldberg remarked he would like to

know where the instrument is pointing exactly and suggested scanning the Sun in a fixed

manner, say along a solar diameter with repeated operations after moving a small amount.

He also requested a copy of the artist’s conception of the pointer and mentioned that he

would like to fly radio equipment in the same vehicle.

Fred T. Haddock – University of Michigan – Radio equipment would not be

appropriate without optical equipment. Equipment required would be a sweep frequency

receiver with its beam directed toward the Sun, a magnetic recorder, and 30 pounds of

batteries, a total of 50 spinning pounds. The receiver would be in the 5-30 Me range and

would require 1-2 kilowatt hours for steady operation. A short antenna, either a 3'

diameter loop or a 30' whip erected after launching, would be needed. Ground station

operations also were necessary. Haddock suggested that the listed weights could be

lowered, which lead Lindsay to read typical STL (Space Technology Laboratories)

package weights. The group requested copies of this published information.

William Liller – University of Michigan – would like to scan the Sun in the light of one

line. This raised the scanning issue. The group preferred to wait on their answer, but

indicated that they would require probably only a slow scan of 1’ of arc in 1m of time.

William A. Reuse – University of Colorado – Using an Eschelle spectrograph with high

resolving power, Colorado wants to monitor the Lyman Alpha profile as a function of time

for neutral cloud detection, a portion of the Lyman continuum in the 890-910 Å range to

determine cloud organization, and the 303 Å radiation. No total weight estimates were

given although the optical parts would be about 45 pounds.

William A. Rense for High Altitude Observatory – With a coronograph mounted in,

the satellite, HAO would hope to get spectra of the corona in the near or possibly even

the far ultraviolet. [5] The project, including pointing control, would cost 

approximately $80,000.

58 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Richard B. Dune (for Walter O. Roberts) – High Altitude Observatory – Using the

313-1216 Å range the Lyman continuum would be monitored continuously for 

meteorological effects.

Talbot A. Chubb – Naval Research Laboratory – was interested in a general purpose

instrument with a long life. Chubb was in favor of placing all pointing controls in the

wheel of the satellite, leaving the stabilized platform free for experiment. He would mount

a telescope or spectroscope on the platform with separate azimuth and elevation drives in

the wheel. Separate power supplies for the wheel and platform also were desirable. Since

he basically was interested in making measurements from one place on earth the satellite’s

orbit would have to be a very long one. This experiment requires an appreciable angular

momentum although Chubb felt it might be done without.

General Remarks

Lindsay asked the group if they felt the smaller, less expensive solar observatory would

be useful even after the large astronomical observatory had become available. There was

general agreement from the group and specific agreement from Goldberg and Chubb. It

seems desirable, therefore, to consider a scheme for orienting the optics of the instrument

after the satellite has been launched.

Lindsay also wondered to what extent the group was interested in correlated ground

based programs. There was no clear agreement on this question although people seemed

reluctant to commit their institutions to full-time space work.

Roman wondered what people would be willing to sacrifice experimentally to gain

extended satellite life and 3-axis stabilization. Goldberg suggested a table of weights vs.

gain to answer this question.

Goldberg was interested in a summary of the pointing control schemes available and

the group wanted the specifications of the pointing control finally selected for 

the experiment.

Schilling suggested that interested parties in the group send advance proposals

containing budgets for the next 6 to 12 months and additional requirements to Lindsay.

NASA connected groups should submit memos. Formal proposals should be sent to NASA.

The first Working Group meeting for this project will be arranged by Lindsay.

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m., 23 May 1959.

Document I-4

Document Title: Letter from Walter Orr Roberts, President, University Corporation for

Atmospheric Research, to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, 26 June 1961.

Source: Archives, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 59
Once the Orbiting Solar Observatory project was well under way, NASA began planning for a followon project. An initial meeting to define the scientific objectives of the project was held at the new

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, which was operated by the

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). In this letter, UCAR President Walter Orr

Roberts communicates his thinking on research objectives to Dr. Leo Goldberg, a Harvard astronomer

with a particular interest in solar research. Dr. Goldberg was chair of one of the committees of the

Space Science Board working to define space science efforts for the 1960s and beyond. The “HAO”

referred to in Roberts’ letter is the High Altitude Observatory, also operated by UCAR.

[no pagination]

UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

26 June 1961

Office of the Director

Boulder, Colorado

Dr. Leo Goldberg 

Chairman, SSB Committee 2

Harvard College Observatory

Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Leo:

You no doubt have seen Ned Dyer’s memo of 2 June to members of SSB Committee

2, asking for projects and proposals for space research within the framework of the

COSPAR recommendations of last April. Many of the topics listed in the

recommendations fall outside the scope of NCAR and HAO. However, I so want to

comment on several items in which we are involved to some degree. The reference

numbers are those of the list of resolutions in the memo.

12) Solar Spectrum.

We have no specific plans for taking spectra of the solar disk or corona from beyond

the atmosphere of earth. We have had some interest in a far uv coronagraph — but have

not moved beyond very general thinking and are clearly not at a proposal stage yet. I feel,

however, that it is most important to maintain reliable and essentially continuous

photometric standardization between surface and space measurements of spectra,

especially of the corona. New data taken in space will lose much of their meaning and

usefulness if they cannot be related reliably to the accumulation of solar spectral data

from surface observatories. Because of this consideration, it is disquieting to note that the

efforts to maintain continuous and high quality standardized coronal observatories at

various stations have been deteriorating in recent years.

HAO and Sac Peak continue to calibrate all coronal spectra with reference to the solar

disk as the photometric standard. Zirin and Firor are currently developing an application

of the photoelectric image tube to the Climax spectrograph, based on some preliminary

work last year. We expect that this technique will result in standardization of improved

60 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
accuracy, as well as a more detailed analysis of the coronal emissions. However, coverage

is not all it should be. And the ground back-up for evaluating space spectra may be

inadequate unless this aspect of a solar activity service is not pushed.

We are currently renovating the HAO 5-inch coronagraph system at Climax,

improving the optical system and making some changes for greater flexibility of

operation. We are also in the midst of construction of a 16-inch coronagraph and

spectrograph system, which we expect to have in operation sometime next year. This large

system will be used however, primarily for detailed investigation of limited features and

processes, rather than for general patrol observations.

13) Solar Constant; 14) Spectroheliograms.

No program planned here, but I would like to emphasize the comment under (12),

on the importance of adequate standards to provide ground-based back-up for 

space photometry.

15) Solar Coronagraph.

Note comments under (12). In addition, HAO is actively interested in observation of

the K-corona, having developed and operated, during IGY, an instrument for mapping the

K-corona by polarization measurements at the surface. This instrument will continue to

be available at Climax. We are also interested, tentatively, in adapting the K-coronameter

for balloon or satellite use. Space observatories appear indispensable for continuity in

observations of the corona; but I believe that the balloon may offer advantages in accuracy

for selected supplementary observations, and may permit observations out to substantial

coronal heights.

16) Interplanetary Medium.

Again, I believe that accurate correlation of surface and space observations is of

highest importance, and need supplementation. HAO’s part, so far, has been to operate

a radio interferometer inthe 8-50 Mc/s range, under Warwick’s direction, principally on

the Sun, radio stars, and Jupiter. This instrument is capable of localizing radio noise

sources on the Sun, and thus of developing correlations between radio emissions and

flares or other optical events. Such ground-based radio and optical observations of

eruptive solar events can be of great value in coordination with space measurements in

the interplanetary medium. Solar events can be expected to produce variations in the

density, speed, and temperature of the interplanetary gas, in the magnetic field, and

possibly other parameters of the medium. Again, the significance of such measurements

will be greatly enhanced if they can be accurately related to surface observations.

19) Solar Events and Cosmic Rays.

Coordination of cosmic-ray and solar observations, particularly during the IGY, has

greatly enriched our understanding of these phenomena. We feel that IQSY requires

improvement, not relaxation, of this coordinated effort. In particular, the flare-patrol

network needs to be improved particularly as to resolutions (both space and time), to

record small flares and other minute or faint disk features that are of relatively minor

importance during solar maximum phase. Intensified observations of the K-corona,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 61
zodiacal light from space, and magnetic observations of the disk are especially important

in connection with the problem of M-region disturbances.

In addition to the solar observing activities already mentioned, HAO will continue to

assist the University of Chicago and the University of Maryland by providing a location and

routine maintenance at Climax for two cosmic-rays recording systems. These instruments

already have produced valuable evidence of relationships between solar activity and

cosmic-ray inputs to the earth.

22) Meteorological Rocket Network.

NCAR is actively interested in the development of meteorological rocket observations.

Because of the early stage of development of our organization, the extent and direction

of our interest is not yet clearly formulated. However, NCAR is sponsoring a conference

next month of representatives of the participants in the meteorological rocket network in

this country. The purpose of this meeting is primarily to evaluate alternative measurement

techniques for temperature and density above 100,000 feet from the standpoint of

accuracy and reliability.

26) Formation of Panel on Synoptic Rocket Soundings.

Again, because of the early stage of NCAR’s development, we can only express interest

in this area in a general way. While our research interests obviously may develop in various

directions, we are particularly interested in experiments and observations that will help

clarify the dynamics of the mesosphere. Consequently, we heartily approve the formation

of the Panel, and will be interested in considering possible means of cooperation with it

as our activities develop.

These are my feelings—developed rather hastily—as to the ways in which definite or

tentative programs and activities at HAO and NCAR can relate to the space objectives

outlined in the COSPAR resolutions. Undoubtedly modifications in these prospects will

develop; I hope some of these can be in the direction of still more effective participation

in a closely coordinated surface-space program of investigations.

With best regards.

Cordially,

[signature]

Walter Orr Roberts

62 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Document I-5

Document Title: Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences—National Research

Council, A Review of Space Research, 1962.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The 1962 summer study on space research, organized by the Space Science Board at the University of

Iowa, was a seminal event in defining future U.S. space science efforts. Participants in the study

included those from all disciplines who were interested in space science and NASA staff. This is the

excerpt from the report of the summer study which deals with solar research.

[2-1]

Chapter Two

ASTRONOMY*

I. Introduction

Since 1947, when the first ultraviolet spectrograms of the Sun were obtained from

above the atmosphere with sounding rockets, astronomy has been on the threshold of a

long-awaited era. With the launching of NRL’s Solar Radiation Satellite I and, now,

NASA’s stabilized Orbiting Solar Observatory I, the narrow bounds which the terrestrial

atmosphere has always imposed on the exploration of the full astronomical spectrum are

breached still further. The spectrum opens out, not for just the few precious seconds when

a sounding rocket or the X-15 climbs the apex of its quick trajectory, but for weeks and

even months at a time.

The Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO), with its complement of various detectors,

marks the first in a carefully planned series of orbiting observatories, some to observe the

Sun and some the stars. Successive members of the series will grow in power and

versatility; the detailed designs are well advanced for the next three or four. Launchings

of all spacecraft planned at present will occur within the next four years, if the existing

schedule can be maintained. Some tentative plans are already being made for the orbiting

observatories that will first go into service in 1967 and later years.

The successful flight of the first OSO is therefore highly portentous for all of

astronomy. While it is still in orbit, and its successors are still abuilding, the time is ripe for

an independent reassessment of the whole astronomy program. This has been one

objective of the Space Science Summer Study. We have tried to steer a middle course

between a study that is so broad that its conclusions find no applications in the present

conduct of the NASA program, and one that is so detailed that it attempts to judge the

scientific utility and/or engineering feasibility of every specific experimental proposal.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 63

* See Appendix III for list of participants in the Working Group on Astronomy [appendix omitted].
FINDING: In broad outline we endorse the present NASA astronomy program.

[II-5] III. Orbiting Solar Observatories

A. General Considerations

There is little disagreement among solar astronomers on the broad and important

questions now awaiting solution. These questions can be listed briefly.

(i) Evolution: What is the origin and course of evolution of the Sun and similar stars?

(ii) Internal Structure: What are the details of the processes by which energy

progresses outward from the center of the Sun? What is the composition and physical

state of the Sun at all levels? What is the origin of the solar magnetic field and the

solar cycle?

Answers to the foregoing questions lean heavily on theoretical studies and laboratory

work on properties of atoms. The following questions are more directly related to present

solar observations:

(iii) Photosphere: What are the physical conditions in the photosphere? What is the 

spectrum of the turbulence observed there? 

(iv) Chromosphere: What is the structure of the chromosphere? In particular, how 

can one account for the increase of temperature with height which continues into 

the corona?

[2-6]

(v) Solar Activity: What is the origin and energy supply of the many sporadic 

phenomena observed on the Sun — sunspots, flares, radio bursts, etc.?

(vi) Corona: What is the form of the outer corona? How does it connect with the 

interplanetary medium?

Those scientists studying the Sun at the present time feel the need for improvements

in observational capabilities in at least two respects that are uniquely attainable by space

facilities. These are angular resolution and wavelength range.

1. Angular Resolution. A number of problems of interpreting phenomena on the

Sun depend at present on improved knowledge of the fine structure of the solar

atmosphere. This is true for problems of photospheric turbulence, chromospheric

models, the physics of active solar regions, and the heating of the chromosphere and

corona. Most of the world’s solar astronomers are now engaged in studying one or more

of these problems. Solutions to these problems depend strongly on better angular

resolution.

There are some opportunities for improvement in the resolution in observations

made from the ground. With full exploitation of such techniques as the utilization of good

observing sites, the suppression of turbulent air currents in and around the telescope

dome structure (sometimes done by discarding the dome altogether), shutter control by

photoelectric seeing monitors, very short exposures, and possibly other techniques, the

64 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
number of photographs of solar features with resolution of 1 second of arc or better will

be greatly increased.

In the special case of the height gradients in the solar chromosphere, a ground-based

technique is available which allows even better effective resolution. During a typical solar

eclipse, observations of the chromosphere closely spaced in time during totality record

the emission from the narrow region of the chromosphere covered or uncovered by the

Moon’s motion during the short time interval between observations. The height

resolution so obtained is equivalent to that which could be derived from direct

observations with a resolution of 1/10 second of arc.

Experience to date with the balloon-borne telescope for photographing white-light

features of the solar disk demonstrates that a resolution of 1/2 second of arc can be

dependably obtained at 80,000 feet altitude. The limit arises in part from solar heating of

the mirror and of the small amount of air still in and around the telescope.

Each improvement of angular resolution in the ground-based and balloon

observations contributes to the understanding of solar phenomena. It is important to

realize, however, that none of the improvements and techniques suggested in the

preceding paragraph, with the special exception of the eclipse observations, can obtain

a resolution smaller than the scale height of the phenomena observed. In the higher

solar atmosphere the temperature and scale heights become very large and the

resolution obtained with ground-based measurements may be smaller than the scale

height; however, current disagreements in the temperature of this region as determined

by different methods can be interpreted as being due to an as-yet-unobserved fine

structure in the corona.

[2-7] The resolution needed to make major progress in an area is not always known. In

the case of the spectrum of photospheric turbulence a resolution of 1/10 second of arc

should be sufficient. Pictures of active features of the chromosphere and low corona made

at the limb of the Sun with a resolution of 1 second of arc or slightly better show features

at the limit of resolution of the picture. Similarly the quiet chromosphere has features

which visual observers claim are finer than anything yet photographed.

FINDINGS: In summary, it seems clear that the capability of photographing or

otherwise recording solar features with an angular resolution of 1/10 second of arc is

needed now and would produce great advances in solar physics. This requirement

cannot be met from the ground, nor from any solar spacecraft now being planned.

There seems to be no reason why the pointing and stabilization techniques being

developed for the OAO cannot be adapted to a solar observatory. The development

of such a spacecraft represents the next important task for solar astronomers to take

up with the active support of NASA.

2. Wavelength Range. Almost all of the visible light from the Sun originates in a layer

of the Sun’s atmosphere, the photosphere, which is a few hundred kilometers thick.

Higher layers are therefore difficult to observe using visible light, not only because of the

obscuring effect of the bright photospheric light, but also because the higher layers,

having conditions of temperature and density quite different from the photosphere,

radiate mostly in wavelengths outside the visible band. Similarly, the active features of the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 65
Sun, such as active prominences and flares, represent a wide range of physical conditions,

and a complete description of these phenomena requires observations made over broad

wavelength regions outside the visible.

For two reasons the extension of satellite observations to the ultraviolet and X-ray

region seems more important at present than an extension to the infrared. First, the

infrared radiation comes principally from the upper photosphere, and its observation may

not tell us much that is not already deducible from observations in the visible. Infrared

observations would actually favor regions of lower temperature than the photosphere, and

most of the solar atmosphere above the photosphere is at a much higher temperature

than the photosphere. Second, much of the infra-red emission from the Sun can be

observed from the ground and, even better, from balloons through a series of

atmospheric windows; this field is far from being fully exploited.

Much effort has already gone into ultraviolet and X-ray observations of the Sun

from rockets and satellites. Rocket-borne instruments have sampled the ultraviolet and

X-ray emissions, and have photographed and scanned the spectrum of the Sun from

the visible down to about 100 Å. The first OSO has given repeated scans of the farultraviolet spectrum over several weeks and has thereby demonstrated that the line

emission in this wavelength range is variable, some lines increasing in intensity at times

of solar flares.

The needs for improved angular resolution and for extension of measurements to

shorter wavelengths are not, of course, independent. We confidently predict that the need

for angular resolution in the ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths will be similar to those

needs already developed in the visible wavelengths.

[2-8] B. Present OSO Program

The OSO (S-16) has opened up the ultraviolet and soft X-ray wavelengths for

essentially continuous observation. The scheduled S-17 will add the capability of scanning

the disk of the Sun at particular ultraviolet wavelengths with a scanning aperture of about

1-1⁄

2 minutes of arc, and will provide routine monitoring at Lyman-∀, He I8584, and He

II8304 with 1-minute resolution, and in two X-ray bands. The S-17 will also explore the

possibilities for detecting the visible light from the outer corona, taking advantage of the

lower intensity of interfering scattered light outside the atmosphere.

FINDING: We foresee a continuing need for explorations of the solar spectrum and

recommend that S-16/S-17 type flights be continued at the rate planned by NASA,

about two launchings per year for several years.

The need for continued use of the OSO will not come exclusively from the

requirements of solar physics. For example, the study of the ionosphere and the higher

regions of the Earth’s atmosphere is dependent on a quantitative description of ultraviolet

radiation incident on the atmosphere. One sensitive technique for measuring the height

gradients of terrestrial atmospheric constituents is the measurement of the solar

ultraviolet spectrum as a function of height of the spectrometer or photometer carried in

a sounding rocket. Success of this technique depends in part on a satellite monitor of the

66 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
solar ultraviolet spectrum so that the height curves may be corrected for solar variability

during the sounding rocket flight.

The OSO is especially needed in the next few years for observations to be used in

studies of flare prediction. (See the section on ground-based solar observations for a

discussion of this point. [omitted])

C. Advanced OSO Program

Possible design specifications for an advanced OSO, as explained by NASA

representatives, assume a Thor-Agena B launch and a polar, slightly retrograde, orbit.

They provide for payload space which would allow optics 10 feet long and up to 22 inches

in diameter, pointing accuracy of 5 seconds of arc, pointing stability of 1 second of arc for

5 minutes, and various raster scans of selected regions of the Sun by the whole spacecraft.

Data storage could be 40 x 106 bits/orbital revolution.

These specifications describe a spacecraft which is a major improvement over the S17 in two respects: (i) in the pointing accuracy and stability and (ii) in the size of optics

that can be carried. The great need for stable pointing stems from the requirement for

improved angular resolution discussed above. The need for longer and heavier optics will

certainly arise, both because of the long focal lengths required to make use of the highresolution capabilities, and because of the need for high spectral resolution to analyze in

detail the ultraviolet and possibly visible spectrum. The proposed spacecraft is therefore

the next logical step needed to advance solar physics.

[2-9] RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that NASA develop, for solar observations,

a spacecraft more advanced than the present OSO, to be ready for use in late 1965 or 

early 1966.

Certain auxiliary instrumental development must progress rapidly if full advantage is

to be taken of the advanced OSO. Foremost among these is the consideration of the

thermal problems of high-resolution optical systems pointed at the Sun. If the problem of

thermal stability of the optics can be solved, the projected pointing stability of 1 second of

arc for 5 minutes and the payload diameter of 22 inches hold the possibility of

approaching, with short exposures, the desired 1/10-second resolution. Full utilization of

such high resolution requires also the existence of electrical read-out image tubes of

several-thousand-line resolution (see Section VII.A of this chapter [omitted]) and the

commitment, at least occasionally, of the entire memory to this image device.

Document I-6

Document Title: Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences—National Research

Council, “Space Research: Directions for the Future,” 1965.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 67
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The Space Science Board convened another wide-ranging space science summer study in 1965, this

time at Woods Hole Massachusetts. Once again, a group interested in solar research was part of the

summer study. This excerpt from the study report contains their assessment of the state of solar research

and its future direction.

[cover sheet]

SPACE RESEARCH

DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

REPORT OF A STUDY

by the

SPACE SCIENCE BOARD

WOODS HOLE, MASSACHUSETTS

1965

Publication 1403

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D. C. 1966

[177]

[chapter] III Solar Astronomy

1. INTRODUCTION

AIMS OF THE WORKING GROUP

As part of a summer study of space science by the National Academy of Sciences, the

Solar Astronomy Working Group met at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, from June 21 to July

3, 1965. In many ways this study can be regarded as a follow-up to a similar conference

held at the State University of Iowa in 1962, the proceedings of which have been published

as “A Review of Space Research” (Publication No. 1079 of the National Academy of

Sciences-National Research Council).

The direct objective of the Solar Astronomy Working Group was stated as follows: “To

examine future needs of, and opportunities for research in solar astronomy, using all

space techniques ranging from orbiting observatories more advanced than the Advanced

Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO) and possible manned facilities, to small satellites and

sounding rockets.”

Scientists participating in the work of the Working Group on Solar Astronomy are

listed in the Appendix. The recommendations of the Working Group are listed at the end

of this Section; the discussion leading to these recommendations is found in Section 2.

68 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
SOLAR ASTRONOMY AND SOLAR SPACE ASTRONOMY

At the beginning of a report on solar space astronomy, it is appropriate to emphasize

the unity of solar research, and to point out that observations from space and observations

from the ground are simply two aspects of a [178] single venture. Clearly, if one wants to

obtain all possible information about the Sun, one uses every means at his disposal; one

must never forget that space and ground-based astronomy are partners–not

competitors–and the knowledge to be gained from using the two together is very likely

greater than the sum of the two used separately. If, for example, the time development of

flares could be followed in the light of He I λ584 from a spacecraft and in the light of He

I λ 10830 from the ground, it would be far more valuable to observe a particular flare

simultaneously in both lines than simply to observe any flare in either line separately.

There are three major reasons why the Sun is important: first, because of its intrinsic

interest as the only nearby star; second, because of its effect on the planets and, 

in particular, the Earth and the human race; third, because it is a valuable 

astrophysical laboratory.

As the only star on which detailed observations can be made, the Sun holds a unique

position in stellar astronomy. Because the disk of the Sun can be resolved, single features

– sunspots, prominences, granules, and flares – can be observed, and spectral scans across

the disk from center to limb can be made, which in turn give directly the temperature and

density in the photosphere as they vary with depth. The solar atmosphere can be used as

a standard against which theories of stellar atmospheres and spectral-line formation can

be tested. Stellar spots and cycles of activity can at present be studied in detail only on the

Sun. Theories of convection can be tested on the Sun, where granulation and

chromospheric microstructure can be seen. Chromospheres and coronas are seen

nowhere else in as great detail as on the Sun. Finally, the Sun is a stable, main sequence

star that serves as a photometric and spectroscopic standard for stellar work. Every new

piece of information about the Sun contributes to our comprehension of the stars.

Knowledge of the Sun is indispensable to an understanding of the physics of the Earth

and other planets. The Sun is the source of virtually all the heat and light a planet receives.

Photon flux from the Sun causes dissociation, excitation, and ionization of atoms and

molecules in planetary atmospheres, produces ionospheres, maintains planetary heat

budgets, causes escape of atmospheres from the planets, is responsible for weather, and

controls any life that exists on the planets. Particle flux from the Sun affects planetary

ionospheres and magnetic fields, produces auroras, fills the interplanetary region, and

changes the chemical abundances by producing nuclear reactions in planetary

atmospheres. In addition, solar radiation (photon and particle) affects the Moon, comets,

meteoroids, and asteroids, as well as grains in interplanetary space. In fact, the whole solar

system can be viewed as being imbedded in the outer solar corona.

The importance of the Sun to life can scarcely be overemphasized: solar energy

ultimately sustains practically every living organism – both plant and animal. Radiation

from the Sun has also controlled the atmosphere and environment in which life has

developed, and thus has been the principal determinant in shaping the course of

evolution. Biology is [179] therefore interested not only in the present radiation (photon

and particle) from the Sun but also in any changes that may have occurred during the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 69
Earth’s history. With the dawn of the space age, an upsurge of interest in exobiology – life

outside the Earth – has taken place. This has increased the demand for an intimate

knowledge of all solar radiation, especially in the ultraviolet and x-ray regions of 

the spectrum.

A subject deserving special consideration under the general topic of the effects of the

Sun on its environment is the effect of the Sun on man. Living as he always has, on Earth,

where the atmosphere shields him from the harmful radiations of the Sun, man has

tended to look upon the Sun as completely benign. With the coming of the space age and

man’s emergence from within the protective atmospheric envelope, however, the problem

of shielding astronauts from solar radiation must be faced. Solar protons (and possibly x

rays) emitted at the time of solar flares pose the most serious danger. If man is to work in

space, outside of a heavily armored module, the Sun must be constantly monitored so that

the astronaut will have immediate warning of any solar event from which radiation might

be sufficiently intense to force him to re-enter his spacecraft. Further knowledge about the

nature of flare events, which would enable scientists to better predict their occurrence or

better shield the astronaut, would be of substantial benefit.

Ever since Janssen’s discovery of helium on the Sun, it has been apparent that the Sun

can be used to complement the terrestrial scientific laboratory, for there are available in

the Sun combinations of temperature, density, and path length quite beyond terrestrial

capabilities. Although its potential value in this respect has not been fully utilized (and is

perhaps not clearly appreciated by all scientists), the Sun has been exploited as a

laboratory by workers in several branches of physics. The measurement of precise

wavelengths of spectral lines from highly ionized elements in the corona was used by

Edlen to determine a number of atomic parameters otherwise inaccessible. Recently, both

in this country and abroad, scientists have used the Sun as a source for spectra of

wavelengths that are not otherwise producible in the laboratory. In the same way,

observation of many strong lines near 170 Å in the solar spectrum stimulated efforts in

several laboratories to obtain spectra from highly ionized atoms in an attempt to identify

these solar lines. As the ultraviolet spectrum of the Sun is examined more carefully, one

may expect to gain important new knowledge of atomic physics and spectroscopy. The

Sun has also been, and still is, important for studying nuclear reactions and testing

theories of nucleogenesis. The solar atmosphere provides – in such features as spicules,

the corona, and the convection zone – a large-scale laboratory in which phenomena of

aerodynamics and hydrodynamics can be observed. In fact, observations of the outward

particle flux from the Sun have stimulated a great deal of important work on the solar

wind and interplanetary plasmas. Finally, the Sun provides unique opportunities for the

study of plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. In addition to the solar atmosphere

[180] itself, which can be regarded as a giant plasma, such features as sunspots,

prominences, flares, and the corona are examples of the interaction between plasmas and

magnetic fields. The Sun is a readily available source in which many waves and oscillatory

phenomena of interest in magnetohydrodynamics–acoustic waves, magneto-acoustic

waves, electromagnetic waves, and Alfvén waves–occur naturally. As solar research

progresses, discoveries of interest to several disciplines will undoubtedly be made, and

many new uses will be devised for our convenient astrophysical laboratory.

In summary, we emphasize once again the central position of solar astronomy and the

70 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
contributions that it makes to such fields as stellar astronomy, radio astronomy, planetary

atmospheres, interstellar matter, biology, atomic physics, and meteorology, as well as its

influence upon such very practical matters as radio communication on the Earth and the

safety of an astronaut.

Although the reasons for observing the Sun from above the Earth’s atmosphere have

already been listed in many places, we mention them once again in order to remove any

existing doubt concerning the benefits to be gained by putting telescopes into space. The

most obvious reason is the possibility of observing the ultraviolet and x-ray solar spectrum.

Gases in the Earth’s atmosphere completely block from our view all radiation with

wavelengths shorter than about 2900 Å. Yet this obscured spectral band is vitally important

in understanding the Sun for several reasons: the resonance lines of most elements lie

within it; it is emitted by the interesting region of temperature inversion just above the

photosphere; it contains many of the strongest coronal lines; and the most violent

variations of radiation with solar activity are observed within it. The preliminary work that

has already been done in the ultraviolet spectral band by means of sounding rockets and

satellites has added greatly to our knowledge of the Sun. More complete observations

(including x-ray and gamma-ray detection), offer the most fruitful means of

understanding the processes taking place in the upper solar atmosphere. It is especially

important for observations to be made during the years leading up to and through the

coming solar maximum of 1967-1970.

A related advantage, and one that has not often been discussed, is the opportunity to

observe the Sun in the far infrared – from 20 microns up to 1 millimeter. Our ignorance

of this region is almost complete; we do not even know the energy distribution, much less

any details of molecular bands or lines. Although the infrared is probably of less

importance than the ultraviolet, and for this reason has often been neglected in spacescience planning, there are several interesting observations to be made; for example, the

detection of the radiation from the photosphere-chromosphere interface (somewhere

between 20 and 200 microns) and observation of the molecular spectra of sunspots.

Questions about the temperature structure of cool regions (such as above sunspots and

near the temperature minimum) can perhaps be answered by observations at those [181]

wavelengths. Again, since the atmosphere of the Earth entirely prevents us from detecting

this radiation, such observations can only be obtained from space (perhaps, in this case,

airplanes or balloons would suffice).

A crucial advantage that could be obtained from space observation is the increased

resolution (clarity) of small features on the Sun. The developments of the past 20 years in

the theoretical and observational study of the dynamical and magnetic properties of the

quiet solar atmosphere and the many features of solar activity focus increasingly on the

smallest observable structures. Every improvement we achieve in spatial resolution reveals

new detail of the greatest significance. The size distribution of granulation, the fine

structure of magnetic fields, the stranded structure of loop prominences, the local variations

in line profiles, the turbulent velocity fields, and the minute structure in flares are examples.

Ground-based observation has carried us to the verge of solutions, but in most instances falls

short of the theoretically decisive resolution. While it is obvious that there will always be

interesting details too small to be seen with any resolution we may attain, many features of

the solar atmosphere should have a size scale in the neighborhood of the scale height.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 71
Except for the very thin layer at the base of the photosphere, the scale height is of the order

of 100 km or more. This corresponds to 0.14 sec of arc in angle. The practical resolution

limits of ground-based solar observation are about 0.5 sec of arc for direct photographs and

0.8 sec of arc in the best spectra. Resolution of this grade is the kind one achieves only on

very rare occasions in one lucky photograph or spectrogram. The limit is set by poor seeing

in the Earth’s atmosphere, and could be overcome by space observation.

Another limitation imposed by the Earth’s atmosphere is the brightness of the sky.

The bright sky near the Sun, at the best observing sites, is rarely less than 10 times the

brightness of the inner corona. Nevertheless, ground-based observation has successfully

detected the polarized component of the brightest streamers of the white corona out to a

height of one solar radius above the limb; however, direct measurement of the electronscatter brightness and detection of the corona beyond one radius are impossible except

during a total solar eclipse. Any continuous watch from the ground for outward-moving

plasma clouds is also out of the question. Since the sky is completely dark in space, we can

expect to monitor the Sun’s corona routinely from space vehicles, which will lead to major

advances in our knowledge of coronal processes.

A final important benefit to be gained from observation in space is the continuity in

time that can be obtained. Often, critical observations need to be extended for several

hours, days, or even months, in order to study the time development of certain features,

such as prominences and centers of activity. Such observations must ultimately be made

from satellites where they will be independent of terrestrial meteorological and diurnal

effects. Real-time monitoring of solar events will be accomplished by such satellites,

making communication delays short or nonexistent as [182] telemetry reception becomes

possible at the user’s site. As space observations become routine, close cooperation

between ground and space observations must be maintained for maximum benefit of such

solar monitoring.

CURRENT SOLAR PROBLEMS

Solar physics has as an ultimate task of describing completely the structure,

understanding thoroughly the dynamics, comprehending fully the origin and

development, aid predicting exactly the future evolution of the Sun. These ultimate goals,

which can never be fully attained, are perhaps best expressed in the form of more specific

questions that might be asked about the Sun. The following are some of the major

questions with which solar physics is now grappling. What are the details of the processes

by which energy is transferred outward from the center of the Sun? What is the source of

the sunspot cycle and solar activity? Why, and how, do solar flares occur? How are energetic

particles and photons produced? What is the detailed structure of the chromosphere, and

what is its connection with the corona and with magnetic fields on the Sun? What is the

nature and cause of spicules and prominences? Why is there a solar corona, and how does

it produce the solar wind and interplanetary medium? What is the origin and early history

of the solar system? What produces the equatorial acceleration of solar rotation? How is the

solar magnetic field produced and what is its effect on the solar activity cycle?

Such questions, which have been formulated and listed many times before, are the

grand questions toward whose solution all solar physics is directed. But these are too

72 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
comprehensive to be answered fully or even attacked intelligently. Instead, most solar

physics is directed toward the solution of much more specific problems in the hope that

the accumulated answers to many smaller problems may eventually provide answers to

these larger questions.

The following are some of the more important specific questions with which present

solar astronomy is engaged:

Photosphere. What are the size and velocity distribution of the solar granules? What

are the source and structure of the weak magnetic fields produced at the surface of the

Sun? What is the simplest nonhomogeneous model of the photosphere? What is the

relationship between the granules and the super-granulation? Why is there a temperature

inversion? What is the detailed variation of temperature with height through the temperature minimum? What is the vertical structure of features observed in this height range? Do

these structures vary with the solar cycle?

[183] Chromosphere. What is the morphological specification of the vertical structure

(including the size distribution)? What is the velocity distribution in this region and how

does it vary both horizontally and vertically? What is the detailed structure of the cells of

the chromospheric network? How does the magnetic field vary across the cell boundary?

Which features inside the cells are periodic in time? Are any observed features rotating?

Is the chromospheric oscillation vertical or horizontal? What determines its period? How

does the temperature vary horizontally across the chromospheric cells? How are spicules

produced? What is their microstructure? What are the magnetic fields in spicules? Why do

spicules seem to favor the edges of the cells? What other aerodynamic phenomena take

place in the chromosphere? What is the energy budget of the chromosphere? What types

of waves are propagated in the chromosphere and what are their results? What is the

temperature gradient as one passes from chromosphere to corona? What causes this

temperature gradient? What is the nature of the transition from spicules to the corona?

How should we interpret spectral lines formed in the absence of local thermodynamic equilibrium?

Corona. How is the corona heated? Is the corona localized over the edges of the

chromospheric cells? Is the corona in equilibrium? What is an M region? What is a coronal

streamer? What is the relation of streamers to the solar wind? What coronal phenomena

give rise to radio bursts and gusts in the solar wind? What is the magnetic field of the

corona and what is its effect on corpuscular streams? How do radio bursts escape from the

corona? Is there a difference in chemical composition between corona and photosphere?

Flares. What is the primary flare phenomenon? How do flares occur? What is the

source of energetic particles in a flare? Is the energy released primarily over a small hot

kernel? What is the relation of the flares to the surrounding magnetic field? How are flares

related to the coronal condensations? Are x-ray flares observable at extreme ultraviolet

wavelengths? How do active regions with intense magnetic fields arise? What is the

physical structure of active regions?

Sunspots. How is the observed brightness distribution across a sunspot maintained?

What is the physical structure of sunspots? What is the relation of the magnetic field to the

fine structure? How does the granulation behave inside the spots? What is the fine

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 73
structure of the umbra below the resolving power of Stratoscope I? What system of gas

motions exists around the sunspots?

Plages and Faculae. What is the microstructure of plages and of faculae? What is their

relation to each other? What oscillation takes place in the faculae? How are the faculae

related to the network cells? Is there a difference in coronal heating above faculae and

above active regions? 

[184] Prominences. Is there a basic lower limit to the size of filamentary structures in

prominences? What is the magnetic field in prominences? What is the mass and energy

balance between the corona, prominences, and the lower atmosphere? What causes

eruptive prominences? Why are loop prominences so extremely hot? What are their

special relation to solar flares?

ORGANIZATION OF THE PANEL

To meet its objective, the Working Group divided its assignment into three parts:

1) A critical review of the past and present NASA programs in solar physics and of the 

Prospectus 1965-1980;

2) An examination of major unsolved problems in solar physics and a specification of 

the instrumental requirements for their solution;

3) The recommendation of specific experiments that might be initiated in the three 

time periods 1965-1970, 1970-1975, and beyond 1975.

Certain other matters, such as the role of man in carrying out scientific observations

in space and the relation of laboratory work to the NASA mission, were discussed as part

of the solution of the problems of solar physics.

There are several alternative ways in which the Working Group could approach its

assignments. The physically most meaningful is the problem-solving approach, in which

the unsolved questions of solar astronomy (based on the list given above under Solar

Astronomy and Solar Space Astronomy) are considered and then observations are sought

that would aid in answering them. Experimenters generally prefer an instrumental

approach, in which knowledge of the characteristics of an instrument is used to determine

what observational data the instrument can obtain. A third possible approach might be

termed vehicular, in that the capabilities (size and weight of payload, pointing accuracy,

lifetime, orbit, power available, and data-storage and transmission capabilities) of the

planned vehicles are first examined and then it is decided which observations could be

made from them.

The Working Group favored the first approach, in general, as it felt that this approach

would ultimately be most fruitful from a scientific standpoint. Although other viewpoints

were adopted at times, an attempt was continually made to relate all discussions to the

basic questions of solar physics.

To facilitate the work of the Working Group and ensure complete coverage of the field

of solar astronomy, the Working Group was divided into four subcommittees. Since the

detection and analysis of solar electromagnetic radiation forms the principal source of

information about the [185] Sun, and since different regions of the spectrum come from

74 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
different parts of the Sun, a division according to spectral region is to a large extent a

division according to region or height on the Sun and hence according to basic questions

about the Sun. This division of labor to some extent combines the problem-solving and

instrumental points of view. The entire spectrum was therefore divided into sections and a

subcommittee was assigned to study each section. Included in the charge given to each

subcommittee was the request that it look ahead at least to 1975 and discuss problems,

instruments (including the role of man), and vehicles. The assignments were as follows:

a) λ < 500 Å: Lindsay, Teske, Zirin; 

b) 500 < λ < 1500 Å: Athay, Firor, Orrall; 

c) 1500 < λ < 3000 Å: Johnson, Smith, Tousey; 

d) λ > 3000 Å: Evans, Howard, Ney.

The reports of these groups were discussed by the Working Group as a whole and are

contained in Section 3. 

In addition, and partly as a result of the previous work, several informal

subcommittees were designated to study and make recommendations about such other

topics as the use of rockets, the role of man, the relation of the astronaut-observer to the

scientist directing the experiment, the role of the ground-based laboratory in the space

effort, and the question of a Moon-based observatory. Discussion and recommendations

concerning the findings of all subcommittees are found in Section 2.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The full texts of the recommendations of the Working Group on Solar Astronomy are

presented below.

Recommendation 1. (a) That the recommendation of the Iowa meeting (1962)

concerning fine pointing be given immediate attention and that highest priority be given

to the development of triaxially stabilized rocket attitude controls, leading, as soon as

possible, to a fine-pointing system capable of an accuracy of 5 sec of arc and optimally

designed for solar use. (This recommendation is essentially a reaffirmation of that made

by the Iowa Summer Study, and is restated here to reflect the importance which the

Working Group attaches to this matter: “We recommend that the sounding rocket

program continue to receive full support; and that both the inertially guided Aerobee

with fine pointing at selected stars, and the inertially guided Aerobee with fine pointing

at the Sun controlled by an optical sensor be made available at the earliest possible time.”)

[186](b) That other improvements (such as increased payloads and peak altitudes,

increased reliability, and more dependable recovery techniques) be made in existing

rocket systems;

(c) That the number of rockets available per year for research in solar astronomy be

at least doubled;

(d) That funds for payload development be increased to an adequate level, especially

when the triaxial pointing controls become available.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 75
Recommendation 2. (a) That the presently approved Orbiting Solar Observatory

(OSO) program be augmented by at least four additional launchings during the period

1970-1972 inclusive;

(b) That no decision be made to terminate the OSO program after 1972 without

further review at an appropriate time;

(c) That NASA make every effort to implement such desirable improvements in the

OSO spacecraft as increased power, offset pointing, localized raster scans, provision for

slightly longer instruments, greater data capacity and more flexible data format, and

improved pointing accuracy (15-30 sec of arc);

(d) That consideration be given to injection of one or more OSO spacecraft into a

polar retrograde orbit in order to provide continuous surveillance of the Sun.

Recommendation 3. (a) That a satellite with Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory

(AOSO) specifications is an indispensable next step in NASA’s solar program, and must

be flown close to the coming solar maximum;

(b) That the AOSO program be accorded all the priority necessary to maintain the

launch schedule shown in the Prospectus.

Recommendation 4. (a) That manned missions in the 1968-1972 time period, such as

the Astronomical Telescope Orientation Mount (ATOM) in the Apollo Extension

Systems, are desirable to supplement AOSO, but cannot replace it;

(b) That because it offers the prospect of providing answers to critical questions

relating to the technology of manned space telescopes and data recovery, the ATOM

concept merits vigorous support.

Recommendation 5. That solar space observation be included in the manned space

science program of the Apollo Extension Systems in order to develop the technology of

manned space astronomical operations. Such observations, which could attain resolving

power of 1 sec of arc in the wavelength region 500-3000 Å, mark the next logical step

beyond both AOSO and ATOM.

[187]Recommendation 6. That feasibility and design studies begin immediately on

orbiting solar telescopes of at least 1-meter aperture designed to obtain a resolution of 0.1

sec of arc at visible wavelengths and 0.5 sec of arc at far ultraviolet wavelengths (λ > 500

Å). Very large and complex accessory instruments will be necessary to analyze the solar

image. Erection, operation, and maintenance of this telescope will require full utilization

of astronaut-engineers and scientists.

Recommendation 7. That provision be made for a continuing, uninterrupted

experimental program while the more advanced manned flights are in preparation, with many

flights of various spacecraft, so that a scientist will have frequent opportunities for observation.

Recommendation 8. That NASA find means to continue a strong program with

relatively inexpensive rockets and small unmanned satellites at the same time the large

manned projects are under way, since the former are indispensable to the latter.

76 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Recommendation 9. That the relationship between scientists and astronaut-observers be

studied and clarified. In particular, we recommend that when a single, large scientific

instrument is carried, the scientific observation be designated the primary mission for the flight.

Recommendation 10. That NASA bring more scientists into the space flight program

as astronauts or observers.

Recommendation 11. That NASA move to provide additional support for groundbased solar studies. As the flight program grows in sophistication and success during the

next several years, the demands on ground-based work will also increase, and NASA

should in turn anticipate an increased demand upon its resources for support of groundbased facilities and operations. In addition, in the next few years, NASA should expect,

and respond favorably to, proposals for a few major ground-based solar installations.

Recommendation 12. That increased support be given to physical research in the

laboratory, as required to develop improved space instrumentation for solar-physics

research, to assist in the data reduction, and to make possible a full interpretation of 

the results.

Document I-7

Document Title: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, History of Orbiting Solar Observatory

OSO-B, X-440-66-322, April 1966.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

On 14 April 1964, a disastrous accident killed three men when OSO-B’s third stage ignited on the

test stand at the NASA launch center at Cape Kennedy, Florida, deeply clouding the future of the

program. Some of the parts of the craft were retrieved and refurbished, and a new satellite was built

and flown successfully in February 1965. This excerpt from the history of the spacecraft details the

causes of the accident and the steps taken to avoid a reoccurrence.

[2-1]

SECTION 2 

OSO-B DISASTER

2.1 EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DISASTER

The OSO-B spacecraft arrived at Cape Kennedy on 12 March 1964. Routine checkout

and preparation of the spacecraft and experiments took place until 9 April 1964, at which

time the payload was covered with a polyethelene bag, purged with dry nitrogen and

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 77
placed in its shipping container. The payload was stored in hangar AE to await the arrival

of the Delta third stage rocket motor.

Because of its heavier weight, the OSO spacecraft uses a rocket motor with a thicker

wall casing. When the motor arrived, it was given a receiving inspection, and it was

discovered that there was a defect in the rocket motor casing. This motor was rejected,

and a new X-248 A-6 rocket motor was flown down from Wallops Island, Virginia on 9

April 1964. The igniter paddle was removed from the rejected rocket motor to be installed

in the new motor. During the removal of this paddle it was damaged and a new Delta

paddle was built by the Naval Propellant Plant. The new Delta igniter paddle was flown to

Cape Kennedy on 11 April 1964 and installed in the third stage rocket motor. The rocket

motor was transported to the Spin Test Facility on 12 April 1964.

On 13 April the payload was removed from the shipping container, placed on a truck

and, at approximately 0400 hours, it was moved to the Spin Test Facility.

2.2 THE DISASTER

Between 0930 and 0939 hours EST on 14 April 1964, the third stage X-248 A-6 solid

propellant rocket motor inadvertently ignited and burned in the Spin Test Facility at Cape

Kennedy. The rocket motor with the spacecraft attached tore loose from the alignment

fixture in which it was mounted and shot to the ceiling of the facility. When it hit the ceiling,

the spacecraft was torn loose from the third stage motor and fell to the floor. The rocket

motor continued on to the corner of the building and burned until its fuel was expended.

Eleven men were burned - three fatally and eight others suffered injuries ranging from

critical to minor. The three men who died were not killed immediately but died as a result

of their burns within a couple days to a couple weeks after the accident occurred.

Eyewitness interviews after the accident indicated that the Douglas personnel had just

completed their ordnance checks of the third stage/spacecraft [2-2] combination. One of

the Ball Brothers Research employees stepped over to the spacecraft to adjust the

polyethelene shroud which was placed over tile spacecraft and third stage as a dust

protector and to purge them with nitrogen. As he touched the shroud a crackle was heard

and the third stage ignited.

2.3 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

A Fact-Finding Committee was appointed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Director. The committee was comprised of the following personnel:

D. G. Mazur, Chairman NASA-GSFC

W. D. Baxter, Lt. Col AFMTC

Dr. B. Bartocha NPP

R. H. Gablehouse Ball Brothers

E . E . Harton NASA Headquarters

E. H. Helton NASA-Wallops Island

L. T. Hogarth, Secretary NASA-GSFC

R. J. Johnson Douglas Aircraft Company

78 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
J. J. Nielon NASA-GLOB

L. R. Piasechi JPL

W. R. Schindler NASA-GSFC

R. Steinberger ABL

L. Swain NASA-LRC

The committee investigated the following items at the Eastern Test Range (ETR)

immediately after the accident to establish the circumstances surrounding the accident:

a. Hardware configuration at the time of the accident.

b. Eye witness testimony and reports.

c. Examination of the accident area including inspection and testing of 

significant items.

d. The time sequence of events leading up to the accident involving the rocket

motor and the spacecraft.

[2-3] e. Review of procedures.

f. Determination of possible causes.

g. Plans for tests to verify the possible causes.

The committee divided the investigation into four areas: (1) heat, (2) RF signal, (3)

electricity and (4) mechanical shock and/or vibration. The committee also undertook the

investigation of a similar accident which took place a few months earlier at the Oklahoma

Ordnance Depot at Pryor, Oklahoma, to determine if the two accidents were related. In

the Oklahoma accident, the Douglas Aircraft Company was preparing a destruct test of

the X-248 rocket motor in order to test a new Delta third stage destruct system. No one

was killed in this accident, but test equipment and a crane used for moving the rocket

motor were considerably damaged. One person received minor injuries.

The first of the investigative courses of action taken was to investigate electrostatic

discharge. This investigation was to determine possible modes by which an electrostatic

charge could have caused ignition of the X-248 A-6 motor. It was divided into five tasks

which were directed toward developing a comprehensive picutre [sic] of the electrostatic

characteristics of the spacecraft/motor configuration and the motor/igniter assembly.

The first of these tasks was to determine the electrostatic sensitivity of the X-248 squib.

The second task was to determine the electrostatic sensitivity of all bulk explosives in the

X-248 motor. Another task was to determine total and inter-element electrical

characteristics (resistance, capacitance, and charge storage) of the spacecraft/motor and

the motor/igniter under the application of both static and transient electrostatic voltages.

This task was also to establish the critical interelemental breakdown voltages and paths.

Task number four was to determine the electrostatic potentials and energies that could

have been present under the circumstances prevailing at the time. The final task was to

try to duplicate the X-248 inadvertant [sic] ignition in both the Eastern Test Range and

Oklahoma accident configurations.

Electrostatic sensitivity tests of the Delta X-248 squib were conducted by the Franklin

Institute. These tests consisted of discharging, through the squib, incremental voltages of

a 500 pico-farad capacitor through a 5000 ohm resistance to simulate the capacity and

resistance properties of a human being.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 79
Measurements of the electrostatic sensitivity of the X-248 bulk explosives were

conducted by the Naval Propellant Plant. It was determined from these measurements

that the X-248 bulk explosives could not have been a factor in the accident.

[2-4] Determination of the electrical characteristics of the spacecraft/motor and

motor/igniter were conducted by Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. They found that

relatively weak sources of electrical current, such as electrostatic charging phenomena, are

capable of building up large potentials between the dome and the nozzle of the motor with

the igniter assembly in place. The squib is polarized and has the ability to store electrical

energy. At voltages sufficiently high (250 to 1000 volts) to break down the dielectric in the

squib, the squib could supply sufficient energy to ignite the lead styphnate primer.

Determination of electrostatic potentials and energies that could have been present

under the circumstances at the time of the accident were investigated. The polyethelene

shroud used over the spacecraft was found to be an electrostatic generator and had

charge-concentrating areas that could charge the spacecraft to 15,000 volts if a

mechanism was available to transfer the charge from the cover to the spacecraft fast

enough. Rolling the cover up and down in a manner identical to the operation performed

at Cape Kennedy generated voltages on the spacecraft as high as 2500 volts and averaged

about 1200 volts. Wiping the plexiglass plate over the nozzle exit of the X-248

redistributed the charge on the plate and induced transient peak potentials up to

approximately 5000 volts on the igniter firing lead. It was also found that a man with or

without a Clean Room Suit (“bunny suit”) could easily generate, just by normal activity, a

charge sufficiently large that, if placed on the X-248 motor/spacecraft assembly, it could

increase the spacecraft potential about 3000 volts on contact with the man.

The tests were conducted with an inert motor and a live initiator. Six ETR

configuration firings were all produced by friction or movement of the polyethelene film

identical to that used for the OSO-B shroud around the body of the rocket motor.

Cornel [sic] Aeronautical Laboratory proposed several modifications to the igniter

assembly. A modified igniter assembly was fabricated and tested for the committee. The

assembly withstood 60 kilovolts discharged directly to the squib without ignition, and

subsequent tests were successful up to 100 kilovolts.

From the RF tests conducted by the Franklin Institute and the Picatinny Arsenal,

together with the RF data supplied by Eastern Test Range, it was concluded that the

accident was not caused by RF energy. It was also improbable that the accident was caused

by incompatibility or instability of the chemical characteristics of any of the igniter or

motor components.

[2-5] 

2.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee concluded that the cause of the ignition of the third stage rocket

motor at Cape Kennedy was an electrostatic discharge through the igniter squib. Cornell

Aeronautical Laboratory recommended the following changes to the X-248 rocket motor:

(1) use of a squib insensitive to electrostatic energies up to 25 kilovolts and 500 pico-farad,

(2) use of a resistive plug between the squib case and the bridgewire, (3) use of a Faraday

cage covering all sensitive parts of the squib assembly and (4) use of a conductive spray on

80 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
electrostatic sensitive portions of the paddle. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory

demonstrated that the last three of the forementioned [sic] changes are adequate to

insure against accidental squib initiation due to electrostatic discharges up to 100

kilovolts. In all subsequent Delta launches, an X-258 rocket motor was used instead of an

X-248 because it used an igniter assembly less sensitive to electrostatic discharges, and the

squib can be inserted on the launch tower.

Precautionary measures were also suggested which would apply to any solid

propellant rocket motor: (1) to avoid the use of non-conductive materials, especially

plastics, (2) to use squib arrangements which would permit installation as late in the

operation as possible, (3) to check the conductivity of each igniter--motor system planned

for usage to verify a low resistive path between all conductive components, (4) to strictly

adhere to proper grounding procedures whenever a solid motor is to be handled with or

without an igniter installed. It was also recommended that procedures for grounding

personnel, spacecraft, motor and associated systems and components should be carefully

considered for future rocket motor handling.

2.5 SPLIT BALANCE FACILITY REWORK

The possibility of a new Spin Test Facility was investigated; however, a new facility

could not be made ready until November 1965. It was decided to rework the damaged

facility for use in the Delta program. During the rework of the Spin Test Facility, the

following additional safety features were added to the building:

a. The pit in the southwest corner was floored over with portable decking which

can be removed if the pit is required for future operations.

b. A new personnel door was placed in the center of the north wall.

c. Roll up doors on the east end of the building were replaced with two 6 by 10

feet swing-type doors. The remainder of the original open-ing was replaced

with blast panels.

[2-6] d. Panic hardware was improved on all personnel egress doors. Blank latch 

facings were installed on the door frames.

e. The interior of the west wall of the building was covered with gypsum

wallboard to provide sealing and to retard fires.

f. The protruding tracks on the exterior of the west end of the building 

were removed.

g. An emergency audible warning system was installed.

h. A “Cone of Protection Lightning System” was installed around the facility.

i. The existing communication system was removed and replaced by an

explosion proof intercom system.

j. Conductive plastic mats were supplied for use in areas where ordnance 

is handled.

k. A sprinkler system was installed in the high pay area.

l. Placards denoting explosive materials, classes, personnel limits, etc. 

were installed.

m. Personnel safety showers were installed at all personnel egress doors.

n. An additional closed circuit TV system was installed with cameras in the high

bay area and monitors in the office trailer and control room. Personnel can

now witness operations without being physically present in the bay.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 81
Procedures were changed so that all spacecraft testing necessary in the pit

area is performed remotely.

o. The personnel trailer located at the west end of the building was removed to

a more remote location.

p. The guard shack for the area was removed to approximately 350 feet from 

the facility.

q. The relative humidity inside the building was increased from 50% to 60%.

Document I-8

Document Title: Letter from Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, to Dr.

Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, “Astronomy Missions Board

Resolution,” 25 January 1968.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

NASA created an external Astronomy Missions Board in 1967 to advise the Agency with respect to its

astronomy programs. The first chairman of the Board was Harvard astronomer Dr. Leo Goldberg.

This letter from Goldberg to NASA Associate Administrator Dr. Homer Newell transmitted the Board’s

views on the proposed Apollo Telescope Mount program as part of NASA’s post-Apollo activities to use

human crews and the equipment developed for the Apollo program for other scientific purposes.

[no pagination]

HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY

60 GARDEN STREET 

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138

January 25, 1968

ASTRONOMY MISSIONS BOARD

Dr. Homer E. Newell 

Code AA 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear Homer:

At its third meeting on January 17-18, 1968, the Astronomy Missions Board adopted

the attached resolution with respect to the ATM-A mission and requested that you also

convey it to John E. Naugle (OSSA), George E. Mueller (OMSF), Werner von Braun

(MSFC), Robert R. Gilruth (MSC), Charles W. Mathews (Director, AAP) and Dixon L.

Forsythe (Manager, ATM).

I should also report the concern of the Board that the mission be accomplished by

1971, before the next solar minimum, without, however, sacrificing any of the scientific

82 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
objectives of the experiments. The Board also strongly hopes that NASA will pursue with

maximum vigor the two conditions concerning astronaut training and failure

circumvention set forth at the end of the resolution.

Please be assured that the Board stands ready to render all possible assistance in

facilitating the success of the ATM and other important astronomy missions.

Sincerely yours,

Leo Goldberg

********

RESOLUTION

adopted by the 

ASTRONOMY MISSIONS BOARD 

at its Third Meeting 

January 17-18, 1968

The Astronomy Missions Board, during its past two meetings, has received briefings

on the major aspects of the ATM-A project for solar research from the appropriate NASA

officials. In addition several Board members have had access to further detailed

information regarding this project.

On the basis of this combined information, the Board is now convinced that the ATMA project is a logical and technically appropriate next step (a) for the purpose of gaining

experience and insight in choosing the optimum role to be played by man in space in the

operation of sophisticated technical and scientific equipment, and (b) for the purpose of

achieving another important advance in solar research.

This present positive assessment of the ATM-A project by the Board is, however,

conditioned on NASA’s pursuing with maximum vigor activities in two specific areas. The

first area refers to the selection and training of the Astronauts responsible for the

operation of the scientific experiments carried on ATM-A. The Board has already

recorded its recommendation regarding this area at its preceding meeting. The second

area refers to efforts to increase the opportunities for the astronaut in flight to maximize

the probabilities of experiment success by taking actions aimed at failure circumvention.

The Board is much encouraged by current activities in this area, spearheaded by the

Astronaut Office.

The Board believes that high priority has to be assigned to this type of activity if the

ATM-A project is to fulfill its stated difficult purposes.

Document I-9

Document Title: Memorandum from Dr. Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator,

NASA, to Dr. John E. Naugle, NASA, response to letter dated 22 March 1968, from Dr. Leo

Goldberg, Chairman, Astronomy Missions Board, 9 April 1968.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 83
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

As NASA planned its program for the 1970s, it became clear that the aspirations of solar researchers

related to the Apollo Telescope Mounts which were scheduled to be flown as part of the orbital workshop

program (soon to be known as Skylab) were at variance with schedule realities. In this memorandum,

NASA Associate Administrator Dr. Homer Newell asks Associate Administrator for Space Science Dr.

John Naugle to investigate alternate paths for satisfying the scientific objectives established by the

Astronomy Missions Board. 

[no page number]

April 9, 1968 

MEMORANDUM:

To: S/Dr. Naugle 

From: AA/Associate Administrator

Subject: Response to letter dated March 22, 1968, from Dr. Leo Goldberg, Chairman,

Astronomy Missions Board

I am forwarding the referenced letter for your consideration and for your preparation

of a response for my signature.

In responding to this letter, I sense that we are faced with some difficult decisions and

the need for a candid assessment of our space astronomy program, both in the unmanned

and the manned spacecraft. As you are aware, present planning for the Saturn V

workshops suggests that launches in 1973 and 1975 might be possible, but that these

workshops are expected to be devoted primarily to the study of man himself. Thus, a

requirement to fly an advanced solar ATM, a large UV stellar package and a so-called EMR

package, is, at first appearance, in conflict with the intended direction of the ’73 and ’75

workshops. This is certainly so if one considers all three systems in the same workshop. 

Thus, in order to carry out a meaningful and effective space astronomy programs 

as defined by the Astronomy Missions Board, we will have to provide other equally

effective means.

In preparing a response, would you and your colleagues, soliciting the advice of the

PSG/PCG working groups, please consider the following possibilities, individually and 

in concert:

[2] a. Extension of the OAO series beyond C

b. Modification of our policy on experimenters in astronomy, particularly those

in the observatories (OAO and OSO), to require that all major instruments

be operated on a “guest observatory” basis. This consideration should include

the present OAO-B and C payloads.

(You may wish to consult with AMB to their reaction and their individual

interest in using such instruments. In any event, the proposition should be

put to each of the Principal Investigators.)

84 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
c. Expansion of the Astronomy Explorer program using Scout launched

payloads, and/or 

d. Modification of the basic OSO to provide:

(1) for larger solar physics instruments

(2) for application to modest stellar astronomy instruments

e. Solar OAO

f. Use of the workshops to carry the x-ray and gamma ray (EMR) experiments

in fully automated modes so that astronaut mainline activities are not

impacted but the large weights and areas of these advanced instruments can

be realized.

g. A sharp expansion of the sounding rocket program using pointing controls

with recovery capabilities. (The MSFC role in such an expansion should 

be considered.)

I would like to have an interim response to me indicating additional or other

alternatives you consider worthwhile, how you intend to follow-up on these suggestions,

and by what schedule you plan to reply to the Goldberg letter.

[3] We must find a number of means to make better use of our resources and to provide

more astronomers more opportunities to carry out investigations in space.

Homer E. Newell

Cc:

M/Mueller

ML/Mathews

AAF/Frutkin

AAS/Stroud

SG/Smith

OV/Files

Document I-10

Document Title: NASA Headquarters telegram to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College

Observatory and others, 10 May 1968.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 85
Document I-11

Document Title: Letter from E. M. Reeves, Harvard College Observatory, to Mr. D. L.

Forsythe, NASA, “Postponement of ATM-A launch into 1972, reference NASA telegram

1020362 May 1968,” 20 May 1968.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document I-12

Document Title: Letter from Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, to Dr. John

E. Naugle, NASA, 21 May 1968.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The uncertainties surrounding the schedule for the launch of the first Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM)

were a source of frustration to many solar researchers. This exchange of correspondence captures that

frustration.

Document I-10

[no pagination]

[Western Union Telex Service]

WU TELTEX CAM 

PASS TO DR RICCARDO GIACCONI AMERICAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INC

11 CARLETON ST CAMBRIDGE MASS

TLX072 VIA WESTOVER AFB MASS R3205 10/1958L

R 102056Z MAY 68

FM NASA HAS WASH D.C.

TO RUCIRNA/DR LEO GOLDBERG HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY

CAMBRIDGE MASS 

RUEBJKA/NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY WASH D.C.

ATTN MR J D PURCELL 

RUCIRNA/DR RICCARDO GIACCONI 

AMERICAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INC

11 CARLETON ST CAMBRIDGE MASS

ZEN/DR GORDON NEWKIRK HIGH ALTITUDE ’OBSERVATORY BOULD& COLO

ZEN/NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER GREENBELT MD

86 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
ATTN MR JAMES E MILLIGAN W Y

GRNC NASA 

BT

UNCLAS SG-7170. 

In letter of April 2, 1968 to Dr. Homer E. Newell, Dr. Leo Goldberg, chairman of the

Astronomy Missions Board stated that the board agrees that the Apollo Telescope Mount

(ATM-A) mission cannot be postponed until 1972 without greatly diminishing the

scientific importance of the payload. Further, this letter states that if the mission is

postponed the payload ought to be revised and optimized for the solar minimum. On the

other hand, Dr. E. M. Reeves at the request of Dr. Goldberg has contacted the ATM-A

Principal Investigators regarding their reaction to a possible postponement of the ATM-A

launch into the latter part of 1972 and would essentially go along with such a postponement. The one exception to this is the Harvard College Observatory (HCO), whose ATMA experiment is not appropriate for solar minimum. A postponement of the ATM-A

launch into 1972 would make desirable the substitution for the HCO-C Spectrometer of

an instrument proposed earlier – namely the HCO-A short-wavelength spectroheliometer.

Current planning specifies an ATM-A launch in early 1971. Planning is also

proceeding to provide backup positions to maintain a capability for launching in 1971 or

1972 in the event of problems for the first workshop, whereby it cannot support the

planned ATM operations. Accordingly, we need more information than has been

provided by the ATM-A Principal Investigators to Dr. Reeves. Specifically, we need your

response to the following questions...

1. To what extent do the current scientific objectives require observations of

large flares – importance 3 or 4, or the observations of many small flares

2. To what extent do the current scientific objectives require the observation of

a wide variety of evolving solar active regions

3. If the present instruments fly at a time when the activity is low, what scientific

questions can be answered with these instruments What would be the

scientific objectives and the scientific validity and justification for 

these objectives

4. How would the astronauts role change in a changed scientific program as in

item 3 above

5. If it is possible to adjust the launch time of ATM-A plus or minus two to three

weeks to accommodate anticipated solar activity, how would you as Principal

Investigator take advantage of this to optimize your research program

The astronomy missions boards letter mentioned above also states that a 28-day

mission represents a hard-rock minimum. Could you please elaborate on this in terms of

the scientific objectives discussed in item 3 above, and in terms of the amount and value

of the data to be obtained.

We request a reply to this by May 24, 1968.

Response to be directed to Mr. D. L. Forsythe, Code MLA, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C., 20546.

SGD Harold T Luskin, Dir of Apollo Applications Progs OMSF

SGD Jesse L Mitchell, Dir of Physics and Astronomy Progs OSSA

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 87
Document I-11

[no page number]

May 20, 1968

Mr. D. L. Forsythe

Code MLA

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, D. C. 20546

Subject: Postponement of ATM-A launch into 1972, reference NASA telegram

1020362 May 1968

Dear Mr. Forsythe:

In your telegram of May 10, you requested our response to a specific list of questions

regarding the reaction of the Principal Investigators to a possible postponement of the

ATM-A launch into the latter part of 1972. When I surveyed the Principal Investigators

and asked their reaction should such a postponement be inevitable, they agreed that

although they would unanimously support an earlier launch as stated in the Principal

Investigators’ previous telegram and statement to the Astronomy Missions Board, they

would go along with a postponement into the latter part of 1972 with their present

experiments. The exception to this was the Harvard College Observatory.

We have stated previously and reiterated in our recent telegram to Dr. Naugle and Dr.

Mueller of May 15, that we felt that since the ATM-A mission was currently envisaged in

the first half of 1971 that a decision had to be made concerning the substitution of our A

instrument for the C instrument completely on the basis of scientific yield. We are

naturally prepared to discuss this decision at length and to justify the position which we

have taken.

I will therefore answer your specific questions directed toward our HCO-A

experiment. For a further and more detailed description of the aims and objectives of this

experiment, I refer [2] you to our scientific proposal dated March, 1966, and our

Application for Manned Space Flight Experiment (form 1138) dated August, 1966.

1. The extent to which the current scientific objectives require observations of 

large flares.

At the present time, there is a growing amount of information indicating that the

importance number (1, 2 or 3) assigned to flares on the basis of the area observed in

narrow band H-α may bear little correlation to the observations in the ultraviolet or X-ray

regions. Some observations indicate that the intensity of H-α brightening may be a better

parameter. Observations which we are making in association with the Lockheed Solar

Observatory through 2Å H-α filter and video technique indicate that flares brighten over

this wider wavelength range in relatively small areas of the order of a few arc seconds and

that groups and sequences of these flares may be responsible for the larger area associated

with center band H-α birefringent filter observations, upon which the flare classification

is normally based.

88 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
The HCO-A experiment is not primarily a flare-observing experiment. However,

observations of different types of flares with a spatial resolution of 5 arc seconds over a wide

range of excitation energies would be most interesting, although not mandatory for the

success of the experiment. Assuming a 100-hour period in which the HCO-A experiment

controlled the pointing, then the expected number of flares of all types during this time

would drop from 20 in late 1968, to 5 in late 1972 and 3 in late 1973. These very

approximate calculations are based on the correlation described in Smith’s book, Solar

Flares, and assume that cycle 20 will continue to follow the mean of cycles 8 through 19 as

is indicated to date. The probability of observing a major flare of class 2, 3 or 4 from so few

occurrences is quite small. To increase the chance of catching a major flare through its

course of development was described in some of the meetings where we presented our

observing [3] requirements for the C experiment on ATM. In the latter part of 1969, many

hundreds of hours would be required in order to raise the probability of observing such a

flare to a significant level. Therefore, even for the C experiment, it was never an absolute

requirement to obtain this type of observation. Nevertheless we felt it was interesting

enough to merit a great deal of attention in order to bias the observations in favor of

catching such an event, should it occur during the observing period of the astronauts.

2. The extent to which objectives require the observation of a wide variety of evolving solar

active regions.

The HCO-A experiment was designed to observe with 5 arc seconds over a wide range

of excitation energies of the Sun in order to probe the structure of various features of

both the quiet and active solar atmosphere. The migration of active regions across the

solar disc was one of the prime objectives of the HCO-A experiment. Observations of

newly-forming active regions, the changes with time as these regions develop, and

particularly the limb passage of active regions, would be heavily stressed in our observing

program. (See question 5.)

3. The effect of low activity on the scientific value of the experiment.

Observations of the solar atmosphere at a resolution of l arc minute from OSO-IV are

yielding a surprising amount of information on the structure of the solar atmosphere.

When the experiment was proposed several years ago, it was questionable what degree of

structure could be seen on the Sun with such coarse resolution. Nevertheless, we were

most pleasantly gratified to see the great wealth of structure which could be discerned

with a spatial resolution of 1 arc minute. The progression from 1 arc minute to 30 arc

seconds is expected to yield even more interesting structure to be observed from OSO-G.

However, we have continually pressed, in accordance with the Woods Hole Study Report,

to achieve a resolution of the order of 5 arc seconds or better. On a perfectly quiet [4]

solar atmosphere, center-to-limb investigations in a wide variety of lines can be used to

assess the optical depth as well as the distribution of temperature with height in the solar

atmosphere. The question of solar abundances can be investigated in more detail. The

structure of the transition zone between the chromosphere and corona can be

investigated and the interesting structure around the limb of the Sun, particularly in the

polar versus equatorial directions, can be assessed. Spectroheliograms at this resolution

can be used to examine the temperature changes across the boundary regions of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 89
supergranulation. Five arc second resolution should yield information about spicules and

interspicular material, even if only the very largest spicules are resolved. Observations in

the relative intensities of the Lyman α, ß, and continuum wavelengths will be particularly

significant for a more detailed study of whether certain intensity changes result from

changes in temperature or abundance. Therefore it is clear that a great deal of useful and

otherwise unobtainable scientific data can be obtained from the ATM, even in perfectly

quiet atmosphere. Since a certain amount of activity world be expected during the late

part of the solar cycle, even in 1972 the study of active regions described in the previous

section would be valuable even if the number of such active regions were limited.

4. Effect of the astronauts’ role in the scientific program as a result of low activity.

The role of the astronaut would remain essentially unchanged. His duties, as currently

described, would be to implement a prearranged observing profile to gather information on

the quiet and active parts of the solar disc to the full capabilities of the scientific instrument.

His role of active participation in the observing program would remain. Should active

regions begin to develop, or should small flares begin to be seen, or in the particular chance

occurrence of a large flare, he would change the observing program to take advantage of

the rarer occurrences. His role as a scientific participant would not be diminished. Certainly

the retrieval of data for pointing records from our H-∝ telescope would still be required.

[5]

5. Adjustment of the launch window to accommodate solar activity.

It has been described in the previous sections how the balance between quiet and active

solar regions forms the basis for the observing program in a given period of the solar cycle.

If solar activity were extremely low, then an effort should be made to launch the ATM during

a period when the Sun is in as active a state as possible. For example, the new arrival of an

active region on the east limb could signal the launch of the ATM. The astronaut could then

direct the experiment to this active region during the fourteen-day passage across the disc

and the particularly interesting west limb passage in which the structure versus height can

more easily be ascertained. During a 56-day mission, the recurrence of this active region on

the east limb could be anticipated and observations directed to that area for several days

prior to and following the second east limb passage. During extremely quiet portions of the

56-day mission, observations of the quiet solar structure could receive the greater emphasis.

6. 28-day minimum mission.

The presence of active regions on the solar disc can persist for several revolutions and

the development of these regions would be most interesting. The 28-day mission represents

an average solar rotation, during which two limb passages and a disc passage of a particular

sunspot group could be followed. The quieter the solar disc, the more important it would

be to achieve a longer mission, since there would be less activity to be observed.

We need not reiterate here our subscription to the usefulness of the ATM in the solar

program, even if the ATM could not be launched until late 1972. There are a number of

important questions concerning the structure of the solar atmosphere which cannot be

answered without experiments of the size carried by the ATM. The ATM also provides the

unique opportunity, [6] not present to nearly the same extent on the smaller OSO

satellites, to observe solar structures over the widest possible range of energies and to

90 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
observe simultaneously with a number of different techniques. There are a number of

reasons, not the least of which is financial, which could delay the launch of tire ATM into

this time period. Provided only that this is anticipated at an early time, and that the

experiments are chosen to take advantage of this part of the solar cycle, then we will

possess the only opportunity to take high resolution data on the Sun in the early 1970’s.

The orderly launch of several ATM’s, distributed over part of the solar cycle, would be

even more important in determining the dominant mechanisms and variations in the

solar atmosphere. If only one ATM can be launched, and this occurs in the late part of

1972, then we reiterate our desire to participate in the mission.

Yours truly,

[signature]

E. M. Reeves 

cc: 

L. Goldberg 

Dr. Tousey 

Dr. Milligan 

Dr. Newkirk 

Dr. Reidy

Document I-12

[no page number]

May 21, 1968

Dr. John E. Naugle

Code S 

NASA 

Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear John:

I have the feeling that in the recent exchange of telegrams and telephone calls, I did

not manage to convey fully the present feeling and attitude of my group towards our

participation in the ATM-A mission. For example, you obviously understand that we do

strongly recommend the reinstatement of our A instrument as the Harvard experiment.

What is also implied by this recommendation, however, is that in our judgment the C

instrument is not worth flying on the proposed new schedule and that the ATM-A mission

would be better off without it even if the A experiment were not flown.

In all of the many discussions we have had about whether the C experiment would be

of significant scientific value if it were flown in early 1971, late 1971, 1972, 1973, etc., I have

simply been unable to get through with what to me is the most important consideration of

all. This is that we agreed to fly the C experiment to help NASA out of what then seemed

to be a very serious scheduling problem, but we did so only on two conditions, namely, that

the mission would be launched in 1969 and that we would be permitted to continue the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 91
development of the A and B instruments for a second ATM mission. We were dismayed

when the schedule was slipped to late 1970 or early 1971, but went along both because we

could still expect significant solar activity in that time period and because the new schedule

still did not make it possible to be ready with the A experiment.

It is now proposed that the mission be postponed until June 1971 and that work on the

A experiment be terminated as soon as the present funds run out. Based upon our past

experience, I think you will agree that we are justified in refusing to believe that there will

not be a further slippage of at least two to three [2] months. This is all the extra time we feel

we need to be sure of getting the A experiment ready. For all of these reasons, we feel that

the best course of action both for NASA and for us would be to reinstate the A experiment.

I think it is time to face up to the realization that our participation in the ATM project

has been guided more by circumstance and expediency than by the requirements of firstrate science. If we do not jointly take firm action now to reverse this trend we shall be

doing astronomy and NASA both a great disservice.

As I have said many times before, the ATM project is an enormous consumer of

manpower and takes up so much of the time of our key people that they have very little

left in which to plan even new OSO experiments, which would be scientifically much more

rewarding than the C experiment. It is patently unfair to ask my group to devote such a

large fraction of their effort during the next three years to an experiment that has such a

sizeable probability of being unproductive. What is more to the point, I fear that they will

simply lose interest, and go elsewhere. Even the engineers can sense when the scientists

they serve are unenthusiastic about their product.

Sincerely yours,

[signature]

Leo Goldberg

cc: J. Mitchell 

E. Reeves/W. Parkinson 

H. Smith 

G. Mueller

Document I-13

Document Title: Astronomy Missions Board, NASA, “A Long-Range Program in Space

Astronomy,” July 1969.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

This is one of a series of reports from NASA advisory groups that sets out both challenging research

goals and mission requirements for the 1970s and beyond while also endorsing the current NASA

program, and particularly the Apollo Telescope Mount.

92 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
[cover sheet]

NASA SP-213

A 

Long-Range 

Program

in 

Space Astronomy

Position Paper

of the 

Astronomy Missions Board

July 1969 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

* * * 

A Solar Space Program, 1969

INTRODUCTION

[149]

Part 1, “Solar Space Astronomy” [not included] was an effort by the 1968 Solar

Working Group (SWG) to explain what solar astronomy is about and the very prominent

part observations from space will play in advancing our understanding of the Sun. The

character of “Solar Space Program, 1969” is different. This is intended as an ongoing

document to present the recommendations of the SWG for dealing with the current

practical problems of obtaining solar space observations necessary to advance our

understanding of the Sun in the most effective manner. Since current practical problems

change continually, and sometimes abruptly, the program will doubtless require frequent revisions.

In “Solar Space Program, 1969,” the objective is to assess the present situation from

which the program must proceed; identify the specific observations and measurements

needed, and designate their priorities; translate these into terms of spacecraft and

instrumental requirements and priorities; and to make specific recommendations to

NASA, including flight schedules. To this end the SWG divided into subcommittees

corresponding to the major solar problem areas: photosphere, chromosphere, and

corona. Each subcommittee then undertook to meet the objective in its own area.

The subcommittees then met jointly to combine their findings, and devise a program

for space solar astronomy that makes the best use of the several classes of spacecraft to

solve the problems of solar physics in the most orderly and efficient manner. The end

product will consist of–

(1) A proper priority sequence of flights, timed with respect to larger and smaller

spacecraft, rockets, ground-based observations, and the solar cycle.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 93
(2) Minimal and maximal flight schedules (which have been requested by AMB)

representing, respectively, the smallest effort in space observation that would enlist

the efforts of good experimenters, and the most rapid rate of progress that can be

sustained by the spacecraft designers and the experimenters.

(3) Recommendations to NASA for implementing the proposed program.

TERMINOLOGY-CLASSIFICATION OF EXPERIMENTS AND SPACECRAFT

Before launching into the discussion of the program, we digress for a moment to

clarify some terms that we use repeatedly. We [150] have chosen to indicate the degree of

sophistication of an observing instrument by stating its angular resolution ρ, and of a

spacecraft by its peak-to-peak angular pointing stability (surprisingly, ρ for “resolution”

and for “pointing”), or its peak-to-peak absolute pointing accuracy α (generally larger

than ). We will use terms like a “5” (arcsec) experiment” or a “5” (arcsec) spacecraft.” A

5” experiment is an experiment with ρ=5” designed with all the size and refinement of

telescope and accessories necessary to achieve and fully utilize 5” resolution. Similarly, a

5” spacecraft is a spacecraft with =5” and sufficient capacity in every respect to

accommodate and support 5” experiments (including whatever α is required).

Generally, an observing instrument and spacecraft are compatible if <ρ. There will

be exceptions, when, for instance, a telescope has an internal guiding system more

accurate than the spacecraft pointing stability.

Spectroscopic resolution is the customary λ/ λ .

Duration of a series of observations is t.

Time resolution, the interval between successive observations in a sequence, is t.

We shall occasionally use the term “video systems.” By it we mean a system 

consisting of–

(1) A photon sensing element that simultaneously and continuously senses the

intensity of all discrete picture elements of a two-dimensional image

(equivalent in this respect to a photographic film) and converts it into an

electrical signal.

(2) A transmitting system that ends the signals, either in real time or from an

onboard storage unit, to a ground station or an orbiting station.

(3) A receiving system to permanently record the data quantitatively with a

minimum of degradation, and to display them for visual inspection.

In this report we define the wavelength regions of the spectrum as follows:

IR– 9000–Å to 1 mm (the region between the photographic limit and the

“shortest radio waves”)

V– 3000 to 9000 Å (limited by atmospheric absorption and the longwave limit of

photographic material)

UV– 1500 to 3000 Å (from V to the shortwave limit of the solar continuum)

EUV– 300 to 1500 Å (from UV to extreme shortwave limit of normal 

reflection optics)

94 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
[151] X-ray– 1 to 300 Å (requiring grazing incidence optics or other imaging devices)

XUV– 1 to 1500 Å (the region containing nearly all of the chromospheric and

coronal emission lines)

High-energy spectrum– <1 Å, or > 10 keV. This region includes three reasonably

distinct ranges:

10-300-keV bremsstrahlung continuum from active centers.

300-keV-10-MeV γ-ray lines from nuclear processes (predicted, but not yet

observed in the Sun).

~100-MeV bremsstrahlung from extremely relativistic electrons and γ-rays

from ° decays (predicted, but not yet observed).

For brevity, 1" or 1' means 1 arcsec or 1 arcmin, respectively (not 1 inch or 1 foot).

REVIEW OF ACTION TAKEN ON THE 1965 RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF THE SOLAR PANEL AT THE WOODS HOLE SUMMER STUDY

The report of the Solar Panel at Woods Hole contained 12 recommendations 

as follows:

Recommendation 1.– That the recommendation of the Iowa meeting (1962) concerning

fine pointing be given immediate attention and that highest priority be given to the

development of triaxially stabilized rocket attitude controls, leading, as soon as possible,

to a fine-pointing system capable of an accuracy of 5 sec of arc and optimally designed for

solar use. (This recommendation is essentially a reaffirmation of that made by the Iowa

Summer Study, and is restated here to reflect the importance which the Working Group

attaches to this matter: “We recommend that the sounding rocket program continue to

receive full support; and that both the inertially guided Aerobee with fine pointing at

selected stars, and the inertially guided Aerobee with fine pointing at the Sun controlled

by an optical sensor, be made available at the earliest possible time.”)

Comment: The proposed improvement (1) in sounding rockets for solar research has

been largely accomplished, and the rocket experimenters are pleased with the technical

improvements. The recommended increase in the number of rockets available and

supporting funds for their payloads has not been realized. (See Comment on 1965

Recommendations 7 and 8).

Recommendation 2.– (a) That the presently approved Orbiting Solar Observatory

(OSO) program be augmented by at least four [152] additional launchings during the

period 1970-72, inclusive; (b) that no decision be made to terminate the OSO program

after 1972 without further review at an appropriate time; (c) that NASA make every effort

to implement such desirable improvements in the OSO spacecraft as increased power,

offset pointing, localized raster scans, provision for slightly longer instruments, greater

data capacity and more flexible data format, and improved pointing accuracy (15-30 sec

of arc); (d) that consideration be given to injection of one or more OSO spacecraft into

a polar retrograde orbit in order to provide continuous surveillance of the Sun.

Comment: NASA is planning for three additional OSO launches: OSO’s I, J, and K.

Although the planning goes no farther at present, NASA has indicated a willingness to

consider further OSO’s if there is further useful work for these relatively inexpensive

spacecraft. Some of the improvements recommended have been made. OSO now has the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 95
capability for offset pointing and raster scanning. Further upgrading recommended by

the Ad Hoc Committee of NASA’s Solar Subcommittee is presently being considered for

OSO’s I, J, and K.

Recommendation 3.– (a) That a satellite with Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory

(AOSO) specifications is an indispensable step in NASA’s solar program, and must be

flown close to the coming solar maximum; (b) that the AOSO program be accorded all

the priority necessary to maintain the launch schedule shown in the Prospectus.

Comment: AOSO was canceled, and no comparable ground-controlled solar spacecraft

of the 5” guiding accuracy class has even been planned. Because of its relatively short life,

during which continuous operation of several different instruments is hardly feasible, the

ATM is not a substitute for AOSO.

Recommendation 4.– (a) That manned missions in the 1968-72 time period, such as the

Astronomical Telescope Orientation Mount (ATOM) in the Apollo Extension Systems,

are desirable to supplement AOSO, but cannot replace it; (b) that because it offers the

prospect of providing answers to critical questions relating to the technology of manned

space telescopes and data recovery, the ATOM concept merits vigorous support.

Comment: The ATOM spacecraft has been renamed “ATM (Apollo Telescope Mount),”

and Apollo Extension Systems is now the Apollo Applications Program (AAP). The

manned ATM has been approved and is scheduled for a 28- to 56-day flight in 1972.

Recommendation 5.– That solar space observation be included in the manned space

science program of the Apollo Extension [153] Systems in order to develop the

technology of manned space astronomical operations. Such observations, which could

attain resolving power of 1 sec of arc in the wavelength region 500-3000Å, mark the next

logical step beyond both AOSO and ATOM.

Comment: NASA has made definite and commendable progress in introducing the role

of scientist-astronaut into the manned space astronomy program. However, utilization of

man’s unique capabilities in operating and maintaining a space observatory appears far

from realization. For example, the ATM mission will provide an initial evaluation of men

as onboard observers operating semiautomatic experiments. But man’s unique ability to

assemble, repair, and replace experiments or vital components has not been incorporated

into the design of any existing or planned mission.

Recommendation 6.– That feasibility and design studies begin immediately on orbiting

solar telescopes of at least 1-m aperture designed to obtain a resolution of 0.1 sec of arc

at visible wave-lengths and 0.5 sec of arc at far-ultraviolet wavelength (Å>500Å). Very large

and complex accessory instruments will be necessary to analyze the solar image. Erection,

operation, and maintenance of this telescope will require full utilization of astronaut--

engineers and scientists.

Comment: Meaningful feasibility and design studies of telescopes of the 1-m aperture

and 0.1” guiding accuracy class have not begun.

96 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Recommendation 7.– That provision be made for a continuing, uninterrupted

experimental program while the more advanced manned flights are in preparation, with

many flights of various spacecraft, so that a scientist will have frequent opportunities 

for observation.

Recommendation 8.– That NASA find means to continue a strong program with

relatively inexpensive rockets and small unmanned satellites at the same time the large

manned projects are underway, since the former are indispensable to the latter.

Comment (7 and 8):

NASA has provided rockets for most worthwhile experiments through fiscal year 1968,

but has failed to meet the increased demand in fiscal years 1969 and 1970, a time period

that is crucial to preparations for the more advanced solar spacecraft like ATM. The OSO

series is to be extended by at least three additional spacecraft of improved performance.

Recommendation 9.– That the relationship between scientists and astronaut-observers

be studied and clarified. In particular, [154] we recommend that when a single, large

scientific instrument is carried, the scientific observation be designated the primary

mission for the flight.

Comment: The designation of the acquisition of scientific observations as the primary

mission objective has been generally followed, and scientific requirements have been met

whenever the requirement can be achieved within certain general Apollo Applications

Program constraints.

Recommendation 10.– That NASA bring more scientists into the space-flight program as

astronauts or observers.

Comment: See comment on Recommendation 5.

Recommendation 11.– That NASA move to provide additional support for ground-based

solar studies. As the flight program grows in sophistication and success during the next

several years, the demands on ground-based work will also increase, and NASA should in

turn anticipate an increased demand upon its resources for support of ground-based

facilities and operations. In addition, in the next few years, NASA should expect, and

respond favorably to, proposals for a few major ground-based solar installations.

Recommendation 12.– That increased support be given to physical research in the

laboratory, as required to develop improved space instrumentation for solar-physics

research, to assist in the data reduction, and to make possible a full interpretation of 

the results.

Comment (11 and 12): NASA has continued to support ground-based solar astronomy,

astrophysical laboratory research, and theoretical investigations related to solar research.

The dollar amounts have remained about constant, near 2 million/yr, with no provision

for the increasing costs, although in the face of reduced solar program funds in fiscal years

1968 and 1969 have been reduced. Included in this support have been about 1.7 million

for the construction and operation of two major ground-based solar installations.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 97
PRESENT STATUS OF SOLAR SPACE RESEARCH

NASA’s program in solar research has showed modest progress from the beginning.

The opportunities for sounding rocket research have, at times, exceeded the demand, but

the program is presently falling behind the demand rather seriously. The upgrading of

sounding rocket capabilities appears to be well in hand, after a considerable delay. Aircraft

have proved to be practical and very useful for observations of eclipses and the far-infrared

solar spectrum. Although the OSO program is behind its originally planned schedule, it has

gone ahead steadily. Five OSO spacecraft [155] have been successfully launched. There have

been spacecraft and experiment failures but, on the whole, the OSO’s are a tremendous

success. They are the most advanced spacecraft so far flown for solar astronomy, and have

amply justified the effort NASA and the many experimenters have put into them.

The first four OSO’s were 60" spacecraft and those presently planned are upgraded

to 30". The scientific results have been invaluable and the experience acquired has

prepared us for the next step, observations from 5" spacecraft.

The current status of NASA’s future program for orbiting solar spacecraft is as follows

OSO’s F, G, H are definitely approved and the construction of both experiments and

spacecraft is underway. NASA plans to extend the series by three more spacecraft which

will incorporate improvements recommended by the 1968 Ad Hoc Committee of the

Solar Subcommittee. They are OSO’s I, J, and K for the 1972-75 period.

ATM-A is definitely approved and scheduled for flight in 1972. This will be the first

of the much-needed 5" spacecraft, and the first experiment in manned operation of

solar observing instruments. It is unquestionably the most important solar spacecraft

now planned.

Document I-14

Document Title: J. Allen Crocker, statement of Dr. Leo Goldberg, Director of the Harvard

College Observatory, ATM/Skylab, 3 November 1970.

Source: National Archives and Record Administration, College Park, Maryland

As Congress questioned the scientific merit of launching the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) on the

initial Skylab mission, NASA contacted a number of researchers to obtain statements of support for

the ATM. This statement from Dr. Leo Goldberg is typical of the responses provided to NASA.

3 November 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD OF TELEPHONE CALL

SUBJECT:ATM/Skylab

98 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Dr. Leo Goldberg, Director of the Harvard College Observatory, and Chairman of the

NASA Astronomy Missions Board, called and dictated the following statement to me for

Dr. Newell’s use in preparation of budget backup material:

The solar observatory (Apollo Telescope Mount) to be flown in Skylab, under

development and construction since 1965, is undoubtedly the most important solar

spacecraft now planned. It will house by far the most powerful and sophisticated

collection of solar instruments ever flown in a satellite and the combined payload is

designed to investigate a number of very puzzling mysteries surrounding the Sun’s

behavior. For example, the Skylab seeks to discover the mechanism that creates the solar

corona, an enormous expanding envelope of gas at a temperature of two million degrees

which surrounds the earth and reaches out to the very boundaries of the solar system. The

Skylab observations may also reveal how and at what circumstances the Sun manages so

efficiently and quickly to transform vast quantities of stored magnetic energy into heat, as

it does when a giant flare breaks out and bathes the earth and interplanetary space with

x-rays and fast moving particles. The launching of Skylab will climax ten years of

preparatory work which has been so successfully carried out in the series of small OSO

satellites, largely by the same group of experimenters who are involved in Skylab. While

solving many problems, the OSO experiments have also sharply defined a number of the

most essential and critical measurements that can only be made with instruments as

powerful as those projected for Skylab. The astronomical community is eagerly awaiting

the results of these essential measurements and the expected breakthroughs in our

knowledge of the Sun which the Skylab mission promises to bring about.

Finally I want to underscore the importance I attach to the contribution of astronomy

that the astronauts will be making both by performing certain necessary and useful tasks

in connection with the experiments, and in demonstrating man’s capability as a scientific

observer in space.

Document I-15 

Document Title: National Academy of Sciences, “Scientific Uses of the Space Shuttle,” 1974.

Source: National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

One implication of the 1972 approval of the development of the Space Shuttle was that NASA

intended to use the Shuttle, once it became operational, to launch all of its missions, including space

science missions. This report reflects the initial planning by the solar research portion of the space

science community for such a situation.

[cover sheet]

Scientific Uses

of the

Space Shuttle

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 99
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

[130] 

[chapter] 7 Solar Physics

I. SOLAR-PHYSICS OBJECTIVES AND OVERALL PLAN

The outstanding scientific problems in solar physics derive their significance as much

from their intrinsic interest as plasma phenomena of extreme complexity as they do from

their importance for the study and elucidation of a range of basic questions arising in our

efforts to understand the physical universe.*

In summary, these problems center around (a) the origin of solar activity and the

mechanisms underlying its various manifestations (especially flares), (b) the nature and

origin of the mass and mechanical energy flux from the Sun, and (c) physical problems

of broad significance that can only be studied in the Sun. We discuss these broad areas

below, giving particular emphasis to the progress to be anticipated from solar observations

during the Shuttle era.

A. Solar Activity

The study of the formation, heating, and long-term development and decay of

active regions requires spatial correlation of observations made over a broad spectral

range and over consecutive periods of a few days. For example, in order to study the

interaction of rising magnetic fields with the plasma of the solar photospheric layers,

long-term time-lapse observations with high spatial resolution in the visible portion of

the spectrum are needed of velocity fields, small-scale magnetic fields, and features

reflecting different temperature and density conditions. These observations must be

correlated with [131] the uv and x-ray observations of the same areas to yield parallel

data on the higher levels in the Sun’s atmosphere-the chromosphere, transition region,

and inner corona. Data show the spatial structure of active regions to be extremely

complex and to change completely in the higher layers, where the magnetic field

dominates; however, the limited spatial resolution currently available severely restricts

our ability to interpret such data fully. The evolution of activity and the details of

magnetic-field development will almost certainly depend on magnetic-field

measurements made with high spatial resolution and extending over periods of a week

or more.

Little is known about the impulsive nonthermal phase of flare development during

which energy is released and charged particles accelerated to very high energies. We

would like to know the location of the primary acceleration, the magnetic- and electricfield configurations, and the time sequence of the energy release processes. X-ray and

radio-wave observations provide essential information on the energetic electron

population of a flare, while the white-light, gamma-ray, and neutron emission give clues to

the acceleration of protons. Direct measurement in space of the isotopic content of

energetic flare particles promises to add still another insight into the acceleration,

containment, and release of charged particles. Because theory suggests that the energy

100 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
release and subsequent thermalization must take place in an extremely small-volume,

high-temporal and -spatial resolution is essential.

Another area of current interest is the state of an active region prior to the occurrence

of a flare. There are periods of rapid magnetic change in an active region during several

hours or days prior to a large flare, during which time the x-ray, xuv, and radio emission

tend to increase in intensity. Accelerated particles of comparatively low energy are

observed to escape from the buildup area into interplanetary space. This, with many other

aspects of the buildup, is not understood, and further observations of particle densities,

fluxes, temperatures, and magnetic fields–and the associated time variations–are needed.

B. Energy and Mass Flow in the Solar Atmosphere

The mechanisms that produce the large departures from radiative equilibrium that

characterizes the chromosphere and corona are not understood. Compelling theoretical

and observational evidence suggests that these levels are heated by mechanical

disturbances such as acoustic, magnetoacoustic, and possibly gravity waves originating in

[132] the subphotospheric convection zone. The principal mechanism has not been

identified in spite of the fact that recent years have produced a wealth of data on the

temperature structure of the chromosphere-corona transition region as well as

microscopic motions in the lower atmosphere.

Future work must provide a complete specification of the temperature, density,

velocity structure, and magnetic field over the entire atmosphere from the photosphere

out into the lower corona. Because these layers contain an intricate fine-scale horizontal

structure, closely associated with the concentration of the magnetic field into small

columns, high spatial resolution at all wavelengths is essential. Without such resolution

the critical effects of the channeling of the mechanical energy flux by the magnetic field

cannot be determined.

The flow of mass and energy in the solar atmosphere continues into interplanetary

space in the form of the corona and solar wind. The magnetic field plays a crucial, if

incompletely understood, role in modulating the flow of the material and imprinting an

intricate density, temperature, and velocity structure on the plasma as it rushes out from

the Sun. Space probes have measured these at 1 AU; however, the connection between

these observations and structures in the inner corona is just beginning to be established.

Surprises, such as the recent realization that most of the solar wind originates in quite

undistinguished regions of the corona, where the magnetic field is weak and open and the

density is low, can be expected to be frequent and to lead to exciting revisions of our ideas

on the structure of the outermost atmospheres of the Sun and stars.

Understanding these processes requires a complete specification of the density,

temperature, and magnetic field in the corona and solar wind, with good temporal and

spatial resolution, so that a full three-dimensional model can be established. Since the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 101

* In considering the scientific motivation, we have drawn heavily on the reports of the NASA Payload Planning

Working Group (Blue Book) on Solar Physics and of the ESRO-PASOL Group and particularly on the discussions

of those problems that they believe should consume a major fraction of the best efforts in solar physics through

the first decade of the Shuttle era.
medium is continually evolving, synoptic observations are necessary to describe the

influence of activity in the lower atmosphere on the upper levels. Moreover, high timeresolution measures are required to investigate the response of the corona-solar wind

plasma to solar flares. A variety of tools will be required. Spaceborne coronagraphs have

demonstrated their power on the OSO and ATM; however, these data must be

supplemented by x-ray, euv, ground-based radioheliograph and coronagraph, spaceborne

radiospectrographs, and in situ solar-wind measures if a complete picture is to be

obtained. We would particularly stress the need for coordination of ground and space

observations for incisive attacks on particular scientific objectives.

[133] C. Physical Problems of Broader Significance

Solar activity originates below the visible levels of the solar atmosphere; our

knowledge of the structure and dynamics of the interior is, at best, provisional. Models

provide a basis for understanding the most obvious properties of the Sun—its mass,

radius, and luminosity—and show that the presence of a chromosphere and corona

depends on the existence of a convection zone, some of whose characteristics are

reflected in the photosphere. Similar models applied to other stars provide insight into

their evolution, variability, and the processes of element synthesis.

In all these investigations, comparison with the Sun furnishes a critical test; several

tests lead to only a qualified confidence. For example, the currently accepted solar models

predict a neutrino flux well in excess of the measured upper limit. Also, models

incorporating convection in a rotating Sun are not yet sufficiently advanced to explain the

observed differential rotation of the photosphere and the characteristics of the solar

magnetic cycle. With these more obvious features of the Sun unexplained, it is small

wonder that more subtle questions such as the nature of supergranulation cells, solar

oblateness, and the role of the solar wind in the angular momentum history of the Sun

remain subjects of speculation. Likewise, broader questions regarding the presence of

similar phenomena on other stars remain uncertain. The constancy of the solar

“constant”—a fundamental parameter in all studies involving terrestrial climate—appears

to be an article of faith.

It is clear that little progress can be made until our ideas concerning the role of

turbulent convection in determining the structure of the Sun and its interaction with solar

rotation are clarified. Here, a fundamental advance in the theory of turbulent convection

beyond the currently used mixing length models is essential. The application of modern

computational tools to these problems will be essential but may be misleading without this

fundamental knowledge. 

A directly related problem is the operation of the solar dynamo and the production

of the solar magnetic cycle. If the investigations mentioned earlier are successful, there

should be no lack of fundamental mental knowledge that would impede progress in the

study of the solar cycle. Advancing our knowledge of the stability of the Sun, and the

consequent implications on the solar constant, and the neutrino deficit must proceed in

concert with these studies. Although progress a can be made using the current models,

the stability of the Sun is most [134] certainly dependent on the coupling between the

energy generating core, the radiative envelope, and the convection zone. Since the

102 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
characteristics of these zones are not fully known, the presence of a solar variability

independent of the magnetic cycle remains uncertain.

D. Relation of Solar Physics to Other Disciplines

The outstanding problems discussed above have an importance far beyond solar

physics. Thus, once the processes of mechanical energy production, transport, and

dissipation are understood, observations of stellar chromospheres and coronae could be

used for further studies of stellar structure and evolution, since the extent of the

subphotospheric convection surely varies with spectral type and class. Since it seems clear

that small-scale photospheric features are associated with production of the mechanical

energy that heat the chromosphere and corona, such motions and fine structures should

exist also in the atmospheres of stars exhibiting chromospheric features; the

interpretation of the spectra of such stars must rest heavily on the solution of the mass and

energy-flux problem of the solar atmosphere.

Continuing studies of the solar wind will find application in understanding stellar

winds and mass-loss mechanisms. The process whereby the solar wind removes angular

momentum from the Sun, thus slowing down solar rotation, is basic to an understanding

of the origin and evolution of the solar system and of other stars and planetary systems.

This mass loss is important in determining the composition of the interstellar medium

and interplanetary plasma.

Solar flares exhibit a broad range of high-energy processes, including the generation

of hard cosmic rays and associated radiation, extending over the spectrum from gamma

rays to radio wavelengths. The Sun provides an opportunity for detailed study of the

interaction of high-energy particles and magnetic fields, since both of these characteristics

can be measured directly. Such studies have clear and direct relevance to the study of

other energetic objects in the universe. Similarly, the study of solar-active regions and the

long-term interaction of the solar plasma and magnetic fields should increase our

understanding of the coupling between solar convection, differential rotation, and the

loss of angular momentum, as well us cycles of stellar activity.

We can look to a continuing stimulation of many other areas in astrophysics coming

from attempts to understand the complex questions posed by solar physics. As a single

example. important [135] studies of atomic processes in low-density plasmas have

followed efforts ’to account for the physical state of the solar atmosphere.

Finally, as man’s technical achievements mount, the importance of a detailed

understanding of solar-terrestrial effects will grow. The influences of solar activity on the

upper terrestrial atmosphere are well documented, if insufficiently understood. The solar

wind stands gut as the principal modulator of the magnetosphere. Significant progress has

been made in our ability to predict the occurrence of major flares, and a capability for

accurate prediction would have economic benefits and may determine the extent to

which man can work in space above the atmosphere. Finally, a possible link between solar

activity and large-scale terrestrial weather patterns suggests potential significance of solar

space studies to all mankind.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 103
I. PROFILE FOR A BALANCED PROGRAM IN SOLAR ASTRONOMY

With the above objectives as guidelines, we have developed a set of goals that we

believe would provide a well-balanced program in solar astronomy through the 1980’s.

These are outlined briefly below; more detailed descriptions are set out in Section III.

A. Spaceflight Aspects

A solar maximum satellite for the 1978-1979 period would allow, in conjunction with

ground-based studies, an incisive approach to the study of solar activity in its various

manifestations. Furthermore, the basic spacecraft, through Shuttle recovery, relaunch,

and revisit, could provide a free-flying payload for long-duration solar experiments in 

the 1980’s.

Basic instrumentation for a Shuttle Sortie Solar Observatory (SSO) falls into two

categories. First we envisage a set of major telescopes optimized for different wavelength

regions and feeding interchangeable specialized instruments (spectrographs, direct

cameras, magnetometers). Second would be a versatile, fine-pointed platform for

mounting special-purpose instruments that may be incompatible with the larger feed

telescopes or not require their power–examples [illegible] coronagraphs and

polarimeters. The larger system, at least, should be started soon to provide the

opportunity of studying problems of solar activity with more powerful instruments (even

if narrower in scope) than those on the free-flying satellite.

[136] While the smaller fine-pointed platform should be developed on a single pallet as a

module for the sortie solar observatory, we also see an attractive possibility in its use to

carry payloads on a standby basis-an opportunity whereby an available payload could be

carried on an otherwise unfilled sortie mission. This concept needs study to determine its

feasibility.

Because the ultimate observational needs of solar astronomy may eventually require a

free-flying Large Solar Observatory, we recommend that the National Academy of

Sciences convene a panel of scientists to investigate all aspects of the need and

specifications for, and use of, such a facility.

B. Other Necessary Components of a Balanced Program

1. OTHER SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS

A coordinated approach to a variety of solar-physics problems requires that numerous

observations be made at the same time. Many of these must be made from spacecraft

flying outside the magnetosphere. Particularly relevant are very-low-frequency radio

measurements, in situ observations of solar-wind plasma and magnetic field, and highenergy particle measurements. Specific attention should be given to the scheduling of

launches of such payloads to optimize the scientific returns coordinated with the solar

Shuttle missions.

104 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
2. DATA ANALYSIS AND THEORETICAL STUDIES

Adequate and sustained support for the analysis of experimental data, as for parallel

theoretical studies, is imperative if the data are to be used for increasing our understanding

of the Sun. This support must be provided for at the earliest planning stages.

3. GROUND-BASED OBSERVATORIES

In the Shuttle era, solar astronomy will make increasingly heavy demands on the

ground-based observatory capabilities at optical and radio wavelengths. The

multiparameter observational detail required in order to develop an understanding of

solar phenomena necessarily results in the integration of data from a broad variety of

sources. Furthermore, as the understanding of basic solar processes unfolds, it is necessary

to maintain the ground-based as well as the space-based solar capabilities at the forefront

of technological sophistication.

[137] 4. ROCKETS AND BALLOONS

The return from the use of rockets and balloons for solar studies has far more than

justified the cost. With the augmented payload capability and excellent pointing controls

now available, these experiment platforms continue to provide an important part of a

balanced solar-astronomy effort. As solar astronomy enters the Shuttle era, it is important

that the rocket and balloon programs be continued, both for original solar studies and for

the development of Shuttle-compatible instrumentation. Only after we are well into the

operational Shuttle era will experience be available to permit a reassessment of the role

of the rocket and balloon capability for solar studies.

5. SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

In the past, the SR&T program in NASA has been pivotal in developing and

maintaining the solar-astronomy program and has underlain the excellent progress in

understanding the Sun and its influences. Sadly, the decrease in this type of funding in

recent years has not only had an impact on established research efforts but has curtailed

the investigation and development of new ideas that represent investment in the future.

We most urgently recommend that SR&T support be maintained and augmented as a

balanced part of the total NASA program.

III. MISSION MODEL

Table 17 is the mission model that we recommend to achieve the goals outlined. It is

designed to meet the anticipated needs of U.S., European, and other scientific groups. It

envisages a launch of the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) in 1977/78, a schedule of sortie

missions starting in 1980 with a buildup to four missions a year from 1983, and, starting

in 1980, an annual schedule of new flights, revisits, and refurbishments of the. free-flyer

spacecraft originally designed for the SMM. A certain fraction of these would carry new

payloads; some would simply replace consumables on the spacecraft. The initiation

schedule (SMM in 1978, first sortie at the end of 1979) is set by the coming solar

maximum and is more fully documented elsewhere.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 105
TABLE 17 Mission Model

Years

Item 77 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Missions on which 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4

SSO is prime payloada

Missions flying the 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

SFPP only which are

not included aboveb

Sortie flights of 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

opportunity for the

SFPPc

Solar Maximum Missiond 1

(Large Solar Observatory) 1

a These are dedicated missions for solar physics only. They might carry into space one

of the four following packages:

Payload Average Annual Rate (full level of activity)

STC + SFPP 2

LFPP + SFPP + FF 1

LFPP + SFPP + HESP 1

b These are missions for which solar-physics payloads carried

by the SFPP will fly with payloads belonging to other disciplines.

c These numbers assume that the number of rocket payloads launched per year in the

Shuttle area will be maintained at the present level of activity in the United States,

Europe, and Japan.

d The Solar Maximum Mission satellite will be launched in 1978. It will be recovered

by the Shuttle in 1980, refurbished, equipped with updated instruments, and

launched by one of the dedicated missions once every year.

Over a 10-year period, the total number of dedicated missions will be 34 including the

following: Solar Telescope Cluster (STC ), 17 flights; Large Fine-Pointed Platform (LFPP),

17 flights; High-Energy Solar Package (HESP), 7 flights; Free-Flyer Satellite (FF), 10 flights

(or revisits); Small Fine-Pointed Platform (SFPP), 34 flights. The total number of missions

flying the SFPP only over 10 years is 24; the total number of flights of opportunity for the

SFPP for the same period is 21.

The sounding-rocket program goal of 25 flights per year would continue through

1982 at least; its continuation beyond that must be a subject for study over the coming few

years as the Shuttle sortie capability becomes more defined.

Also envisaged is a Large Solar Observatory program with annual revisits, although

the need for closer definition of this program is reflected in our parenthetical entry of this

item in Table 17.

A. The Pre-Shuttle Solar Maximum Mission

Because of the timing requirement imposed by the 11-year solar [139] cycle, we

regard a free-flying satellite, with a carefully coordinated complement of instruments for

the study of the next solar maximum, as the highest immediate priority item for 

solar physics.

106 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Solar activity may be expected to return in 1977 and reach a peak approximately in

1979, with the likelihood of observing major flares in a seven-day mission decreasing

rapidly after 1981. We believe that an immediate start on this project is required in order

to use this opportunity, which will not be repeated until 1990.

The study of solar activity, especially flares, requires a wide range of instruments to

cover the electromagnetic spectrum from visible wavelengths to several MeV, where solar

nuclear gamma-ray lines have been observed. In particular, the study of the effects of

nonthermal particles at high x-ray and gamma-ray energies requires specialized

instrumentation that was not available during the last maximum in 1968 but that is now

within the state of the art. Further, the high resolution that will become available

simultaneously in spatial and spectral properties of the thermal flare plasma with the

generation of x-ray and euv spectroheliographs, which we believe can be developed in

ample time for the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM), will allow studies that can be achieved

in no other way.

1. DESIGN OF THE SPACECRAFT

The SMM presents an opportunity to develop a standard solar free-flying observatory

for the Shuttle era. The SMM satellite concept developed by the Goddard Space Flight

Center seems to provide an excellent basic capability that can support the pre-Shuttle

SMM and that has the growth capability to accommodate instruments of the class of the

Shuttle Sortie Observatory in a free-flying mode. The SMM concept envisages a Deltalaunched satellite with the capability of fine pointing of some 500 kg of instruments at the

Sun. The SMM concept will, by 1977, provide a pointed payload four times greater than

OSO-I, with over twice the power, more than 10 times the viewing area for pointed

instruments, enhanced pointing accuracy, and comparable telemetry and command

capability. Such capabilities, combined in a single spacecraft, will make it possible to

achieve the scientific objects with a low-cost approach. We strongly endorse the SMM

concept, not only for the pre-Shuttle SSM, which is of paramount importance, but as the

basis for a flexible future series of the Solar Free-Flying Observatories. 

[140] Alternative concepts for the spacecraft are not necessarily ruled out; however, it

would be essential that the following requirements be met to provide a viable system:

1. The spacecraft should be available for use at the next solar maximum in 

1977-1979.

2. The pointing stability should be better than 1 sec of arc over a period of 5 min.

3. The spacecraft should be designed as a revisitable and reusable free-flyer

throughout the Shuttle era.

2. SELECTION OF PAYLOAD FOR SMM

While we recognize that there may be strong constraints on funding experiments for

this mission, it is obvious that the best science, which must be the principal objective of

the mission, will not be accomplished by simply reflying experiments that have already

successfully returned data, simply in the name of economy. The design of the spacecraft

and the ample size and weight provision should allow new experimental approaches. We,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 107
therefore, urge that NASA ensure that experiment selection follow the proven method of

open competition and impartial review.

B. Use of the Space Shuttle for Solar Research

The following sections summarize our recommendations for use of the Shuttle as a

base for solar experiments and as a transportation system for free-flying satellites.

I. SORTIE MODE

We have identified four basic solar-physics sortie payloads, which can provide the

flexibility to accommodate the broad range of instrumentation required to implement the

observational program outlined. Two payloads have been identified as basic multiuse

facilities: the Solar Telescope Cluster, which provides a basic set of optical feeds for a

variety of imaging, spectroscopic, and polarization studies between 8 Å and 10,000 Å; and

a High-Energy Solar-Physics Package, which can carry out similar studies between 1 keV

and 100 MeV and with the high time resolution necessary to study nonthermal events. We

have also defined two different size fine-pointed platforms that can accommodate a variety

of specialized instruments. These four basic experiment packages are described in this

section, and representative instrumentation is presented in Appendix A.

[141]

TABLE 18 Characteristics of the Solar Telescope Cluster

Wavelength Spatial Type Aperture Lengtha Collecting Area

Range Resolution

(sec of arc) 

1200 Å 0.1 at 5000 Å Gregorian 100-cm, 6m 7500 cm2

f/5 primary, 

f/5 overall 

300-1600 Å 0.5 Normal-incidence 40 cm, f/10 5m 1250 cm2

mirror

140-600 Å 0.5 on axis Wolter type II 80 cm 5m 1500 cm2

8-300 Å 1 on axis Wolter type I 80 cm 5m 450 cm2

(λ >20Å)

1-40 keV 4 Oda collimator 50 cm 6 m 1000 cm2

a

Includes anticipated focal-plane instrumentation.

(a) SOLAR TELESCOPE CLUSTER 

Since radiation emitted over the entire wavelength range from below 1 Å into the

millimetric range arises in different height and temperature regimes in the solar

atmosphere, a battery of telescopes is required to carry out the needed research. Our

recommendation for such a battery is summarized in Table 18, while a brief description

of each component appears below. (Alignment of the entire battery on a given solar

feature to within 1 sec of arc, as well as independent pointing of individual telescopes to

any part of the solar disk, is required.) These specifications are presented as our desired

goals; we welt recognize that funding or technical constraints may delay the deployment

of some elements of the ultimate cluster.

108 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
(i) OPTICAL TELESCOPE A 1-m-diameter, f/35, diffraction-limited telescope

yielding angular resolution of about 0.1 sec of arc at 5000 Å is desired. A design goal

should be to extend the technology of surface finishing so that the system can operate

with similar angular resolution down to Lyman-α. Such a system has the advantage

that it builds upon the technology of intermediate-size systems of 65-cm aperture,

which are planned for flight in the next several years in stratospheric balloons, while

representing a reasonable advance of performance. As a general-use system, such a

heliograph should be equipped with a variety of final image magnifications as well as

auxiliary devices such as spectrographs, filters, polarimeters, cameras, and

magnetographs for investigations in the wavelength range from 1200 Å to 1 mm. Such

devices should be designed for modular installation of various combinations for [142]

differing scientific objectives. The use of such a telescope for nonsolar observations

should be considered in its design.

(ii) EUV TELESCOPE This instrument should be designed for maximum collecting

area and greatest possible efficiency (i.e., minimum number of reflections),

consistent with use of high-efficiency stigmatic spectrographs as subsidiary

instrumentation. It should cover the range 300 to 1500 Å with normal-incidence

optics, designed to produce image quality better than 0.5 sec of arc within 1 min of

arc of the optic axis. Such a system could then feed, for example, a stigmatic

spectrograph of ~1-m focal length, which also, by rocking the objective by ±15 sec,

would produce high-resolution spectroheliograms in a variety of lines. Other possible

instruments that could be placed at the focal plane include (1) narrow-band filters

(e.g., for Ly-α); (2) special-purpose spectrometers for measuring velocities, particular

line ratios, or line profiles; and (3) polarimeters.

Although the efficiency of normal-incidence optics drops seriously in the far uv,

it is important that every attempt be made to extend the spectral ranges to include the

strong He II 304 Å line. Consideration should also be given, however, to extending

the long-wavelength limit of the grazing-incidence Wolter type II telescope described

below to overlap the 300- 1600 Å range.

(iii) X-RAY TELESCOPES Adequate coverage of the shorter wavelengths will require

three individual telescopes. Two grazing-incidence imaging telescopes will operate

longward of about 8 Å; the shortest wavelengths are probably best covered by a

nonimaging mechanical Oda collimator, although this possibility needs further study.

The characteristics of the individual Wolter-type reflectors would be tailored to

provide the maximum available effective aperture for each range. The shortwavelength limit of this system is strictly set by the brightness of the source; for solar

flare studies, this telescope should be usable down to approximately 2 Å.

For imaging studies, the entire collecting area is available, and a spatial resolution

of 1 sec of arc (or better) should be attainable over a 1-2 min of arc field. For

spectroscopic studies, the different optics allow separate spectrometers to work in the

wavelength ranges from 8 Å to ~50 Å and from 40 Å to ~300 Å. Limitations of

collecting area may require spectroscopic or polarization observations to be carried

out at lower resolution.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 109
[143] The Oda collimator covers wavelengths too short for effective imaging, even at

grazing incidence. It will require devices to raster or scan its field of view over the

regions of interest; it normally will be used to feed spectrometers or polarimeters.

(b) COARSE-POINTED HIGH-ENERGY MEASUREMENTS 

Comprehensive measurements of the characteristics of x-ray, gamma-ray, and neutron

emission from the flaring and nonflaring Sun would give insight into the triggering

mechanism and total energy content of a flare (in conjunction with other measurements)

and into the acceleration, containment, and release of charged particles. The recent

OSO-7 discovery of flare-excited nuclear gamma-ray lines is indicative of the expected new

results from future high-energy studies. Use of the sortie mode for these high-energy

experiments permits observations to be made simultaneously with longer-wavelength

experiments and accommodation of high weight and data rates. These ends could also be

accomplished by an appropriate scheduling of free-flyers. The cost-effectiveness of both

modes should be investigated.

The intensity distribution and its variation with time and position should be measured

for photons in the spectral range of 0.001 to above 10 MeV. The flux, spectrum, and time

history of neutrons should be measured; a representative set of instruments is specified in

Appendix A.

The measurements taken during flares will be of great significance when compared

with simultaneous radio spectral and spatial measurements and with solar-particle

measurements obtained by other spacecraft.

(c) GENERAL-PURPOSE, FINE-POINTED PLATFORMS 

Several scientific disciplines will require oriented platforms for the Shuttle sortie

mode. To carry the full range of possible solar experiments, we recommend that two

pointed platforms be developed; the stability requirements for both platforms are 1 sec of

arc, but they differ in size. The smaller fine-pointed platform should accommodate

instruments up to 2 m long, and might, for example, be based on a half-pallet section.

This unit could be flown on sortie launches with only a limited amount of unused space

or load capacity. It represents an important component of the proposed facilities; it will

be ideal for carrying the type of experiment now flown on rockets. It will accommodate

larger and heavier payloads than do present rockets and will permit the evolution of

current rocketborne experiments. Its [144] early deployment would allow smaller

scientific groups to participate in early sortie flights.

The larger fine-pointed platform should accommodate instruments up to 2 m in

diameter by 4 m long and weighing up to 3000 kg. As part of the Sortie Solar Observatory

it would, for example, carry large special-purpose instruments not included in the Solar

Telescope Cluster or a problem-oriented package of several experiments of a size

intermediate between current rocket or OSO-type experiments.

The design of these platforms must be such as to allow payload development with

minimal interaction with the Shuttle itself. A clean interface for power, thermal-control,

data-transfer, and experiment control functions is important.

(d) DEPLOYABLE RECOVERABLE FREE-FLYER 

A semiautomated free-flying pointing platform based on an evolution of the OSO

110 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
series or the proposed SMM satellite is needed for some observational programs with

duration well in excess of that of a single sortie flight. Additionally, some experiments

require a higher freedom from contamination than is available on the Shuttle.

A deployment recovery mode is likely to be the most efficient way of serving this class

of platform since (i) there is no need to build a new spacecraft for every mission; (ii) the

instrumentation can be returned, updated, recalibrated (with a high degree of

confidence never reached up to now), and flown again; and (iii) spacecraft consumables

and components can be replenished, repaired, or replaced within a short lapse of time.

The SMM satellite should be designed with these needs closely in mind.

(e) OTHER ASPECTS

(i) SOLAR FLIGHTS OF OPPORTUNITY The payload carrying capability of the

Space Shuttle may be used to permit observations from space in a piggyback mode at

modest cost and with great flexibility. In this mode, experiments of an exploratory or

developmental nature may be carried out on a space-available basis.

For solar studies, this mode would make use of the general-purpose fine-pointed

instrument platform described above. It is desirable that this platform be built as a

modular independent facility to permit mounting into the Space Shuttle with

minimum interference to the prime Shuttle mission. For effective and low-cost [145]

utilization of this mode, it is essential that this facility have clean and standardized

interfaces with the Shuttle orbiter.

We strongly recommend that the experiment accommodation management of this

facility be as direct and informal as possible in order to promote maximum utilization

at minimum cost and lead time.

(ii) CALIBRATION Accurate instrument calibration is especially critical for solar

observations whose analysis demands high photometric accuracy. For example, a

powerful method of determining density or temperature of the solar plasma makes use

of the accurate measurement of ratios of spectral line intensities—often at widely

separated wavelengths—and for this the absolute values of these intensities are essential.

The Shuttle sortie mode is well suited for achieving accurate calibration since, in

principle, instrument calibration can be monitored during operation and a thorough

recalibration made immediately after flight.

(iii) THE ROLE OF MAN IN SOLAR SORTIE OBSERVATIONS The recent successful

operation of manned space solar-astronomy experiments of ATM during the Skylab

SL/2 mission has given needed perspective on the role of man in future sortie solar

observations. The man-instrument interaction on ATM takes three forms: as an

observer, as an operator, and as a technician

As observers the SL/2 crew have shown themselves capable of educated and

thoughtful choice of pointing coordinates within the solar features chosen for study

and have made important real-time decisions such as when and how to observe

transient phenomena such as flares. It is fair to say that the presence of educated

observers at the telescopes has greatly enhanced the resulting data.

As operators the crew have skillfully initiated complicated observing sequences,

many of which occurred out of reach of ground stations and therefore could not have

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 111
been initiated from the ground. It is fair to note, however, that if the Skylab had been

in continuous telemetry contact, these operations could have been accomplished

from the ground.

As a technician man has been essential in Skylab; the crew erected a thermal

shield, deployed a faulty solar power panel, overhauled an inoperative stellar uv

experiment, repaired faulty voltage regulators, cleared the optics of the ATM

coronagraph, repaired faulty experiment doors, replaced two jammed film cameras,

and returned exposed film to earth. It seems probable that the usefulness of man as

a [146] technician will continue to be paramount in the Shuttle sortie mode. There

seem to be very strong reasons, however, for carrying out observational and

operational activities from the ground. These include the following:

1. Ground support of scientific operations can continue 24 h per day by rotation of 

ground personnel, thus substantially increasing the total observing time.

2. Consultations among a number of solar scientists on the ground before and 

during the observational sequences will improve the quality of the observations.

Reasonably high data rates would be required to operate the experiments from 

the ground. However, this capability would also permit returning all or a sampling

of the data to earth in real-time or near real-time. This leads to a third advantage

of ground-based operation.

3. Quick-look evaluation of the data within hours or at most a day of the observation

will permit updating and improving observations planned for later in the same 

mission. Experience on OSO’s and ATM have proven the worth of quick-look data

evaluation for mission planning.

Therefore, we believe that it is important to provide the capability for ground-based

evaluation, through use of a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite or other continuous highdata-rate system. One crew member should be thoroughly competent to make technical

adjustments to the solar instrumentation; if he is also a competent observer, he might

carry out observations directly as time permits, in close collaboration with groundbased colleagues.

IV. REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON SHUTTLE AND SPACELAB BY 

THE SOLAR PROGRAM

A. Contamination of the Optical Environment

The Panel is concerned that the Shuttle may contaminate the local environment and

the optical surfaces of many of the experiments because of the extensive use of volatile

materials and the uncontrolled dumping of wastes.

[147] The Panel recommends that NASA establish a Shuttle Contamination Control Board

to examine all materials, engineering approaches, and inflight procedures that may have

implications for the contamination problem. Such a group could recommend

modifications to assure that tolerable limits of contaminating gases and particulates are

maintained. A similar Board operated for Skylab, and a considerable body of

observational data on this problem will be available from Skylab.

112 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
B. Scheduling of Solar Missions

Because solar studies typically make use of many coordinated observations, it will be

advisable to schedule solar sortie missions to coincide with supporting ground-based

observations. This will in general be during May-September, as most major solar facilities

are in the northern hemisphere and are located at sites where the skies are clearer during

the summer than the winter months.

C. Orbital Considerations

Solar sortie missions will in general make use of orbits requiring minimum fuel

consumption in order to maximize available payload weight.

Solar free-flyers should be put into orbits that will maximize recovery and revisit

opportunities. Sun-synchronus [sic] missions for studies requiring continuous coverage

are also possible.

D. Tracking and Data-Relay Satellite System (TDRS)

We believe that a data-relay system permitting nearly continuous contact with the

Shuttle sortie is essential for maximum scientific productivity. Further, we believe that the

Orbiter/TDRS wideband data link, which in the present mission model is regarded as

optional, is indispensable to the effective use of the sortie mode and should be a part of

the Shuttle program from the beginning.

E. Payload Capacity

It appears that the solar sortie will be limited by return payload weight for most

missions, which will limit the ability to conduct coordinated experiments. We strongly urge

that the weight landing [148] capacity of the Shuttle be increased to as near the original

goal as possible.

F. Mission Duration

Some solar missions will benefit greatly from longer missions, up to the full 30-day

capability. The Shuttle should be designed to minimize the payload impact of such 

longer missions.

G. Use of the Payload Specialist Station

Flights of the Solar Telescope Cluster and other major solar payloads will utilize, on

occasion, the payload specialist in an interactive role in the experiment. However, if the

required console displays and controls are housed in a Spacelab pressurized module (as

presently defined), it appears that the weight of that unit will seriously limit the size of the

scientific payload and may, indeed, prevent flying the full Solar Telescope Cluster.

Assuming that it is impractical to increase the permissible landing weight of the Shuttle,

then the best solution seems to be to design the payload specialist console to allow

adequate servicing of the scientific payload.

H. Data and Control Interfacing

It is recognized that the time available for payload integration with the Shuttle may be

extremely limited. We suggest that these requirements may be met if the pallet itself

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 113
includes a general-purpose computer of substantial capacity (e.g., 128 kbits of directaccess memory plus mass storage capability of at least 1010 bits) that is used for

experiment control and data management and the payload specialist console serves

primarily as a terminal for this computer. The console should also include video and CRT

displays, the latter for display of information from the computer. Although most control

functions would be derived from the pallet computer, it is advisable to have several analog

servo-control circuits included in the console for instrument manipulation and limited

analog readouts for critical experiment monitors.

With such a design, all experiment functions and computer software could be

integrated and checked out using a Payload Specialist Console Simulator prior to

mounting the pallet in the Shuttle. Also, this approach will minimize mission peculiar

modifications of the Payload Specialist Station, requiring only that the terminal-computer

interface be standardized.

[149] V. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. The Impact of Quality Assurance on Costs

The Space Shuttle could substantially reduce the cost of transporting payloads to

orbit, as well as increasing the number of flight opportunities. To take advantage of these

opportunities, the cost per pound of payload must be substantially reduced. Part of this

saving may be achieved by substantially streamlining the documentation and verification

requirements of present-day quality assurance procedures.

We recommend that a panel of experienced Principal Investigators and satellite and

experiment program managers from the various NASA Centers and from NASA

Headquarters be established to examine the problem of quality assurance in the Shuttle

era and to make specific recommendations on procedures for sortie instruments and for

instrumentation on free-flyers. We believe that the basic quality assurance approach

recommended in the Shuttle sortie model presented by NASA is an excellent one and

recommend that Principal Investigators work closely with NASA to implement this

approach. We also recommend asking the proposed panel on quality assurance to

consider the Solar Maximum Mission proposed for 1978, since this mission will be a

prototype of the free-flyer of the Shuttle era.

B. Convening of a Shuttle Experimentation Planning Committee

Because the Shuttle and sortie laboratory are still in the planning stage, it is important

to establish a continuing channel for exchange of information—e.g., payload

accommodations, contamination control, and pointing requirements—between the

scientific community and the Shuttle and sortie laboratory planners. Accordingly, we

recommend that a committee of representative experimenters be set up for this purpose;

this committee could be drawn, for example, from the existing U.S. and European

working groups. We also recommend that these working groups be continued.

C. Selection and Responsibilities of Scientists

We consider that the successful construction and operation of individual instruments

of any size is best accomplished under the supervision of a single responsible scientist. The

114 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
process of selecting experiments must avoid conflict of interest, be open at all program

[150] phases, and must reflect the requirement that observing time and data are to be

made available to guest investigators. A promising start in defining management

responsibilities in this area is set out in detail in the report of the NASA Payload Planning

Working Group.

D. The Crucial Role of SR&T Support

Supporting research and technology provides, at modest cost, the basis from which

flight programs grow. The Shuttle promises to provide a splendid opportunity for

deployment of new and exciting instruments. To produce these in time for solar

maximum, a start must be made now on instrument development. Because of the large

payloads carried by the Shuttle, a substantial effort is needed, requiring a corresponding

increase in SR&T funding or special allocation of funds for Shuttle instrument

development.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The occurrence of solar activity presents a unique opportunity to investigate a

broad variety of energetic astrophysical processes and, in particular, to study the role

played by magnetic fields in such phenomena. For this reason, it is crucial to exploit the

forthcoming maximum in solar activity (anticipated for early 1979); an equivalent

opportunity will not be repeated until at least 1990.

We, therefore, recommend that the highest priority be given to the implementation of

a Solar Maximum Mission ( SMM ) satellite to be launched in late 1977 to observe the

upsurge of solar activity and designed to permit uprating as a free-flyer in the 

Shuttle era.

2. The early data from the ATM have clearly demonstrated that instrumentation

covering a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum is essential for a broad attack on

the fundamental problems of solar physics. This concept can be used to great advantage

on the Shuttle because of its high-payload and data-return capabilities. Such a wide variety

of problems can be approached in this wad that a series of missions is required, each

having different specialized detectors at the focal planes of a cluster of generalized light

collectors.

We, therefore, recommend that a flight program be initiated with the aim of

development of a Shuttle Sortie Observatory consisting of (a) a solar telescope cluster of

large collectors covering a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum and designed to

feed different focal-plane instruments on different flights; (b) a small, fine-pointed

platform for experiments of the rocket class; (c) a coarse-pointed package for high-energy

solar measurements.

[151] 3. Certain important needs of solar physics are not met by the Shuttle sortie.

Among these are (a) long-term, synoptic observations of such long-lived phenomena as

active regions and coronal structures where moderate data rates suffice; (b) rare events,

such as major flares, which can be studied only by long-duration observations; (c)

contamination-free observations; and (d) observations for correlative purposes with

observations from other spacecraft or from the ground. All these needs can be met by a

free-flying spacecraft. The concept of periodic recovery, refurbishment, and instrument

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 115
interchange on the SMM spacecraft offers an attractive, flexible, and inexpensive

solution to this need.

We, therefore, recommend the creation of a solar free-flyer program based on Shuttle

recovery and upgrading of the SMM spacecraft.

4. Certain important solar instruments such as coronagraphs and some special xuv

devices require a large fine-pointed platform but are not adaptable to the general-purpose

Solar Telescope Cluster.

We, therefore, recommend the development of a large fine-pointed platform to

accommodate these larger instruments.

5. Considerable cost savings may be realized by developing instruments usable by

different disciplines and programming observations so that some of the powerful

hardware developed in one area of astronomy can be used for observations in others.

We, therefore, recommend that close attention be given at all planning stages to the

possibility of development of modular instrument packages or interdisciplinary use.

6. The ultimate observational goals of solar studies make the eventual deployment of

large instruments on a free-flying platform a most attractive possibility, particularly in view

of recent spectacular a Skylab, OSO, and ground observations. With the availability of the

Shuttle to carry such large loads, the time is ripe to begin planning for such a program.

We, therefore, recommend that a panel be convened under the auspices of the National

Academy of Sciences to study all aspects of a Large Solar Observatory (LSO).

7. Because of the novelty and complexity of the Shuttle operation, we recommend the

establishment of a representative Shuttle experimentation planning board drawn from

the disciplines to work closely with the Shuttle and sortie laboratory planners in defining

experiment accommodations to be required.

8. Because of the severe weight penalty presently imposed by the use of the sortie

laboratory module, we recommend that, as a priority matter, adequate payload specialist

console space be provided [152] along with sufficient and data storage in the

orbiter/sortie pallet mode.

9. Because of the planned operational mode, detailed specifically in the above text,

we recommend that the fundamental importance to solar-physics missions of a wideband

Shuttle/TDRS relay satellite capability be kept closely in mind in all planning stages.

10. The extent to which the potential of the Shuttle is realized in advancing space

science depends intimately on the degree of continued input of the scientific community,

especially during the planning stages. The discipline working groups constituted by NASA

have set a sound direction for such communication. We, therefore, recommend that a

continued and close interaction between scientists and planners be recognized as an

essential component in Shuttle development and that appropriate mechanisms (e.g.,

discipline working groups) be established to ensure this interaction.

116 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Document I-16

Document Title: Andrea K. Dupree, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee, “Report of the Ad

Hoc Committee on Interaction Between Solar Physics and Astrophysics,” 18 June 1976.

Source: American Astronomical Society, Solar Physics Division Papers, American Institute

of Physics, Washington, D.C. 

A persistent concern among the leaders of the U.S. solar research community was the possibility of the

field’s isolation from other areas of astronomy and astrophysics. To avoid such isolation, a Division

of Solar Physics was established within the American Astronomical Society, and there were occasional

ad hoc efforts to identify areas of common interest between solar physics and other areas of

astronomical research. This report reflects one such effort.

[cover sheet]

DRAFT VERSION

June 18, 1976 

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on

Interaction between Solar Physics and Astrophysics

Committee Membership

J. Beckers

Sacramento Peak Observatory

A.K. Dupree, Chairman

Center for Astrophysics

L.W. Fredrick

U. of Virginia; A.A.S.

J.W. Harvey

Kitt Peak National Observatory

J.L. Linsky

Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics

L.E. Peterson

U. of California, San Diego

A.B.C. Walker, Jr.

Stanford University

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 117
[1] I. Background and Introduction 

Many solar astronomers are concerned about the existing separation between solar

physicists and the rest of the astronomical community. In response to this concern, the

Executive Committee of the Solar Physics Division suggested that an ad hoc committee be

formed. This committee was asked to recommend appropriate action to the Solar Physics

Division to enocurage [sic] increased interaction between solar phyiscs [sic] and

astrophysics. This Report contains the recommendations of the committee.

It is useful to summarize here the existing problem. The study of solar physics, which

once was an integral part of astrophysics and the astronomical community, appears now

to be a distinctly separate and isolated field of astrophysical research. Communication and

cross-fertilization among the subdisciplines of astrophysics has declined. The

astronomical community is largely unaware of and maybe indifferent to current research

in solar astronomy. 

This present situation concerns solar physicists because of the adverse effects that

could result from the loss of interest and hence support from the astronomical

community. Lack of support for solar physics on a national and local level can endanger

funding as well as encourage a further decrease in faculty positions in solar physics. Few

students are then produced or even exposed to the problems and potential in [2] the

study of the Sun. The implications and also the complexity, of the situation are clear.

In fact, that solar physics is a significant, active, and vital field is well known to Division

members. Its strength, vitality, and broad interdisciplinary extension are also extensively

documented in two recent reports: the Space Science Board Study on Solar Physics (the

“Parker Committee” report) and the Report of the Solar Astronomy Task Force to the Ad

Hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee on Astronomy (I.C.C.A.).

It is not the intent of this Committee to review or to update their conclusions except

to note that the field of solar physics contains numerous substantial, exciting, and

unsolved problems that relate to practically every aspect of the Sun and its environment.

Additionally, the study of the Sun carries with it strong interdisciplinary relationships to

stellar astrophysics, atomic and molecular physics, plasma physics, and magnetohydrodynamics, to name but a few.

This Committee feels that positive steps can be taken by the Solar Physics Division as

well as by individuals to improve the current situation. Our recommendations to the SPD

follow. Of course, any Division strongly relies on actions of individual members, and in

some cases individual actions would appear to be the more effective ones. Suggestions to

individual members follow in III.

II. Recommendations to the SPD

1. Continue meeting jointly with the American Astronomical Society. Contributed

solar papers should be mixed where appropriate with non-solar papers.

2. Invited review and topical sessions sponsored by the SPD and simultaneous with

AAS meetings should be encouraged.

3. The SPD should be aggressive about its responsibility to provide invited speakers to

the AAS. The SPD should emphasize specific topics of common interest to solar and nonsolar astrophysicists.

118 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
4. The SPD should actively initiate, solicit, and support meetings, conferences,

symposia, and. colloquia, among solar and non-solar astronomers on topics of 

mutual interest.

5. The SPD officers and members should be aware of other societies and meetings where

solar physics can have an impact. The officers of the SPD should encourage and propose a

selection of solar physicists for invited papers and perhaps attendance at appropriate meetings.

6. The officers of the SPD should capitalize on new areas of astrophysics where solar

physics can strongly contribute. For instance, the launch of HEAO-B where X-ray

spectroscopy will be carried out on non-solar sources: IUE and ST where the ultraviolet

spectrum of non-solar objects will be generally available. Solar physicists are wellacquainted with the UV and X-ray regions as well as phenomena in high temperature

plasmas. The SPD should encourage interdisciplinary lectures, [4] conferences, and

meetings in these areas.

III. The members of the SPD can act individually in a number of ways. The following

recommendations are offered.

1. Suggest, support, and encourage the appointment of solar physicists to faculty

positions. This effort is one of the most important contributions that an individual can

make. Astronomical research and the production of students centers on the university.

Astronomers and students need exposure to active programs of solar research.

2. Publish solar papers of general interest in The Astrophysical Journal. This may

require a new point of view to be developed among solar physicists. Specifically, we should

always ask ourselves the question: What are the implications of a particular solar physics

observation for the theory of stellar atmospheres? In research, we should try to emphasize

fundamental rather than superficial results. Point out the parallels between phenomena

of the physical principles underlying the phenomena in the Sun and in non-solar objects.

Papers with broad interest should go to The Astrophysical Journal or, for instance,

Astronomy and Astrophysics.

3. Apply theoretical and observational techniques developed in solar research to

nonsolar problems.

4. Seek to publish semi-popular papers in Science, Sky and [5] Telescope, Scientific

American, or other journals read by a large fraction of astronomers. Encourage editors to

include papers relating to solar physics.

5. Volunteer for lectures and colloquia. In addition, encourage and publicize visits,

discussions, lectures, etc. by solar physicists at your local (institutional) level.

6. Improve the public relations and publicity for solar physics. Think seriously about

the idea of a general press release for a worthy and interesting result. Make an effort to

point out, publicly and privately, the relevance of solar physics to the rest 

of astronomy.

7. To insure continued federal support for solar physics, it is obviously important to

have strong representatives on advisory committees. Relations with Washington should be

cultivated at all levels.

8. The journal Solar Physics has received some criticism. It is felt that only papers of

strictly solar interest should be published there. Perhaps, to make the journal more

inviting to non-solar astronomers, it would be useful to reorganize the sections which,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 119
while they cannot parallel the divisions used by Astronomy and Astrophysics, could at least

reflect the more general interest in physical and atmoic [sic] processes as studied on the

Sun and in relation to other stars. It is also the responsibility of individual members to

maintain high standards for refereeing papers submitted to Solar Physics.

Document I-17

Document Title: Space Science Board, National Research Council, “Report on Space

Science,” 1975. 

Source: National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

This is another report from the scientific community in the mid-1970s, pointing out the interactions

between solar research and other questions of scientific interest. In this case, the focus was on the

contribution of solar physics to the understanding of solar-terrestrial relations. 

[cover sheet]

Report on 

Space Science

1975

Space Science Board

Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences

National Research Council 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Washington, D.C. 1976

Participants 

Solar Physics Study

Eugene Parker, Chairman 

Jacques Beckers 

Arthur Hundhausen 

Mukul R. Kundu 

Cecil E. Leith 

Robert Lin 

Jeffrey Linsky 

Frank B. MacDonald 

Robert Noyes 

Frank Q. Orrall 

Laurence E. Peterson 

120 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
David M. Rust 

Peter Sturrock 

Arthur B. C. Walker, Jr. 

Adrienne Timothy, NASA Participant

Kenneth A. Janes, Study Director

[147]

[Chapter] F 

Solar Physics

I. SUMMARY

A. Introduction

Solar physics has become one of the most complex subjects in astrophysics. The Sun,

our daytime star, is sufficiently near that its surface can be studied in detail, revealing the

many phenomena that make up the complicated personality of an average stellar object.

Similar effects and variations are part of the makeup of every star, and collectively of whole

galaxies, but are blissfully suppressed in the unresolved radiation from the “night-time”

stars. Observations of the Sun present a variety of phenomena that at first sight defy

rational explanation in terms of the familiar concepts of physics but ultimately stimulate

the theoretical understanding of new effects. Historically, the chromosphere and corona

are outstanding examples, having stood in contradiction to the views of thermodynamics

at the time their properties were determined.

The Sun presents such diverse phenomena as the cool prominence on phase

immersed in the hot coronal gas phase, differential rotation, the 22-year magnetic cycle,

the sunspot, the flare, and the predicted but still missing neutrino emission from the core

(which provides the only independent test of the theory of stellar interiors). Each of these

effects has proved to be an enigma, with only partial understanding available. Yet each

limits the understanding of all stars. One of the [148] solar contributions of greatest

importance to astrophysics has been the detailed study of nonequilibrium thermodynamic

systems in the solar photosphere, chromosphere, and corona. The knowledge of such

systems developed from the Sun is now applied to the less tractable problem of the

analysis of the radiation from the unresolved disks of other stars.

The active ejecta of relativistic particles and hot plasma seen in solar flares provide the

only examples of this violent phenomenon subject to detailed diagnostic examination.

Many active stars and galaxies display ejecta of similar appearance. The solar wind is the

only example of a stellar wind subject to comprehensive observation and theoretical

modeling. The solar flare is the only example of the stellar-flare phenomenon (that

appears in such colossal form in the dwarf-M emission stars) subject to close scrutiny and

analysis. It is possible to diagnose the effects of many active phenomena only with the

assistance of the closeup observations and theory of the solar analogue.

Recent studies of the Sun and its variable activity, together with the long record of

variation of weather and climate of earth, show that there may be both a short- and a longterm relationship. Numerical modeling suggests a close connection between global

circulation at low altitudes and the ozone-induced thermal gradients in the upper

atmosphere. Modeling has also suggested that a minor change in solar luminosity or

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 121
ultraviolet emission may produce a major change in climate, which indicates the

importance of precision synoptic studies of the luminosity of the Sun. Indeed, the whole

problem of variation of terrestrial climate and solar luminosity suggests that it would be

important to monitor the luminosities of other stars of the same class as the Sun.

The convective zone beneath the photosphere is responsible for the chromosphere,

the corona, and the solar wind. It is also responsible for the differential rotation and for

the generation of the magnetic field of the Sun, whose emergence through the surface is

the agent that converts the quiet Sun into an active Sun.

Many phenomena on the quiet Sun depart remarkably from thermodynamic

equilibrium. The quiet Sun is active in many ways, but on so small a scale as to be

inconspicuous. The convection beneath the photosphere causes superheating of the

tenuous atmosphere above the photosphere, producing the chromosphere (104 oK) and

the transition to the corona (106 oK) above. The quiet Sun exhibits magnetic fields over

the entire surface, appearing either as the small ephemeral bipolar regions or as

individual compressed flux tubes in the boundaries between the supergranule convective

cells. The spicules evidently leap [149] up through the chromosphere along these flux

tubes. The transition region is rendered extremely inhomogeneous by small-scale activity.

The conspicuous features of solar activity are large, and their forms are easily

observed from the ground in visible light. Their general character was discerned decades

ago. Their internal workings, however, are of small scale (100 km or less) and, in some

cases, visible only in radio, ultraviolet, or x rays. Their general causes are conjectured from

the general observations in visible light, but their particular effect can be probed in detail

only from instruments carried out of the terrestrial atmosphere on spacecraft or by such

sophisticated ground-based facilities as the Very Large Array (VLA). The high-resolution

ground-based observations, together with the OSO series of spacecraft and the Skylab

observations, have provided the exploratory observations that define the general nature

of the complex atmosphere and activity of the Sun and have begun to probe the internal

working of the various phenomena. The next stage is the detailed diagnostics,

coordinating the necessary high-resolution observations to determine the precise physical

nature of each phenomenon.

The variety of effects presented by the Sun has led to the development of a broad

observational and theoretical program aimed at exploring and understanding this

complex behavior. This is not the appropriate place to review the milestones that have

already been passed. Suffice it to say that a variety of problems still lie ahead, baffling and

challenging and beckoning to be solved. We can group these problems loosely into two

categories, the quiet Sun and the active Sun, each of which presents many 

separate problems.

This report outlines a general, coordinated assault on the many questions and

problems presented by the Sun. Sections II and III [no other sections included] explore

the various problems, Section IV describes the observations and theoretical studies that

are needed to probe the many phenomena, and Section V outlines the organized

observational programs from the ground and from spacecraft that will provide the

necessary information.

B. Recommended Program

122 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
1. SOLAR MAXIMUM MISSION

Of the several major space efforts required, the most timely is the Solar Maximum

Mission (SMM), aimed at probing the active regions and particularly the solar flare. The

instruments for the mission have been defined, designed, and in many cases already

tested. The experimental groups are prepared, many of the needed diagnostic techniques

are [150] tested, and the solar maximum of 1979 is approaching. We consider the SMM a

pivotal step in space research. A new start is required in fiscal year 1977 in order to launch

it by late 1979. The predicted behavior of the active regions and flares to be observed by

the SMM is discussed in Section V.B. and in Appendix A [not included].

If it is not possible to begin funding in 1977, present experimental teams will dissolve

and the cost of a later start will be increased, while the declining chances of obtaining

complete coordinated observations of moderate-sized (importance 2) flares will seriously

imperil the scientific objectives of the mission. In that case, we feel compelled to

recommend abandoning the SMM and the serious study of flares until the next solar

maximum in 1990. Since solar flares and active regions are central to the understanding

of solar physics, the loss of the SMM would be a serious blow to the exploration of solar

activity, leaving a conspicuous gap in our knowledge at a crucial point.

Whether or not the SMM is approved, we recommend proceeding with the study of

the quiet Sun, and other forms of activity, with the combined Shuttle instruments and

facilities in coordination with various free-flyer missions and ground-based observations.

2. EARTH-ORBITING FREE-FLYERS

The Solar Synoptic Satellite (SSS) series would be a series of free-flyers designed to

achieve substantial improvements in the quality of observations and in the continuity of

coverage of the evolution of quiet and active coronal structures such as coronal holes,

active regions, and streamers. These satellites will provide (a) basic solar research

information; (b) long-term history of features selected for high-resolution, short-term

Shuttle sortie studies; (c) observations of coronal structure to complement the Solar

Stereoscopic and out-of-the-ecliptic missions; and (d) monitor the long-term variability of

the solar “constant” and ultraviolet emissions.

Possible vehicles for the SSS would be follow-on SMM-type spacecraft or Explorerclass spacecraft.

Other free-flying satellites to be considered for flight in the 1980’s include the

“Pinhole” satellite and the Large Solar Observatory (LSO).

3. SPACELAB INSTRUMENTS

NASA is currently studying five facility-class instruments for Spacelab flight in the

early Shuttle era. These include a 1-m-class optical/uv [151] telescope facility, an xuv

telescope facility, a soft x-ray telescope facility, a hard x-ray imaging facility, and an euv

telescope facility. Their capabilities, presently under definition, will clearly make them the

cornerstone of much of the observational research discussed in the body of this report. It

is hoped that by mid-1980, one or more of the facility-class instruments will be available

for flight during the period around the solar maximum and during the flight of the SMM.

While such facility instruments could be an enormously valuable complement to the

SMM, they could in no way be a substitute for it, because of the short flight time of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 123
Spacelab missions and the fact that they lack the extremely broad range of instrumental

capability contained on the SMM.

The special-purpose instruments on Spacelab are more specialized than facility

instruments. Some, such as solar gamma-ray and neutron telescopes, should be flown as

early as possible in Spacelab in order to overlap with flare studies on the SMM.

4. INTERPLANETARY MISSIONS

Interplanetary missions, such as the Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms (IMP), the

International Sun-Earth Explorers (ISEE), the Solar Stereoscopic Mission, and the Out-ofthe-Ecliptic Missions are of great importance for solar physics, both because of their direct

measurements of particles and fields and (for the latter) their capability to view conditions

over the poles of the Sun.

The missions perhaps most unique in their exploratory scope are the out-of-theecliptic missions (OOE). Their purpose is to probe the conditions in the space outside the

thin layer to which satellite orbits are now confined. The OOE spacecraft would be

instrumented to study the solar wind, cosmic rays, and fast solar particles at middle (solar)

latitudes, looking directly into the most intense solar active regions and, over the poles of

the Sun, looking directly into the large polar coronal holes. They would be instrumented

to observe the azimuthal form of the coronal structures and to observe the convection,

circulation, and magnetic fields in the polar regions in order to develop an understanding

of the global structure of the circulation and convection in the Sun.

The possibility of sending a probe directly into the Sun (the solar “plunger”), in order

to return information from distances as close as two or three radii above the photosphere,

should also be studied carefully. Planning for the earth-orbital Solar Synoptic Satellites

(discussed above) should ensure their operation concurrently with interplanetary

missions to obtain coordinated observations.

5. LEVEL OF EFFORT PROGRAMS

The above recommendations stress the requirements of solar space research.

Important research from ground-based observatories remains to be done even if all the

space missions are implemented. The value of both space and ground observations should

be measured by our ability to understand them, to interpret them in terms of basic

physical mechanisms that are also applicable to other fields of science, and to relate them

to other phenomena of interest to mankind. We recommend, therefore, a strong level of

effort program in theoretical solar research, diagnostics, computer simulation of solar

processes, and laboratory astrophysics to complement and enhance the space effort.

For ground-based observations, the following will continue to be of interest:

a. Small-scale dynamics in the lower solar atmosphere related to coronal heating,

convection, waves, and mass loss. (If implemented, the large optical Shuttle

telescope might reduce the significance of this type of ground-based effort.)

b. Large-scale global circulation on the Sun and the shape of the Sun itself. Both are

related to solar structure, solar dynamo, and solar activity cycles.

c. Synoptic observations of solar variability.

d. Thermal radio emission of the outer solar atmosphere.

124 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
e. Nonthermal radio emission associated with solar transients.

f. Neutrino flux energy spectrum.

Many of these ground-based observational programs are an important part of the

overall space effort, both as an essential and integral part of the SMM and as part of a level

of effort program. They will also be an important complement to the other space missions

discussed in this report. The threat to the continued existence of excellent ground-based

facilities, and the actual closing of one facility, is a matter of extreme gravity for the space

program. We urge, therefore, that adequate support be provided to ensure the continued

pursuit of high-quality ground-based solar research.

Document I-18

Document Title: Memorandum from Noel W. Hinners, Associate Administrator for Space

Science, to Dr. John F. Clark, Director, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “Solar

Maximum Mission System Definition and Execution Plan,” 15 January 1976.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

A mission to study the Sun during its period of maximum activity in the late 1970s was the highest

priority objective of the solar research community for the decade. NASA finally approved the

development of such a mission, called the Solar Maximum Mission, in early 1976. The mission was

intended to be the first to use a standard spacecraft bus, designed for Space Shuttle retrieval.

[no page number]

[Stamped JAN 15 1976]

MEMORANDUM

TO: Goddard Space Flight Center

Attn: Dr. John F. Clark, Director

FROM: S/Associate Administrator for Space Science

SUBJECT: Solar Maximum Mission System Definition and Execution Plan

REF: Memo fr S/Hinners to Cooper dtd 2 Dec 75, same subject

In the process of formulating the FY 1977 NASA budget, several decisions have been

made that affect NASA’s planning for the Solar Maximum Mission.

The Execution Phase Project Plan for the Gamma Ray Explorer (GRE) has not been

approved. The System Definition and Execution Plan for Solar Maximum Mission (SMM)

as approved in the referenced memo is based on the GRE development preceding the

SMM with the GRE initiating the development of the standard subsystems and a spacecraft

bus. Since development of the GRE will not proceed in FY 1976, the SMM Project Plan

should be revised to incorporate the following guidelines:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 125
1. The SMM project will advance the concept of standardizing spacecraft

subsystems. The SMM Project Manager should provide technical guidance which

will yield, as an outgrowth of the SMM development, subsystems which can be

considered as NASA standards and can be used by many of NASA’s future

missions. This activity should be carried out within the available resources and

should not compromise the basic objectives of the SMM and its experiments.

2. The SMM should be designed to be launched on a Delta 2910 and with provisions

that will permit retrieval from orbit by the Shuttle Transportation System (STS).

Development of a [2] Flight Support System (FSS) will be deferred. In-orbit

servicing of the SMM is not a requirement.

3. Subsystems and components originally identified for use on the GRE mission

should be considered for use on the SMM.

4. The R&D resources budgeted to the SMM project for the execution phase of the

SMM by fiscal year are supplied as an enclosure. Provision should be made in the

scientific experiment accommodations to include a solar monitoring experiment

of approximately 23 Kg, 18000 cm3 volume and a maximum power consumption

of 10 watts. Resources should be allotted in the budget for the development and

operation of this experiment.

It is requested that a revised SMM project plan, including schedules, procurement

plans, resources, and manpower, be submitted to my office for review and approval by

February 27, 1976.

Noel W. Hinners

Enclosure

cc: P. Burr

ST SD 

HGlaser ACalio

**********

[enclosure]

SOLAR MAXIMUM MISSION

R&D RESOURCES GUIDELINES

NOA ($M) INCLUDING SAMSO INFLATION

ADVANCED TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT PHASE

FY 76 TRANSITION

1.0 0.7

126 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
EXECUTION PHASE

FY 77 FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 TOTAL

20.1 27.5 13.4 4.7 3.3 69.0

Document I-19

Document Title: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Project Plan for International Solar Polar

1983 Mission,” November 1978.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The next planned solar research mission after the Solar Maximum Mission was to be a joint effort

with the European Space Agency (ESA). Such a mission had been under study for several years. This

project plan represents the results of those studies, and it was the basis for project approval. NASA and

ESA were to launch identical spacecraft that would transit the Sun’s polar regions and would provide

stereoscopic images of solar phenomena. The United States in 1981 cancelled its spacecraft

contribution. (See Volume II, Chapter 1.)

[cover sheet]

Project Plan 

For 

International Solar Polar 

1983 Mission

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

California Institute of Technology 

Pasadena, California 91103

November 1978

[1-1]

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

A. IDENTIFICATION

International Solar Polar Mission (ISPM) is the Project title (UPN 836) designated by

the NASA Office of Space Science in its request for a plan under the NASA Physics and

Astronomy Program. The Program Project Approval Document (PAD) (Ref. 1-1) [no

references included] notes that the Program comprises Astrophysics Programs, Solar

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 127
Terrestrial Programs, and Upper Atmospheric Research. The ISPM Project is an element

of the NASA Solar Terrestrial Program.

B. SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

Studies of the Sun and heliosphere have a central role in the space program, as this

area of science is one with vast practical benefits to man. The Sun provides the controlling

influence on Earth’s weather and climate. Since changes in solar conditions have the

potential for causing variations in weather and climate, increased human knowledge of

the Sun can allow increased understanding of these variations and their implications.

The Sun is a star, and is the only star close enough that we can resolve its surface

structure. The heliosphere is the only large-scale astrophysical plasma that we can observe

in situ. Then by analogy, observations of the Sun and the heliosphere serve as a basis for

deciding what is possible in other astrophysical settings.

Numerous space missions have been flown to study the Sun and the heliosphere. Each

of these missions has been limited in one major respect. To date no spacecraft has

ventured off the solar equatorial plane by more than about 15° in heliographic latitude.

This limitation is a serious one. As can be seen in the eclipse photograph shown in Figure

1-1 [figures not included] or in the X-ray photograph of the solar corona shown in Figure

1-2, the solar atmosphere exhibits [1-3] pronounced variations with latitude which should

result in commensurate variations in the heliosphere. To date, then, we have studied only

a non-representative sample of the solar wind. Similarly, our observations of the Sun are

limited by projection effects because we have observed the Sun only from a narrow range

of view angles.

Recent advances have now made it possible to explore the heliosphere and view the

Sun over the full range of heliographic latitudes. The major advances of note are:

(1) Planetary payload injection capability, from the Titan/Centaur launch vehicle

system of the 1970’s to the Space Shuttle/Inertial Upper Stage combination of

the 1980’s.

(2) Precision space navigation and trajectory correction maneuver capabilities, such

as made possible the multiple flybys of the planet Mercury by the MVM Spacecraft

and the swingbys of the planet Jupiter by Pioneers 10 and 11.

A science rationale is provided in Section III-A [not included].

C. PROGRAMMATIC BACKGROUND

Out-of-ecliptic missions have been considered by NASA almost from its formation as an

agency (Ref. 1-2, 1959). In its early years, NASA also sponsored scientific meetings, of

relevance to such missions, that collected and disseminated the results of space research,

such as the plasma space science symposium held at the Catholic University of America,

Washington, D.C., on 11-14 June 1963 (Ref. 1-3), and the conference on the solar wind held

at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, on 1-4 April 1964 (Ref. 1-4).

Various studies that lead to an out-of-ecliptic mission were published between 1963

and 1974, wherein the early studies are technology-oriented and the later studies focus on

projects and system designs. Minovitch described in his now-classic report (Ref. 1-5, 1963)

the use of gravity-assisted trajectories [1-4] to obtain multiple-body flybys. Biermann (Ref.

1-6, 1965) reviewed aspects of the physics of interplanetary space, such as the

128 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
interplanetary plasma, magnetic fields and dust, and cosmic rays. Minovitch (Ref. 1-7,

1965) next provided details in his sequel to Ref. 1-5 of out-of-ecliptic trajectories which

used Jupiter to perturb the spacecraft to achieve trajectories as described in Section IV-A

[not included] herein. Hrach (Ref. 1-8, 1968) described an out-of-ecliptic probe mission

which used electric propulsion. Simpson and others (Ref. 1-9, 1969) reviewed the

potential of an out-of-ecliptic mission for fields and particles astronomy. Hrach and Strack

(Ref. 1-10, 1970) described an early application of solar electric propulsion to a 1 AU outof-ecliptic mission.

The NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) accomplished an in-house study during FY

1971 of a Pioneer Spacecraft out-of-ecliptic mission, with supporting tasks performed by

the TRW Systems Group, and thus provided the first comprehensive report (Ref. 1-11,

1971) on the use of the Jupiter swingby mode. This mission was discussed in the context

of an FY 1973 New Start with launch in May 1974.

NASA assigned lead Center responsibility for out-of-ecliptic missions to the ARC in

the early 1970’s.

JPL accomplished an in-house study during FY 1971 of a 3-axis stabilized, solar electric

(propulsion) multimission spacecraft (SEMMS) capable of the following baseline

missions:

(1) Out-of-ecliptic at 1 AU or less.

(2) Mercury orbiter.

(3) Outer planet orbiter.

(4) Comet and asteroid rendezvous.

(5) Close solar probe.

(6) Direct and swingby outer planet flyby.

A project plan (Ref. 1-12, 1971) was submitted for Phase B and for planning Phase

C/D as an FY 1973 New Start with earliest launch in July 1975. The final report is in three

volumes (see Ref. 1-13, 1971).

[1-5] European scientists had also realized the desirability of designing an out-of-ecliptic

mission. During 1971 and 1972, a preliminary study of an independent out-of-ecliptic

probe was carried out by a European Space Research Organization (ESRO) group

composed of three scientists and five staff members (Ref. 1-14, 1972).

Wilcox (Ref. 1-15, 1973) considered specific aspects of space exploration with an outof-ecliptic spacecraft and gave particular attention to the solar latitude interval from about

35° to about 65°, an area where projection effects begin to hamper earth-based

observations, and to the polar regions above 65°. Wilcox used the ARC-prepared

description of the trajectory of a single spacecraft. ARC continued discussions with NASA

Headquarters on the use of Pioneer H (a refurbished Pioneer 10/11 prototype spacecraft

with refurbished experiments) for an out-of-ecliptic mission and a project plan (Ref. 1-16,

1973) was submitted for an FY 1975 New Start with launch in July or August 1976.

The ESRO Solar System Working Group, having discussed the scientific priorities for

the 1980’s, recommended to the ESRO Launch Program Advisory Committee (LPAC) a

solar-interplanetary mission aimed at investigating the heliographic latitude dependance

[sic] of solar wind properties and at performing a stereoscopic study of solar activity (Ref.

1-17, 1973).

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 129
Shortly afterwards, when defining the guidelines for ESRO scientific mission studies

(Ref. 1-18, 1974), the LPAC identified two candidate projects:

(1) A solar stereoscopic mission, requiring a space probe reaching an angular

distance from the Sun-Earth line of at least 40°. This mission, according to the

LPAC, could probably be carried out most cheaply in the case of a dedicated solar

mission by a spacecraft in the ecliptic plane. However, the LPAC recognized that

if an out-of-ecliptic interplanetary mission was planned, a stereoscopic view could

be obtained using the separation in solar latitude thus achieved.

[1-6](2) An out-of-ecliptic mission, reaching at least 37° of heliographic latitude (direct

injection), but preferably getting to higher latitudes.

The two candidate projects above were considered during the NASA/ESRO Science

Program Review held at the European Space Research and Technology Centre

(ESTEC) on February 11, 1974, when the following conclusions were agreed:

(1) Solar Maximum Mission (SMM); NASA would continue independently to study

the SMM, since it seemed quite possible to use the SMM as one half of a

stereoscopic mission. ESRO would continue independently its studies on a

spacecraft which would constitute the other half of a stereoscopic mission.

(2) Out-of-the-Ecliptic Probe; it was proposed that NASA and ESRO jointly study

mission concepts which can achieve a higher heliographic latitude via the direct

injection mode. The one possibility noted was to incorporate a solar electric

propulsion (SEP) module in the spacecraft. NASA would use this mission as a

test flight for SEP in preparation for a 1981 Encke rendezvous mission,

therefore the out-of-ecliptic mission would be launched in 1979/1980.

The ESRO Scientific Program Board, during its meeting on April 30, 1974, decided

that a mission definition study should immediately be undertaken in connection with

NASA, to study the scientific objectives and technical feasibility of a combined Out-ofEcliptic/Solar Stereoscopic mission. NASA agreed, and a Joint Mission Definition Group

was established in May 1974 with 3 European scientists and 4 U.S. scientists. Program

guidance was provided by ESRO Headquarters and NASA Headquarters. Technical and

programmatic support were supplied by ESRO, ARC and JPL.

A symposium on “The Sun and Solar System in Three Dimensions”, organized by ESRO,

was held at the European Space Research Institute (ESRIN), Frascati, Italy, in July 1974.

Written versions of the talks were made available to the Mission Definition Group. The

Group met at JPL in August 1974 [1-7] when ARC first proposed the dual spacecraft

concept. The report (Ref. 1-19) of the Mission Definition Group was published in December

1974, and it is noted that the dual spacecraft concept proposed by ARC is first described

therein. The report described the use of both the SEP and Jupiter swing by options.

The NASA/ESRO Science Program Review was next held 4-5 February 1975. NASA

and ESRO agreed:

(1) To accept the dual spacecraft mission as primary with a single spacecraft option. 

(2) To pursue preliminary spacecraft and mission definition studies.

(ESRO and the European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO) merged about

this time to form the European Space Agency (ESA).)

A workshop on mechanisms for solar Type III radio bursts was held at the University

of California, Berkeley, California, on 8-9 May 1975. Baumbach and others (Ref. 1-20)

130 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
reported the use of plasma wave experiments on satellites to determine three-dimensional

trajectories of such bursts.

NASA and ESA sponsored a symposium on the study of the Sun and interplanetary

medium in three dimensions at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) on 15-16

May 1975 (Ref. 1-21). Over 200 European and U.S. scientists attended to review the outof-ecliptic mission and all aspects of related science.

To carry out the studies agreed upon, ESA contracted with the British Aircraft

Corporation (BAC) for a detailed spacecraft definition study to start September 1975.

ARC and JPL performed in-house studies, and ARC contracted with TRW and Martin

Marietta for additional support. Joint ground-rules were:

(1) Use Space Shuttle with 4-stage IUS.

(2) Dual spacecraft concept.

[1-8] (3) Backup option no. 1: a single spacecraft; and Space Shuttle with 2-stage IUS 

plus spinning injection stage (TEM-364-4).

(4) Backup option no. 2: a single spacecraft; and Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle 

plus spinning injection stage (TEM-364-4).

The BAC 4-volume final report was published in April 1976 and provided a complete

technical description of the ESA spacecraft and all of its interfaces, a system specification,

system analysis and definition, subsystem analysis and definition, development plans and

cost estimates (see Ref. 1-22). The ARC final report was also published in April 1976 (Ref.

1-23). ESA published its own final report in May 1976 (Ref. 1-24).

NASA assigned overall project management responsibility for continuing the out-ofecliptic mission studies to the JPL on 1 July 1976. NASA and JPL formed an Out-of-Ecliptic

Science Working Group (SWG) in August 1976 to provide science guidance to JPL inhouse studies during FY 1977. (The SWG report is found in Ref. 1-25, and the JPL final

reports are found in Refs. 1-26 and 1-27.) ESA contracted with BAC for additional studies.

The JPL and ESA/BAC study groundrules were:

(1) Use Space Shuttle with 4-stage IUS (no change).

(2) Dual spacecraft concept (no change).

(3) No backup options.

(4) Two modes of NASA/ESA cooperation:

(a) Each to provide one spacecraft. 

(b) NASA to provide selected subsystems and ESA to provide both spacecraft.

(This mode was eliminated from further consideration in January 1977.)

The NASA Cost Review was held at JPL in May and July 1977. Subsequently the Project

was submitted to the Congress as a (proposed) New Start for FY 1979.

ESA plans to contract competitive studies for the period January through July 1979,

followed by study by a single contractor from September through [1-9] December 1979.

The ESA contract for development of the ESA Spacecraft is planned to be signed in

January 1980. The details of the planned JPL contract-ing effort for the NASA Spacecraft

are provided in Table 6-2 [not included] herein.

D. SCOPE OF PROJECT PLAN

This Plan defines the Joint NASA/ESA International Solar Polar 1983 Mission. Two

spacecraft will be launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, by a single NASA Space

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 131
Transportation System in February 1983, to a Jupiter gravity--assist swingby over the poles

of the Sun. The spacecraft provided by the United States is designated the NASA

Spacecraft. The spacecraft provided by the European Space Agency is designated the ESA

Spacecraft.

Technical and implementation information related to the NASA spacecraft contained

in Sections IV and V, such as the descriptions, mission design, trajectory characteristics,

mission events and maneuvers, is the result of studies at JPL and elsewhere and must be

considered as representative or typical data which is not final in any sense. Technical

information on the ESA Spacecraft is provided where appropriate, again with recognition

that this information is representative, but not final, data.

Technical information on the NASA and ESA science payloads is based upon the

proposals submitted by those scientists who were conditionally selected as Principal

Investigators, and is more subject to revision before science confirmation than afterwards.

This Plan presents neither requirements for the system design concept study

contractors nor conclusions of the system design concept studies.

[2-1]

SECTION II

PROJECT PLAN SUMMARY

The primary mission objectives of the ISPM Project are to extend scientific knowledge

and understanding through exploration of the Sun and its environment, and to

investigate possible mechanisms coupling solar variability to terrestrial weather and

climate by studying the Sun’s structure and emission as a function of latitude from the

solar equator to the solar poles. The secondary mission objectives are to perform

investigations of interplanetary physics during the initial Earth-Jupiter phase and the

Jovian magnetosphere during the Jupiter flyby phase.

The ISPM Project uses a NASA Spacecraft and an ESA Spacecraft. The two spacecraft

are launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida by a single NASA Space Transportation System

(STS) with a 3-stage Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) combination into an interplanetary orbit

toward Jupiter. Shortly after injection the two spacecraft are separated from the third stage

of the IUS. The flight paths take both spacecraft nearly in the ecliptic plane to Jupiter with

a small separation in Jupiter arrival time achieved by post-launch maneuvers. By choosing

the proper Jupiter encounter strategy, the gravitational field of Jupiter is used to deflect

both spacecraft into out-of-ecliptic trajectories, one north and the ‘other, south. After

Jupiter flyby, both spacecraft travel in heliocentric out-of ecliptic orbits with high

heliographic inclination and passages over the rotational poles of the Sun at 1.3 AU to 2.0

AU from the Sun.

Launch opportunities to Jupiter occur every 13 months. The more favorable

geometries, however, occur on approximately six year centers, when Jupiter crosses the

ecliptic plane. The most favorable geometry occurs next in December 1981/January 1982.

The following opportunity (February 1983) will be used by the ISPM Project with a 10-day

launch period. End-of-Mission occurs on or before 30 September 1987.

[2-2] The Announcement of Opportunity for the ISPM mission was issued jointly by NASA

and ESA on 15 April 1977. NASA followed the guidelines and procedures for acquisition

of investigations defined in Refs. 2-1 and 2-2, with minor modifications occasioned by the

132 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
joint process. A conditional selection of the science payloads for each spacecraft was

announced jointly on 15 February 1978. In addition to the hardware investigations, NASA

and ESA also conditionally selected scientists for a joint Radio Science Team and for

participation in theoretical and interdisciplinary science investigations. NASA and ESA

then formed a joint Science Working Team from among the conditionally selected

scientists.

NASA Spacecraft conceptual designs are currently being developed by two aerospace

contractors. Each configuration under study incorporates significant elements of that

firm’s previous spacecraft designs. A final competition will be conducted furing [sic] FY

1979 between these two firms and will lead to the selection of a single contractor to

accomplish the design and development of the NASA Spacecraft.

The ISPM is a joint international project. The United States will supply:

(1) The NASA Spacecraft. 

(2) One partial and five complete science experiments for the ESA Spacecraft.

(3) Department of Energy radioisotope thermoelectric generators for both

spacecraft, and one electrical thermoelectric generator (a simulator for test

purposes) to be shared by NASA and ESA.

(4) Launch operations services and launching by the NASA Space 

Transportation System.

(5) Tracking and data acquisition (TDA) for Earth-orbital checkout of both

spacecraft and TDA from deep space.

(6) A mission control and computing facility with hardware, software and personnel

to conduct flight operations.

(7) Appropriate processed data records to scientific and engineering personnel.

(8) Technical advice and consultation.

[2-3] The ESA Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,

Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom) will supply:

(1) The ESA Spacecraft. 

(2) Software and personnel to manage and support ESA flight operations and data

processing at the U.S. facility.

(3) Technical advice and consultation.

The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), through its Federal Minister for Research

and Technology (BMFT), will supply three complete science experiments for the 

NASA Spacecraft.

The Project plans to use existing technology, equipment, NASA standard subsystems,

NASA data system standards, and existing NASA and contractor facilities to the maximum

extent possible. Development is limited mainly to the science instruments and to their

data processing.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has been designated to manage the Project for the

NASA Office of Space Science. JPL will manage the NASA Spacecraft System, which will

be procured in a system procurement mode. The NASA Space Transportation System will

be managed by the NASA Johnson Space Center. The STS/ISPM Project management

interface is being defined. The JPL has been designated by OSTDS the lead Center

responsible for all Tracking and Data Acquisition support for the ISPM Project. The data

collecting and processing activity will use the NASA Spaceflight Tracking and Data

Network (STDN), the TDRS, the JSC Mission Control Center, the Deep Space Network,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 133
the NASA Communications Network, and the JPL Mission Control and Computing

Center facilities.

Joint management relationships between NASA and ESA, formal systems reviews and

design reviews are discussed herein.

[2-4] No environmental issues have developed to date.

At the July 1977 NASA Cost Review the planning estimate for development of the total

baseline project through launch plus thirty days, excluding STS costs, was established at

$178.1 M, inflated. The planning estimate for operations of the total baseline project was

established at $37.0 M, inflated.

Document I-20

Document Title: Memorandum from Goetz Oertel, NASA Deputy Chief, Solar Physics, to

Director, Physics and Astronomy Programs, “Priorities in Instrumentation Development

for Solar Astronomy,” 7 October 1979.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

High-resolution observation of solar phenomena was a top-priority objective of solar researchers from

at least the late 1960s. (See Document II-13.) At the end of the 1970s, NASA began to plan for

instruments that would facilitate such observations. The mission to incorporate such capabilities

became known as the Solar Observation Telescope. 

[no page number]

[Stamped OCT 7 1979]

TO: SG/Director, Physics and Astronomy Programs

FROM: SGS/Deputy Chief, Solar Physics

SUBJECT: Priorities in Instrumentation Development for Solar Astronomy

1. Goals in Solar Astronomy

Research in Solar Astronomy falls into two categories, depending upon the angular

and time scales of the phenomena under study. Large scale aspects of the Sun and

phenomena can be studied with presently available angular resolution from space and

from the ground depending upon the absorption properties of the earth [sic]

atmosphere. Thus, the structure and physics of the solar atmosphere near the

temperature minimum can be studied with suitable problem-oriented payloads such as on

the pointing section of OSO-I and the general solar magnetic field can be studied by

ground-based techniques and by measurements in situ in the interplanetary minimum.

On the other hand, there are phenomena on the Sun which can be understood only if

angular and time resolution are significantly improved while maintaining a high spectral

resolution. Examples include flares, spicules, intergranular space, certain filaments, and

134 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
other phenomena or structures which we have identified but which – by all indications in

hand – have a significantly smaller fine structure than is presently resolvable. The

indications include glimpses of smaller detail at rare moments of superb seeing, magnetic

field gradients of tens of kilogauss per arc second, and rapid time variations of flare

related emissions.

While problem oriented payloads can be chosen for sufficiently large scale

phenomena, solar physics is still in the exploratory phase when it comes to small scale

phenomena which require angular resolution of better than one arc second. Physical [2]

understanding of these phenomena requires as a first step the exploration of their

detailed structure. Spectral studies of these structures will then identify the physical

mechanisms at work and will lead to the understanding we seek.

2. Recommendation 1

It is therefore my position that the development of a capability to study structures with

angular sizes of .1 to 1 arc seconds has highest priority in the exploratory portion of the

solar physics program. The long range goal is a 1.5 meter diffraction limited solar telescope

in space. A diffraction limited solar telescope of half this aperture is the logical

intermediate step, not because it may happen to be possible on some particular mission,

but because an intermediate step is in my opinion necessary for the attainment of the goal.

The “photoheliograph” has been under development for a few years now and has had

the benefit of continued support by Hal Zirin and his group at the California Institute of

Technology. It represents the logical next step to take and should be implemented. With

a universal filter it will be capable of resolving structures about 3 times smaller in diameter,

or 9 times smaller in area, than have been resolved so far. It may in fact be sufficient to

complete the exploratory phase of the study of many solar phenomena. It will be

sufficient, in all likelihood, to discover new ones and perhaps give surprises, and certainly

a great deal of excitement.

It happens that the photoheliograph will fit the present ATM canister. While the flight

of a second solar ATM with this instrument would be desirable and an excellent way to

take this important step on a timely basis, the photoheliograph as an advanced solar space

telescope is not dependent upon a second solar ATM, but upon the availability of any

mission with the necessary capabilities.

The development of a diffraction limited photoheliograph will take a considerable

effort in time. It is impossible to come up with such a system on short notice. It is necessary

to continue the development at Cal Tech vigorously so that a flight unit can be produced

on relatively short notice when an opportunity arises.

[3] 3. Recommendation 2

Next highest priority is given to an X-ray telescope system with angular resolution

higher than 1 arc second, with large effective aperture to assure high time resolution, and

with associated spectroscopic equipment to provide spectral information.

[signature]

Goetz K. Oertel

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 135
Cc: SGT/Aucremanne

SGT/Chase

MLA/Forsythe

Document I-21

Document Title: Letter from Harold Glaser, Director, Solar Terrestrial Division, NASA, to

Dr. Thomas A. Mutch, Associate Administrator for Space Science, 30 May 1980.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, D.C.

Document I-22

Document Title: Letter from James M. Beggs, NASA Administrator, to the Honorable

Larry Winn, Jr., House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, about

the Solar Maximum Mission, 16 April 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The Solar Maximum Mission was launched in February 1980, and it began to return a constant

stream of high-quality data. NASA soon considered whether it was desirable and feasible to retrieve

and refurbish the satellite for a second launch for additional research missions. A plan to do that

was developed in May 1980. When the satellite lost its fine-pointing capability in December 1980, its

retrieval and repair became of even greater interest, since its other instruments were still operating well.

NASA had to fight to justify the retrieval mission, which finally took place in April 1984. The satellite

was repaired on orbit and returned to useful service.

Document I-21

[no page number]

[stamped 30 MAY 1980]

TO: S/Associate Administrator for Space Science

FROM: ST-5/Director, Solar Terrestrial Division

SUBJECT: Solar Maximum Mission Retrieval

In response to your request, I have developed a Division recommendation on the

possible retrieval of the Solar Maximum Mission spacecraft.

136 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
The Solar Maximum Mission development program, authorized in 1976, has been

funded for orbital operations through February 1981. NASA has submitted a funding

request for two additional years of operation. Based on the February 14, 1980 launch, the

three years of operations will extend through February 1983. Due to orbital decay the

SMM will have a finite active lifetime. Actual orbital data yield an earliest possible reentry

time of early 1983. The dispersion on this projection is quite high, but if retrieval is

incorporated as a firm requirement, we must assume the earliest possible reentry date. At

first look the likely end of useful lifetime and the planned operational time (through Feb

83) are compatible.

Requirements were originally placed on the SMM that the spacecraft be designed to

be compatible with both Shuttle and expendable launch vehicles and also that the SMM

be capable of retrieval by the Shuttle. The SMM has complied with these requirements in

that it has been designed to be mechanically and electrically compatible for retrieval by

Shuttle. The OSS is managing the development of a Flight Support System (FSS) to

facilitate such retrieval. The FSS was designed with SMM funds and development is

funded by STS, to provide a retrieval capability for the Shuttle.

[2] To retrieve SMM there are several elements of the Space Transportation System (STS)

that must be provided. First, a Shuttle launch opportunity during the period must be

identified. Second, the STS must certify that the orbiter has the capability to rendezvous with

the spacecraft at approximately 250 n mi. Finally, the Flight Support System development

must be completed, tested and interfaced with the orbiter. Prior to a commitment to

retrieve, there should be a study to define the specific requirements for retrieval and the

associated costs and to determine the disposition of the retrieved spacecraft. It should be

noted, that there are no authorized or funded retrieval plans for the SMM by either OSS or

STS. In fact, the most recent STS manifest does not include the SMM retrieval.

One possible utilization for the retrieved SMM would be for the Solar Corona

Explorer/Mission that is currently undergoing scientific and technical study. This project

will study origin of the solar wind using several newly developed diagnostic techniques,

and the three dimensional evolution and structure of the Sun’s corona. The strawman

payload includes a coronagraph. Thus, a recovered SMM would provide a spacecraft bus,

solar pointing and guidance systems, instrument mounting systems and at least one of the

four or five experiments required for an SCE. The tentative launch period would be 1987

or 88, in time to phase with the solar polar passages of the ISPM.

There appears to be center support for a retrieval of the SMM. Staff of the Goddard

Space Flight Center have briefed the Office of Space Transportation Operations on a

proposed plan to demonstrate in-orbit servicing and retrieval utilizing the 

SMM Spacecraft.

Conclusion

The SMM is currently returning high quality data and should be operated as long as

meaningful scientific data can be obtained. The retrieval of the SMM will require an

intensive effort over the next three years. Firm program commitments will have to be

made for manpower and resources in FY 81.

[3] Retrieval would be a new and unique undertaking involving the Space Transportation

System in a substantial way. As a first step in determining an Agency policy on SMM

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 137
retrieval I suggest that you meet with Glynn Lunney to discuss potential benefits and

management structure of such a retrieval. Funds will have to be budgeted in FY 80 for

definition studies and in FY 81 and subsequent years for the actual retrieval. If the

Agency, for policy reasons, determines that a retrieval program is desirable to recover a

reusable spacecraft and to demonstrate STS performance we should support the effort

but with the provision that the SMM be operated through its useful lifetime. If there is a

decision to retrieve SMM, I recommend consideration of reuse of the spacecraft by 

the SCE.

[signature]

H. Glaser

Document I-22

[no page number]

[Stamped APR 16 1982]

Honorable Larry Winn, Jr.

Committee on Science

And Technology

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Winn:

I understand that the Committee on Science and Technology will soon consider the

recommendations of its Subcommittees on the FY 1983 budget for programs of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Space Science and Applications

Subcommittee has recommended a significant change in the program proposed by the

President by deleting FY 1983 funding for the Solar Maximum Repair Mission and

recommending that NASA’s FY 1982 reprogramming request for this demonstration be

rejected. I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposed actions when the full

Committee meets on this subject.

As described in our reprogramming request dated February 19, 1982, the proposal to

rendezvous with the Solar Maximum Mission spacecraft and perform on orbit repair has

a very high priority in the total NASA program. We recognize and appreciate the

Committee’s concern about the availability of resources. We have attempted to address

this concern and, indeed, as described further below, have managed to significantly

reduce the total cost of the mission such that the previously identified FY 1982

requirement of $35 million (the amount deleted by the Space Science and Applications

Subcommittee) is now approximately $18 million.

I am also concerned that we have perhaps failed to adequately convey the scientific

potential of this mission. During the period of full operation of the Solar Maximum

138 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Mission, the scientific data were unsurpassed; they provided an important link in the

continuous study of the Sun and its interrelationship with our environment. However,

many of the phenomena discovered during the first phase of the mission require deeper

investigation. For example, the mission has shown that the amount of energy emitted by

the Sun changes with time; these changes have strong consequences which could effect

the Earth’s climate. Continuation of these measurements through the solar cycle would

be of great scientific importance. For instance, a repaired Solar Maximum Mission would

be able to continue the study of solar flares through the observation of the very strong

flares which usually occur a few years following the sunspot maximum. A repaired SMM

could also carefully test the various flare models and theories which have been derived

as a result of the original mission.

Although the Solar Maximum Mission was an unqualified success for seven months,

the observatory was expected to remain fully functional for three or more years.

Reacquisition of high quality solar data through repair of the SMM is much more cost

effective and timely than attempting to replace the spacecraft which cost more than $300

million in terms of equivalent FY 1983 dollars.

[2] Additional benefits could also be realized by restoration of the SMM spacecraft. An

operational SMM in 1986 would provide the capability to observe Halley’s Comet in some

detail while the comet is in its closest proximity to the Sun. The repair mission, planned

for early 1984, would occur at a time when the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System

(TDRSS) will have become operational and, because the Solar Maximum Mission

spacecraft has provisions for use of the TDRSS, deployment of its antenna will significantly

improve the science data acquisition from the observatory. Operating techniques

developed for the SMM-TDRSS combination would provide an important foundation for

a similar system planned for Space Telescope operations.

Space Shuttle operational experience gained on the first three orbital test flights has

made a very positive contribution to the assurance that necessary Shuttle systems required

to successfully perform the Solar Maximum Repair Mission are available. In addition, the

opportunity to demonstrate and validate the Space Shuttle as something more than just a

payload launcher could have international implications. At a time when international

competition for launching space systems is becoming formidable, demonstration of the

versatility of the Space Shuttle as a servicing and repair “work bench” could be

instrumental in convincing future users that the Shuttle system provides added assurance

that their payloads can be made to operate successfully after enduring the rigors of launch

and space exposure.

As mentioned earlier, the resource requirements for the Solar Maximum Repair

Mission have been significantly reduced through the adoption of an ascent trajectory

which obviates the need for the use of the Orbiter Maneuvering System Payload Bay Kit.

This revised plan has reduced the necessary FY 1982 funding to approximately $10 million

as opposed to the earlier estimate of $35 million. The total mission costs for the SMM

repair are estimated at $45-55 million, which is comprised of specific repair costs as well

as planned generic STS hardware. While this estimate excludes Shuttle launch costs, the

launch costs assignable to the SMM repair are minimal because the SMM support

hardware would occupy only approximately twelve feet of the sixty-foot payload bay of the

Shuttle. The proposed SMM repair mission is manifested on a shared basis with the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 139
deployment of the approved Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), and the LDEF will

occupy most of the payload bay of the Shuttle Orbiter.

In closing, let me say that I have been very impressed by the response from the

scientific community in support of this mission. At a meeting in San Diego during the

week of March 22, a distinguished group of solar physicists prepared a unsolicited white

paper on the benefits of restoring the Solar Maximum Mission. I am enclosing a copy of

the Summary Report of this group, as well as a summary of the scientific opportunities

which would be lost if the repair mission is not undertaken. Additional endorsements of

the science benefits of the mission have been made by the Committee on Solar and Space

Physics of the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences.

I urge you to reconsider the Subcommittee’s recommendation, and to support the

Solar Maximum Repair Mission as submitted in the President’s budget request. I am

available for further consultation concerning this matter at any time.

Sincerely,

[signature]

James M. Beggs

Administrator

********

[no page number]

ENCLOSURE 1

Scientific Importance

of the

REPAIR OF THE SOLAR MAXIMUM MISSION

Summary of the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee

The Solar Maximum Mission was launched February 14, 1980, following a decade of

planning by NASA and the solar physics community. Intended for an operational life of 2-

3 year, its scientific usefulness was seriously impaired after nine months because of failures

in the spacecraft attitude control system. There is strong scientific justification for its repair

and return to full operation. Reactivation of the spacecraft is necessary to complete the

original objectives of the mission, and offers a unique opportunity to address a new set of

objectives. These have arisen in part from discoveries made by the Solar Maximum Mission,

in part from the existence of new theoretical and observational tools. Renewal of the

mission will provide valuable data concerning solar plasma phenomena, solar-terrestrial

relations, solar internal structure and dynamics, and variability in the Sun’s energy output.

140 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Loren W. Acton Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratories

R. Grant Athay National Center for Atmospheric Research

Jacques M. Beckers University of Arizona

Richard C. Canfield University of California, San Diego

John A. Eddy National Center for Atmospheric Research

David J. Forrest University of New Hampshire

John W. Harvey Kitt Peak Observatory

Thomas E. Holzer National Center for Atmospheric Research

Lewis L. House National Center for Atmospheric Research

Hugh S. Hudson University of California, San Diego

Gordon J. Hurford California Institute of Technology

Richard E. Lingenfelter University of California, San Diego

Robert M. MacQueen National Center for Atmospheric Research

Peter A. Sturrock Stanford University

Roger K. Ulrich University of California, Los Angeles

Arthur B. C. Walker Stanford University

March 25, 1982

La Jolla, California

********

[no page number]

ENCLOSURE 2

SOLAR MAXIMUM MISSION

Impact of Failure to Repair

The SMM was launched in 1980 as a two to three year mission focused on the study

of solar flares. Because of failure of the coronagraph/polarimeter after seven months and

the loss of fine pointing after nine months, many scientific opportunities were lost.

Following are examples of scientific opportunities which will be lost if the SMM

spacecraft and coronograph are not repaired:

Comprehensive observations of great, terrestrially important flares.

Observations, by the SMM imaging and spectroscopic instruments, of X-ray

producing flares.

Observations relating flares to transients affecting the outer corona and

interplanetary space.

Precision data on variability in the total radiative energy of the Sun over a long 

time base.

High resolution X-ray spectra of diagnostic importance to understanding solar plasma

and plasma processes.

Observations tracing magnetic fields in the outer solar atmosphere.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 141
Observations on the sunspot cycle dependence of flare, solar wind, solar constant and

solar oscillation properties.

Complete many guest investigator programs on both flare and non-flare topics.

Document I-23

Document Title: Letter from Peter A. Gilman, Senior Scientist, Head, Solar Variability

Section, High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, to Dr.

David Morrison, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science, NASA, 

8 April 1981.

Source: Federal Records Center, Suitland, Maryland

Document I-24

Document Title: Letter from Dr. David Morrison, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator

for Space Science, NASA, to Dr. Peter Gilman, High Altitude Observatory, National

Center for Atmospheric Research, 30 April 1981.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

NASA in February 1981 was forced by the incoming Reagan Administration to cancel one of its

approved scientific missions as a budget-cutting measure, and it chose to cancel the U.S. spacecraft

that was to be part of the NASA-ESA International Solar Polar Mission. This action produced anger

and dismay in the U.S. solar research community. This exchange of letters captures the intensity of

the feelings involved. 

Document I-23

[no pagination]

April 8, 1981

Dr. David Morrison 

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator 

for Space Science 

NASA 

Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear Dr. Morrison,

I just received your “dear colleague” letter of 16 March concerning the amended FY

81 and 82 NASA budgets. I must tell you that in light of recent actions taken by NASA

142 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
management to attempt to scuttle the International Solar Polar Mission, including

particularly the way the various relevant scientific advisory groups were treated, I take an

extremely cynical view of the pious statements of your opening paragraph, to wit

“Communication between those of us in Washington and the real world of science in the

universities and NASA centers is particularly important in the current environment of

budget cuts and reexamination of program priorities at NASA. We should all work

together to use the limited resources available to the best advantage and to continue to

make the case for a strong space science program in the future.”

In the ISPM matter, I believe NASA acted most unwisely in either failing to seek or

flagrantly disregarding the advice of every science advisory body that had any interest. As

a member of one of these bodies, the Committee on Solar and Space Physics of the

National Academy, I felt our committee was unable to deal with the most important

budgetary issues because we were largely kept ignorant of NASA management’s overall

strategic thinking. Thus members were forced to respond after the ISPM cuts were

announced and attempt to light a back fire. I would hardly call this “good

communication” or “working together.”

This experience raises serious questions in my mind as to whether NASA is really

interested in the advice of scientists in the community on important matters, or whether

we are just ornaments added to lend credibility. Your testimony before Congress

concerning ISPM cuts implies you believe this program has not been seriously harmed -

and yet you know it has, and you know the space science community both in the U. S. and

Europe believes it has. A congressman reading your testimony, knowing NASA is supposed

to listen to outside scientific advice, might think you had credible scientific backing for

the judgment that ISPM remains a strong scientific program – when nothing could be

further from the truth.

[2] I could go further into the arguments as to why crippling ISPM was so unwise even in

a time when we are forced to face the budget setbacks of the current Administration, but

I won’t, because you have heard them all already. By this letter, I am instead expressing my

deep concern over what I see as a serious erosion of the credibility of the process by which

NASA seeks scientific advice and acts upon it. If such erosion continues, it will greatly

impair the ability of NASA and the scientific community to achieve its common goal of a

strong, productive space science program.

Sincerely yours,

[signature]

Peter A. Gilman 

Senior Scientist 

Head, Solar Variability Section

cc: 

Dr. Louis Lanzerotti 

Dr. Richard Hart 

Dr. Alastair Cameron 

Dr. Alan Lovelace 

Mr. Andrew J. Stofan 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 143
Dr. Franklin D. Martin 

Dr. J. David Bohlin 

Mr. Hugh Loweth

Document I-24

[no page number]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546

April 30, 1981 

Dr. Peter Gilman 

High Altitude Observatory 

National Center for Atmospheric Research

P. O. Box 3000 

Boulder, CO 80307

Dear Dr. Gilman:

Thank you for your letter of April 8 expressing concern about the International Solar

Polar Mission (ISPM) and registering your unhappiness at the way NASA has dealt with

this issue. As you may be aware, the circumstances surrounding the FY 1982 Budget

Amendment have been extremely difficult for us in the Office of Space Science (OSS).

The President’s policy of reducing Federal expenditures, as applied to us by the Office of

Management and Budget, mandated a 23% cut in OSS funds for Fiscal Year 1982. After

considering a great many options, we concluded that a cut of this magnitude could not be

absorbed without major impact on one of our three large ongoing flight missions – Space

Telescope, Galileo or ISPM. I do not believe this conclusion is disputed by the science

community. We, in OSS, felt the elimination of the U.S. spacecraft in the ISPM was the

least harmful option available to us, and we have acted accordingly.

All of these decisions involving the FY 1982 Budget Amendment had to be made

under circumstances where it was impossible for the Agency to consult with any scientific

advisory groups or with the European Space Agency, our partners in the ISPM. This

restriction was placed upon us by OMB and was not NASA’s choice; however, contrary to

the assertion in your letter, our decisions have been generally supported by the scientific

community, including the Space Science Board and the Space Science Advisory

Committee. The fact that NASA management must occasionally make major decisions of

this sort without the direct participation of scientific advisory groups makes it all the more

important that we routinely maintain a close working relationship with those groups. Only

if there is “good communication” and if we are regularly “working together” do we have

much chance of success.

I assure you that we at NASA are well aware of the severe restriction in the science

capabilities of ISPM inherent in the elimination of the U.S. spacecraft, and we are

continuing to work with ESA to try to find a solution that will permit ISPM to continue as

144 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
a dual spacecraft mission, although in a descoped mode. However, it is also true that this

mission is a truly exploratory one, and it is our belief that even just the ESA spacecraft with

its current payload [2] will be able to achieve a significant scientific return. Concerning

the tone of the written congressional testimony, I can only remind you that as a part of the

Executive Branch, we at NASA support the President’s Economic Recovery Plan.

I regret very much that you perceive a serious erosion of the credibility of the process

by which NASA seeks scientific advice and acts upon it. I personally would not be at NASA

Headquarters if I did not believe that the Office of Space Science was committed to

carrying out a sound and innovative program of space science and to working closely with

the science community through a variety of advisory groups. I stand by my sentiment

expressed in my 16 March Dear Colleague letter, that “we should all work together to use

the limited resources available to the best advantage and to continue to make the case for

a strong space science program in the future.”

Sincerely,

[signature]

David Morrison 

Acting Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Space Science

ccs: 

Dr. A.G.W. Cameron 

Dr. Richard Hart 

Dr. Louis Lanzerotti 

Dr. A. M. Lovelace 

Mr. Andrew J. Stofan 

Dr. Franklin D. Martin 

Dr. J. David Bohlin

Document I-25

Document Title: Memorandum from Edmond M. Reeves, Acting Deputy Director, Shuttle

Payload Engineering Division, NASA, to Director, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,

“High Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO) as a Space Station Program,” 4 November 1986.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document I-26

Document Title: Letter from Dr. Eugene N. Parker, The Enrico Fermi Institute, University

of Chicago, to Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, NASA, 4 June 1987.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 145
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document I-27

Document Title: Letter from Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate Administrator for Space

Science and Applications, NASA, to Dr. Eugene N. Parker, The Enrico Fermi Institute,

University of Chicago, 8 July 1987.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

NASA struggled in the mid-1980s to find a way to get a significant new solar research mission

initiated. What had been known as SOT, the Space Optical Telescope, was renamed High Resolution

Solar Observatory, and briefly was planned as an attached Space Station payload. This concept had

only a brief lifetime, and then the mission was re-redefined as a separate robotic spacecraft. These shifts

were disheartening to the solar research community, which doubted whether NASA would ever proceed

with the kind of mission its members believed was needed. Despite its advocacy for a next solar research

mission, NASA in 1988 was unable to gain White House approval for such an undertaking, and it

subsequently disappeared from NASA plans.

Document I-25

[no pagination]

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546 

[Stamped: NOV 4 1986]

TO: Goddard Space Flight Center

Attn: 100/Director

FROM: EM/Acting Deputy Director, Shuttle Payload Engineering

Division

SUBJECT: High Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO) as a Space Station Program

Recent changes in planning here at Headquarters now require that HRSO be

planned as a Space Station payload. There continues to be strong scientific and

programmatic support for the new HRSO program, and sufficient funding is being

provided in FY 1987 to make the needed progress towards development phase approval

for FY 1988. GSFC has done an outstanding job of restructuring the Solar Optical

Telescope (SOT) program, and we look forward to implementing this mission at long last.

146 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
In addition to the continuation of advanced definition phase activities for the HRSO

program, GSFC is requested specifically to update three study areas which were previously

conducted or initiated for SOT. These separate but related studies need to be in the areas

of: 1) accommodation to Space Station; 2) contamination (with and without a potential

ultraviolet strap-on instrument); and 3) servicing on-orbit (including, but not limited to,

telerobotics). These studies should be based on the assumption that HRSO will fly on the

earliest planned configuration of Space Station, but should give consideration to the

subsequent Space Station growth. Close coordination with all appropriate elements of the

Space Station office will be essential.

Since interface specifications are not available for Space Station at this time, you are

requested to proceed with HRSO using currently defined Spacelab/Shuttle interfaces. At

such future time as one or more interfaces cannot meet this assumption, then some

intermediate device or change to HRSO will have to be considered. Nothing in this

directive shall preclude the option of a precursor flight of HRSO on the Shuttle.

Preliminary results from the studies are requested to be part of the reconfirmation

review of HRSO required by the Non-Advocate Review Board and which will be conducted

in June or July 1987. Please keep this office informed on progress towards these objectives.

[signature]

Edmond M. Reeves

Document I-26

[no pagination] June 4, 1987

Dr. Lennard A. Fisk

Associate Administrator for

Space Science & Applications

Mail Code E

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Headquarters

Washington, D. C. 20546

Dear Len,

I appreciated very much the opportunity to discuss the High Resolution Solar

Observatory with you last week. Since that time, I have been thinking about the situation

and I have a number of comments. Or should I say lamentations? First of all, there is a

growing feeling in the solar physics community that the essential solar observations that

need to be done from space (e.g. high angular resolution, UV, etc.) will not be done by

NASA, if, indeed, they are done at all. This conviction is based on the continuing delays

in the high resolution telescope, which was initiated in 1974, as I recall, and has

subsequently been redesigned, descoped, and greatly reduced in cost in response to

various requests from NASA. Recently, a collaborative program with the UK has been

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 147
developed, further cutting the cost of the mission to NASA. What is more, HRSO presently

enjoys a certain congressional sympathy. And in spite of all this, HRSO is again put off and

continues to be the orphan in the NASA management structure. Charlie Pellerin,

reflecting the majority opinion of the AMOWG, never showed any real interest to SOT or

HRSO. He generally forgot to mention HRSO, unless one of us solar types reminded him.

Indeed, over the last year, it has become clear in my attendance at AMOWG meetings that,

in spite of occasional protestation to the contrary, the solar telescope is considered a

nuisance. High Energy Astrophysics is the real name of the game in NASA astrophysics.

Big, expensive, sexy and phenomenological.

I do not understand the scientific basis, if indeed there is one, for the communal

disinterest in the hard science at which HRSO is aimed. X-ray astronomy is limited to

phenomenology because it cannot be shown why an ordinary star is obliged to produce a

corona hot enough to emit X-rays. One would think, therefore, that X-ray astronomers

would be intensely interested in putting their field on a firmer footing. The HRSO

provides the opportunity to go after the crucial observational facts for a star like the Sun.

It is the dynamics of the fibrils that is responsible, apparently, for both the X-ray corona

and the coronal holes, i.e. responsible for the X-ray emission and the mass loss.

It is clear that the AMOWG is not intending to further HRSO under Pellerin’s

guidance, and there is nothing to be achieved by the continuing participation of solar

physics types in Pellerin’s AMOWG. I do not intend to waste more time attending future

AMOWG meetings. Your proposal to establish a Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division is a step

that is desperately needed. Equally important, in the short term, is the task to get HRSO

going again. So I have talked to Dan Spicer, with regard to the important question of

launching HRSO as a free flyer. He informs me that there are three serious options,

centered on a Delta launch, using the space bus design employed for the SMM. These

options have, apparently, been choked off before being communicated to your office.

Noel Hinners has the dope on the launch possibilities and would be happy to describe and

explore them with you.

The fundamental importance of the HRSO observations to the physics of stars cannot

be over-emphasized. Nor can we overlook the fact that, as of the moment of this writing,

there is nothing on which the solar physics community can base a belief that NASA will carry

out the HRSO observations in the foreseeable future. Things have deteriorated over the

years to the point where the young blood is avoiding the field because nothing is happening.

I think, however, that the means to remedy this unfortunate situation may be available.

Sincerely yours,

[signature]

Eugene N. Parker

148 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
Document I-27

[no page number]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration [stamped “Jul 8 1987”]

Washington, D.C. 20546

Dr. Eugene N. Parker

The Enrico Fermi Institute

The University of Chicago

933 East 56th Street

Chicago, IL 60637

Dear Dr. Parker: 

I would like to thank you for your long and thoughtful letter of June 4, 1987, in which

you discussed a number of aspects of the High Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO)

program. I assure you that the difficulties in achieving a start of this most important

program have caused as much frustration here at NASA as in the solar community. Your

comments about the importance of understanding the exact physical processes in stars is,

of course, exactly why HRSO is of such high intrinsic value for astrophysics. There are few

things that would give me, and many others here, as much pleasure as seeing this program

finally approved for development, including a firm plan for its operations phase. Let me

now address briefly the other specific points that you raised.

I am aware of the idea of the use of a free-flying satellite bus for HRSO. Dr. Charles

Pellerin, Director, Astrophysics Division, initiated such a study this spring in an effort to

provide a backup plan. However, at that time, HRSO was actively being considered by

Congress with regard to the Fiscal Year (FY) 1988 budget submission as a Spacelab/Space

Station payload, consistent with the program plan for the last 5 years. Therefore, it was

judged unwise to surface an alternative plan which might be perceived to be at variance

to the one which Congress had specifically directed in the course of last year’s budget

appropriation. Enclosure 1 [not included] is a program plan/information package

developed this spring which concludes with an outline of the two options (Spacelab vs.

free-flyer) and the position adopted this spring by the HRSO Program Office while the FY

1988 budget was under active discussion. If HRSO fails to gain definitive support in the

final version of the FY 1988 budget, alternative approaches will be examined.

While I cannot speak directly to your perceptions regarding the Astrophysics

Management Operations Working Group (AMOWG), I would like to point out two facts

concerning the support by Dr. Pellerin for the HRSO program. Enclosure 2 [not

included] is a copy of a letter recently sent by Dr. Pellerin to all members of the Space and

Earth Science Advisory Committee (SESAC). In it, HRSO is given the highest priority

ranking in the Astrophysics [2] program, along with the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics

Facility (AXAF). The second-factor that should be kept in mind is that, owing to the

current organizational structure within the Office of Space Science and Applications, the

HRSO program appears in the budget of the Shuttle Payload Engineering Division, not

that of the Astrophysics Division. I assure you that HRSO is prominently displayed therein

for our consideration in preparation of the FY 1989 budget.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 149
Finally, I appreciate hearing your views on the possibility of the creation of a new

division for the solar and space plasma physics disciplines. This concept has been under

very active consideration here, and I hope to be able to make a decision on it in the 

near future. In closing, I would like to thank you for the very active and steady support

that you have given to the space science program over the duration of your career. We

share the mutual regret that not all of the worthwhile programs that should be flown as

part of this nation’s space program can be accommodated within the budgets made

available to us. I can only ask your patience and continued support as we try to initiate the

ones we can within the limitations of financial resources and flight opportunities.

Sincerely,

[signature]

L. A. Fisk 

Associate Administrator for 

Space Science and Applications

Document I-28

Document Title: Space Studies Board, National Research Council, “Space Science in the

Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 2015,” 1988.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Beginning in the mid-1980s and extending over the period of rethinking the NASA space science

program in the aftermath of the Challenger accident, the renamed Space Studies Board (formerly the

Space Science Board) made a comprehensive assessment of the desirable scientific objectives for the

future space program. This excerpt summarizes the Board’s thinking with respect to solar research. 

SPACE SCIENCE IN THE 

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY:

IMPERATIVES FOR THE

DECADES 1995 TO 2015

SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS

Task Group on Solar and Space Physics 

Space Science Board

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources

National Research Council 

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Washington, D.C. 1988

150 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
[33]4

New Initiatives: 1995 to 2015

Many of the most novel and exciting initiatives in solar and space plasma physics for

the period 1995 to 2015 will involve combining remote sensing or imaging techniques in

situ. Observations for the study of the Earth's magnetosphere and the analysis of the solar

corona, as well as other solar phenomena. These new initiatives fall into four groups,

corresponding to the following subdisciplines of solar and space physics: heliospheric

physics, terrestrial magnetospheric physics, terrestrial atmospheric physics, and planetary

science.

SOLAR AND HELIOSPHERIC PHYSICS

Local Measurements in the Solar Atmosphere

At present, our understanding of the origin of the solar wind is based entirely on

theory and remote sensing. Direct measurements of the solar wind plasma, the

interplanetary magnetic field, the energetic particle population, and associated waveparticle interactions are available, but only at distances greater than the 0.3 AU perihelion

distances of Helios 1 and 2. The task group recommends a Solar Probe mission whose

primary objective is to carryout the first in situ observations of the solar wind plasma and

fields (electric and magnetic) near the source of the wind in the [34] solar atmosphere.

FIGURE 4.1 A trajectory for the Solar Probe.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 151
Included will be a detailed study of energetic particles, which will yield important

diagnostic data on particle acceleration processes and coronal structure.

The spacecraft must be placed in an orbit that will bring it as close to the Sun as

possible and still survive to provide useful data near closest approach. A perihelion

distance of 4 solar radii is anticipated, with a local wind speed of about 50 km/s, electron

and ion plasma temperatures of about 106K, and plasma density and magnetic field

strength of less than 10' electrons/cm 3 and 10' gamma, respectively. A drawing of the

Solar Probe trajectory is shown in Figure 4.1.

Theories of solar wind origin place the transition region from subsonic plasma flow

to supersonic flow somewhere between 1 and [35]10 solar radii. Radio scattering

experiments on Viking during superior conjunction suggest a critical point closer to 10

solar radii. In situ measurements should clarify this issue.

The location of the critical point and the plasma properties (speed and temperature)

of the supersonic wind will depend greatly on the physical processes that heat the corona.

Theoretical studies suggest that the proton temperature profile is very sensitive to these

heating processes. It is not clear whether the corona contains an extended region of

heating (out to as far as 20 solar radii) or undergoes adiabatic expansion beyond the solar

surface. Plasma temperature data and observations of the wave types and amplitudes

should lead to the identification of the important heating and acceleration mechanisms.

Many other important problems can be studied with Solar Probe, including a detailed

characterization of coronal streamers, the place of origin and the boundaries of highspeed and low-speed flows close to the Sun, the extent of heavy element fractionation and

elemental abundance variations, and the scale sizes of inhomogeneities and the

development of the magnetohydrodynamic turbulence that characterizes the solar wind

near 1 AU and beyond. The Solar Probe mission can also study the solar spin down rate

through measurements of solar wind angular momentum flux.

Further study needs to be carried out to determine the best method of designing

detectors that are required to look in the direction of the Sun. 

In the original study, it was assumed that the spacecraft would go to Jupiter, where a

gravity assist would send it on course to the inner corona. Our task group learned of a

possible alternate trajectory involving a hypersonic flyby in the upper atmosphere of

Venus; the two possibilities are sketched in Figure 4.2. It should be possible to add lowthrust propulsion in order to attain an it ecliptic orbit around the Sun with a 1-year

periodicity so that the probe enters the vicinity of the Sun several times. As shown in

Figure 4.2 , the Venus flyby technique also yields a very short orbital period.

High-Latitude Solar Studies

The heliosphere is known to have a complicated three-dimensional structure. The

magnetic field is a tight spiral near the solar end equatorial plane, but is expected to be

essentially radial over the [36]

152 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
FIGURE 4.2 Two concepts for the trajectory of a Solar Probe mission.

solar poles. Coronal holes, one of the sources of high-speed solar wind, are expected to

produce quasi-steady high-speed flows over the solar poles during much of the solar cycle,

whereas at low latitudes interacting high- and low-speed flows predominate.

To understand heliospheric conditions at low solar latitudes has required numerous

missions, e.g., Explorers, Pioneers, Mariners, and Voyagers. To understand heliospheric

conditions at high latitudes will similarly require repeated missions. NASA and ESA will fly

the first exploratory mission over the solar poles (Ulysses). However, as with most

exploratory missions, Ulysses will probably uncover more questions than it will answer,

and follow-on missions will be required.

The objective of the Solar Polar Orbiter (SPO) would be to provide a detailed, repeated

study of conditions at all heliographic latitudes. In circular orbit, SPO will observe the

heliosphere at constant radius and thus will distinguish latitude from radial effects. With 

FIGURE 4.3 The orbit of the Solar Polar Orbiter shown together with locations of other solar measurement

platforms (Starprobe, the 1-AU observing network, and the Heliosynchronous Orbiter).

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 153
a circular orbit at less than or equal to 1 AU, and thus [37] an orbital period less than or

equal to 1 year, SPO should be able to make several passes over the solar poles in a

nominal mission lifetime, and thus distinguish spatial from temporal effects.

No detailed study of an SPO mission has yet been done. However, the required orbit

should be achievable through the use of a low-thrust, continuous acceleration propulsion

system such as solar-electric propulsion with a final orbit as shown in Figure 4.3.

The SPO spacecraft should carry a full complement of plasma, energetic particle,

magnetic field, and radio wave instruments, similar to what is to be flown on ISPM. In

addition, SPO should have pointing capability, through the use of a despun platform on

a spinning spacecraft, or as a three-axis stabilized spacecraft, for detailed solar

observations using a coronagraph, x-ray telescope, and similar photon observing

instruments.

The principal technical development required for SPO is a solar-electric propulsion

system, or its equivalent, for low-thrust, continuous acceleration. In the cost projections

for SPO it is assumed that such development will not be charged against the mission costs,

because the need is common to several proposed [38] programs. Also, studies need to be

conducted on the impact of a continuous propulsion system on particle, field, and photon

instrumentation, and on the measurements these instruments make.

Outer Coronal Physics

The Heliosynchronous Orbiter (HSO), as described in the ESA document Horizon

2000, is an instrumented probe orbiting the Sun at about 30 solar radii with a 25-day

period, synchronous with the rotation of the Sun (see Figure 4.3).

This mission will be able to address a very broad range of scientific objectives from solar

physics, physics of the interplanetary medium, and high-energy astrophysics to relativity:

• Investigation of the morphology and dynamical development of all solar structures

from the photosphere to the outer corona from a vantage point close to the Sun (0.15

AU) over a large range of solar latitudes, with frequent access to the solar polar regions.

Stereoscopic viewing of structures through motion of the spacecraft. The understanding

of the relationship between the thermal structure and heating of the solar corona will

ultimately permit the identification of the physical nature of the solar wind acceleration.

Imaging of the coronal structures could be achieved by observations at 1 AU.

• Investigation of the three-dimensional structure of the inner heliosphere near or

even outside the region where the wind is accelerated.

• Measurements of solar wind particle fields and waves; studies of the heating and

acceleration of the solar wind (thermally or wave-driven wind?) with the advantage of a

wide latitude coverage.

• Studies of the propagation, acceleration, and modulation of solar energetic particles

including the significant reduction of propagation effects with respect to 1 AU. Study of

shock wave acceleration.

• Radio sounding of the solar corona as the spacecraft passes behind the Sun.

• Correlative studies of expanding and traveling solar structures and their

manifestation in interplanetary space.

154 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
• Investigation of the three-dimensional distribution of mass and velocity of

interplanetary dust in the inner heliosphere.

[39]• Investigations of the Hermean magnetosphere and remote sensing of Mercury

during flybys early in the mission (the last in situ measurements date from Mariner 10 in

1974-1975.)

• Establishment of a reference observatory for other missions in the heliosphere, in

particular for solar optical remote sensing missions near 1 AU.

• Baseline observations of galactic gamma-ray bursts.

• Performance of relativity experiments (if possible, e.g.), determination of J2 (the

second gravitational moment) in the case of a highly elliptic orbit; frame dragging

experiments.

The technological problems (propulsion, thermal design, data transmission pose a

considerable challenge. The mission concept is certainly not only attractive to a large

scientific community, but it would also be appealing to the general public and from the

technological point of view.

1-AU Observing Network

The Sun is the only star that we can observe from different directions, i.e., from any

position within the heliosphere. This provides a stereoscopic view of structures whose

geometry and energy content cannot be determined because they are either optically thin

or because parts of them are not entirely visible from one single viewing condition. In

addition, simultaneous observations at different positions inside the heliosphere provide

three-dimensional snapshots of the magnetic field and the solar wind, important

observations that will give new insight into the mechanisms that govern the wind

generation, acceleration, and propagation. Similarly, simultaneous measurements of the

irradiance with a set of several spacecraft would allow us to infer what mechanisms induce

variations in the solar constant, whether they are due to sunspot luminosity deficiencies

compensated by equivalent increases on the hidden solar hemisphere or whether they are

in phase over the whole surface and due to global variation of the solar volume. It should

also be noted that a 360° network for ecliptic monitoring of flare events might become an

indispensable element in any manned mission to another planet.

A set of 4 1-AU spacecraft positioned at 90° in the ecliptic plane and augmented by

another one in a solar polar orbit should (see Figure 4.3) provide the necessary means to

conduct [40] these measurements. They should be equipped with coronagraphs, XUV

and x-ray telescopes, particle detectors, magnetometers, and radiometers. The 1-AU

spacecraft near Earth could be at L1; the Space Station could service an L1 platform

essentially as well as a geosynchronous one.

Additional Solar and Heliospheric Studies

There is now a considerable body of evidence to suggest that all scales of structure on

the Sun, as well as other astrophysically interesting objects, are ultimately governed by

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 155
small-scale processes associated with intermittent magnetic fields and turbulent stresses.

The understanding of the physics of the creation and decay of these dynamical structures

is essential to a proper description of large-scale structures (such as coronal active regions,

flares, and the solar wind) and their effects on interplanetary space and the near-Earth

environment. 

The interplay between processes occurring on vastly different spatial scales is

ubiquitous in astrophysics. Whether in accretion disks feeding black holes at the center of

active galaxies or quasars, in the magnetospheres of neutron stars, or in the x-ray coronae

now known to surround a wide range of stars, small-scale magnetohydrodynamic

processes are thought to influence and sometimes control the behavior of the object.

In these astrophysical situations, observations using even the most advanced

technology currently conceivable will not allow us to directly observe the controlling

small-scale processes. Using the Sun, however, we can indeed imagine direct observations.

The Sun is therefore a unique tool for advancing our understanding of a broad class of

astrophysical phenomena, if we can penetrate to the domain of underlying processes that

often operate on spatial scales of 1 to 100 km. 

An orderly progression of goals that could realize much of this 21 promise would

include the following: 

1. Development of the successor to the Solar Optical Telescope and its integration

into the Advanced Solar Observatory on the Space Station, along with the development of

0.1-arcsec ultraviolet and x-ray solar instruments on the Space Station.

2. Interferometric experiments in the ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet, aimed at a

preliminary reconnaissance of solar features at angular sizes much less than 0.1 arcsec.

[41]3. Development of new 1-m class facilities, utilizing the emerging multilayer coating

technologies, designed to obtain resolution in the 0.01-arcsec regime at extreme

ultraviolet or soft x-ray wavelengths.

4. Improvement of the angular resolution of 1-m class telescopes by the use of

multiaperture arrays to achieve baselines of order 10 m. Further details are contained in

Appendix D.

156 SOLAR PHYSICS FROM SPACE
157

Chapter Two

Space Physics

by James Green and Brian Dewhurst*

1. Origins of Space Physics

Space physics, the study of the particles, magnetic fields, and electric fields that

surround Earth and extend to the Sun, has been a central portion of NASA’s science

program since the Agency’s inception; indeed, carrying out space physics experiments

(James Van Allen announced the discovery of what came to be known as the Van Allen

belts in May 1958) preceded the 1 October 1958 opening of NASA. (See Documents II-1

and Volume V, I-5.) The study of the Sun itself, the interactions of its layers, the mysteries

of the corona, the origin of sunspots, and other topics make up the field of solar physics,

and were discussed in the previous chapter of this volume. 

Although physicists had conducted upper atmosphere research using balloons and

sounding rockets for some years before 1957, the scientific field of space physics began

with the space race. The Soviet Sputnik 1 and 2 missions were launched into orbit around

Earth in October and November 1957. 

Rather than wait for the troubled Vanguard program to produce a working launch

vehicle and satellite, the Department of Defense decided in November 1958 to use the

Army’s Jupiter-C rocket to place an American satellite in orbit. The Technical Panel for the

Earth Satellite Program of the U.S. National Committee for the International Geophysical

Year was given the task of selecting the scientific investigations that would go on the Explorer

1 spacecraft. The Secretary of Defense had promised the President that the satellite would

launch in ninety days, so there was very little time in which to make this selection. 

The panel decided to use experiments that had already begun development for launch

during the Vanguard program, selecting a meteoritic dust detector, temperature sensors,

and a cosmic ray measurement experiment designed and built by Van Allen, who in

preceding years had been in touch with the von Braun rocket team in Huntsville with

respect to the requirements for flying his instrument in a satellite developed by the Army’s

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, launched on a booster developed by von Braun. (See Volume V,

Documents I-6, I-7, and I-10.) Van Allen had mapped cosmic ray intensities throughout the

upper atmosphere using a campaign of sounding rocket experiments. He had discovered

that the levels of cosmic rays evened out at altitudes above 55 km, leading him to believe

that he had discovered what their intensity was in space. The Explorer satellite gave him

the opportunity to carry his experimentation into space and validate his conclusion.

* We would like to gratefully acknowledge our discussions with Joseph Alexander, David Bohlin, Michael

(Mike) Calabrese, David Cauffman, the late Burton Edelson, Robert Farquhar, Kent Hills, Noel Hinners, John

Hrastar, Frank McDonald, Norm Ness, Charles Pellerin, Guenter Reigler, Tyco VonRosenvinge, and William

Worrall. All contributed to the development of this essay.
In January 1958, the first U.S. space mission, Explorer 1, carried Geiger Muller tubes;

again in March 1958, Explorer 3 (after Explorer 2 failed) carried them. Both missions

detected an inner radiation belt in which the fluxes increased with altitude, unlike the

cosmic-ray flux.1 In May 1958, Van Allen announced the discovery of this belt. (Sputnik 2

was equipped with Geiger Muller tubes and actually made the first observation of the

inner radiation belt; but due to the U.S.S.R.’s policy of secrecy, Soviet scientists were not

able to have access to the data until much later.) 

While U.S. scientists were analyzing their data and speaking about their initial results

(See Volume V, Document I-12), Congress passed the Space Act of 29 July 1958,

establishing NASA. The Space Act provided NASA with wide latitude for the definition and

establishment of its missions. NASA continued to launch missions to the inner radiation

belt (the term “belt” was actually coined by a news reporter during a news conference on

1 May 1958), discovering more of its nature and structure. (See Document II-2.)

Scientifically, the space race was moving quickly, and once again the Soviet mission Sputnik

3, launched in May 1958, observed the outer radiation belt before Explorer 4, launched in

late July 1958. But based on the time of published articles about these discoveries, James

Van Allen will always be remembered as the discoverer of both radiation belts. 

The discovery of the two Van Allen radiation belts brought the new field of space

physics a great deal of attention. The belts had implications for everything from

proposed Department of Defense (DOD) satellites to the survivability of humans in

orbit. The discovery also had a substantial impact on the direction of space science

research. In early 1958, the newly established DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency

(ARPA) had approved plans for five Pioneer satellites designed to fly by the Moon and

to transmit television pictures of the Moon’s surface. When the inclusion of a television

camera proved infeasible, ARPA managers decided to use the Pioneer spacecraft to

expand on Van Allen’s discovery. Pioneers 1, 2, and 3 failed to achieve escape velocity

and fell back to Earth, though they produced some useful data during their brief flights.

Pioneer 4, however, escaped Earth’s gravity well and flew by the Moon, eventually

settling into an orbit around the Sun. Pioneer 4 also returned excellent data on the

inner and outer Van Allen belts. 

As the ARPA-managed Explorers and Pioneers were proceeding, NASA began to

organize itself. Homer E. Newell, a veteran upper atmosphere physicist who moved to the

new space agency from the Naval Research Laboratory and was put in charge of NASA’s

space science activities, laid out NASA’s new program in space research. In a speech

before the Royal Society in London on 12 November 1958 (See Document II-3), Newell

presented a relatively comprehensive plan for space research in Earth’s upper

atmosphere, ionosphere (including the radiation belts), and astronomy.2 The

responsibility for carrying out much of this program was given to the new Goddard Space

158 SPACE PHYSICS

1. James A. Van Allen, “Energetic Particles in the Earth’s External Magnetic Field,” in Discovery of the

Magnetosphere, C. S. Gillmor and J. R. Spreiter, eds. (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1997), pp.

235–264.

2. Homer E. Newell, Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science, NASA SP-4211 (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office,1980). This book is an excellent summary of the early years of space science at

NASA, written by the individual most responsible for the space science program in the first fifteen years 

of NASA.
Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland.3 Newell brought to NASA a number of

Naval Research Laboratory scientists who became the core of the Agency’s space science

capabilities at GSFC. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of

Technology was transferred from Army to NASA management and focused its efforts on

lunar and planetary science missions.

In the fall of 1958, Leslie H. Meredith (the newly appointed head of the Space

Sciences Division at GSFC and Van Allen’s first graduate student) invited John Naugle and

Frank McDonald to join the new GSFC science team; these two individuals were to be

central to the NASA space science effort for many years. The two scientists began their

tenure at GSFC on 1 July 1959. McDonald’s first assignment was to develop a satellite that

would later be designated Explorer 12. One of McDonald’s first decisions was to split the

management of the project into two positions—the project manager and the project

scientist. The project manager would oversee the implementation of the program, while

the project scientist made the necessary scientific decisions. McDonald recognized that

the day-to-day management of a scientific project did not have to be done by a scientist,

and that good scientists were not necessarily good project managers. It made much more

sense to have a strong project manager responsible for the overall success of a mission and

a strong project scientist who had the power, or could invoke the power, to overrule the

project manager if the scientific objectives of a mission were in jeopardy. This simple

management structure became the standard for all subsequent NASA science programs.

Explorer 12 was launched on 16 August 1961. For three months the satellite provided

cosmic-ray data, the most important of which was the first observation of high-speed

particle streams coming from what was later believed to be a solar Coronal Mass Ejection

(CME) which occurred on September 28. The dispersion of the arrival times of various

solar particles and the observation of a large geomagnetic storm associated with the CME

were groundbreaking in recognizing the relationships of Earth’s magnetic storms with

events originating at the Sun. Explorer 12 later failed due to a short circuit in the

transmitter, but a spare satellite was launched on 2 October 1961 as Explorer 14 and

continued the study.

A year later, on 10 July 1962, the United States launched Telstar 1, the first

communications satellite. Unfortunately, the launch was only 24 hours after the Starfish

test in which the American military detonated a nuclear device in the upper atmosphere.

The resulting explosion inflated the Van Allen belts, causing large amounts of penetrating

radiation that led to substantial damage to the Telstar satellite. This event brought about

much interest in the effects of such radiation in the upper atmosphere and low-Earth

orbit. The Defense Department asked NASA to provide a satellite to observe these effects

during the next nuclear test, which was scheduled to occur in approximately two months.

GSFC decided to use the spare Explorer 14 satellite and pack it with off-the-shelf radiation

experiments. Known as Explorer 15, this satellite was launched on 27 October 1962. The

satellite was a success, mapping the extent and composition of the artificial radiation belts

created by the test, as well as the decay rates of these belts. In addition, Explorer 15

produced the first detailed maps of the ion and electron populations near Earth. While

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 159

3. The original location of GSFC was a vacant building at the Naval Research Laboratory until the facility

at Greenbelt, Maryland, was constructed. 
the Explorer nomenclature continued to be used to designate U.S. satellites for years,

Explorer 15 was the final first-generation American space physics satellite.

Another important line of missions that was established early in the space program

was the Injun series of satellites meant to study Earth’s magnetosphere. Injun was not an

acronym, but rather the name assigned by James Van Allen and his students to the series.

All of these spacecraft were designed and built at the University of Iowa, where Van Allen

was the head of the Department of Physics. During most of the time period of the Injun

series, the University of Iowa was the only university able to produce satellites in-house.

This series contained six missions and extended from June 1961 to the launch of the

Injun-6 (also known as Hawkeye) in June of 1974. The objective of this series of missions

was to study natural and artificial trapped radiation belts, auroras, airglow, and any other

geophysical phenomena they might discover. These satellites were jointly funded by the

Naval Research Laboratory and NASA. 

2. Origins of the Interplanetary Monitoring Program (IMP)

As NASA planned a response to the launch by the Soviet Union of the first man in

space, Yuri Gagarin, on 12 April 1961, the Agency convened a meeting in early May in

which the various science disciplines discussed their potential contributions to the human

spaceflight program, and particularly to a potential lunar-landing program. Frank

McDonald was asked to provide the “particles and fields” perspective. McDonald realized

that the radiation environment between Earth and the Moon would need to be fully

understood in order to determine what protection the astronauts would need. To achieve

this understanding, he proposed the Interplanetary Monitoring Platform (IMP) program,

quickly approved at NASA Headquarters.

The IMP program4 had several scientific objectives. The primary objective was to study

and monitor the radiation environment in Earth’s magnetosphere and near lunar space.

Because continual monitoring was part of Apollo program requirements, a whole series of

IMPs was planned. As a part of this effort, further goals were to develop the capability to

predict solar activity and flares, to study the relationship between the Sun and Earth, and

to determine the quiescent properties of interplanetary magnetic fields and how they are

related to solar particle fluxes. 

McDonald was responsible for the design of the scientific payload for the first three

IMP missions. He chose a range of experiments that would investigate magnetic fields,

cosmic rays, and the solar wind, the flow of particles away from the Sun’s corona.5 This

suite of instruments was the last set of experiments to be chosen unilaterally by a project

scientist.6 In mid-1960, Newell stated that instrument selection on future NASA missions

would be made by NASA Headquarters based on peer review by the scientific community.

By this time, NASA Headquarters had established a series of advisory committees. At the

160 SPACE PHYSICS

4. Paul Butler, Interplanetary Monitor Platform: Engineering History and Achievements, NASA TM-80758, May 1980.

5. Frank McDonald, “IMPs, EGOs, and Skyhooks,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 10521-10530 (1996).

6. John Naugle, First Among Equals: The Selection of Space Science Experiments, NASA SP-4215 (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1991).
fall 1961 Particles and Fields Subcommittee meeting, the committee accepted McDonald’s

recommendations for the initial IMP missions, but made it clear that it supported the

concept that future selections would be made at the Headquarters level. 

After a substantial delay (due to the problems with the Thor-Delta launch vehicle),

IMP 1 was launched on 27 November 1963. In order to sample as much of interplanetary

space as possible, the IMP satellites were placed into a highly elliptical orbit (with apogees

at ~ 15 to 30 Earth radii). The spacecraft were able to provide substantial insight into the

magnetosphere and magnetosheath, and data from IMP-1 was used to discover the

existence of the geomagnetic tail. Over the next four years, the IMP series provided a

substantial amount of data. 

As the IMP program was underway, Norman Ness of GSFC, the Principal Investigator

(PI) of the IMP-1 Magnetic Field Experiment, and discoverer of the geomagnetic tail,

came up with the concept of having an IMP placed in orbit around the Moon.7 This was

the beginning of the Anchored IMP (AIMP) effort. The first AIMP overshot the Moon,

due to more powerful performance from the Thor Delta booster than was anticipated.

AIMP-1 was placed into a highly elliptical Earth orbit, however, and provided much useful

data on Earth’s magnetic bow shock and geomagnetic tail. The next AIMP attempt

achieved lunar orbit on 21 July 1967 and provided a wealth of data on the particle and

field environment in lunar orbit. 

After the success of AIMP-2, the IMP line returned to using highly elliptical Earth

orbits. On IMP-7 and -8, Ness suggested using a secondary motor to put the spacecraft

into a more circular orbit. This innovation removed the limit on lifetime caused by

atmospheric drag and enabled the IMPs to remain in orbit indefinitely. IMP-8 provided

useful data throughout the rest of the twentieth century and was still in operation in

2002.

As NASA began to send probes to Mars and Venus and to plan for exploratory missions

to the outer planets and Mercury, space physicists were eager to measure the “particles and

fields” associated with planets other than Earth. They were concerned that NASA was not

giving adequate attention to the space physics aspects of solar system exploration, a

concern that NASA claimed was not warranted. (See Documents II-7 and II-8.)

Data about the structure of the magnetosphere and the radiation belts were

rapidly accumulating from the numerous NASA missions, but access to the data for the

whole science community was very difficult. On 15 August 1960, Newell told Abe

Silverstein, head of the NASA Office of Space Flight Programs, that NASA would release

the reduced data from its missions to the broader scientific community and would

archive the data for future users. (See Document II-4.) Newell subsequently developed

a policy for handling data from NASA missions, giving initial access to investigators who

had conceived space experiments or who had developed instruments to gather data in

space. In 1966, Newell established the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at

GSFC. The establishment of the NSSDC enabled U.S. investigators to archive their data

at a central location and provided a mechanism to distribute the data to any U.S.

scientist upon request. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 161

7. Norman F. Ness, “Pioneering the Swinging 1960s into the 1970s and 1980s,” Journal of Geophysical Research,

101, 10497-10509 (1996).
But the international science community still could not obtain access to this archival

data. In September 1968, Dr. Merrill A. Tuve, Chairman of the Geophysics Research

Board of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), asked NASA Administrator James

Webb to approve the transfer of the responsibilities of the U.S. Rockets and Satellites

Center from NAS to NASA. (See Document II-6.) The Rockets and Satellites Center was

part of the World Data Center system that maintained important international

agreements for the exchange of archival data with the international science community.

The task of responding to this request fell to Newell who, on 12 November 1968,

assigned the management responsibility to the NSSDC. (See Document II-7.) As part of

the World Data Center system, the NSSDC could make its archival data available to

foreign scientists upon request. This arrangement greatly facilitated the distribution of

space physics data and stimulated important national and international scientific

collaborations in space physics. 

3. The Shift to Multiple Observations

By the early 1970s, NASA had an advisory committee structure at every level.

Individuals like Arthur C. Clarke were advising the Administrator on broad space issues,

another committee of scientists was advising the Associate Administrator for Space

Science on overall research strategy, ad hoc subcommittees were evaluating concepts for

specific missions, and working groups were interacting with project directors and major

office heads. In addition, of course, the Space Science Board of the National Academy of

Sciences and its various committees provided external advice to NASA. Through these

multiple channels, any scientist could propose an idea for a space experiment or mission.

Many of these ideas found their way into a NASA Announcement of Opportunity (AO),

the formal mechanism by which scientists competed for access to space. To get an idea

into an AO, it was necessary to have the advocacy of an established scientific institution or

a NASA Field Center, support from a NASA program office, and support from the

appropriate advisory committees. (See Document II-9.)

By the 1970s, space physicists had developed a basic understanding of the

environment in the neighborhood of Earth from the analysis and publication of data from

their individual instruments. However, only a small percentage of the research that was

accomplished was done by relating data from multiple instruments on various spacecraft

or with ground-based measurements. A major change in direction in space physics

research occurred when the Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics

(SCOSTEP), which operated under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific

Unions, established an international program designed to understand magnetospheric

processes by coordinated observations with space and ground-based instruments. The

International Magnetospheric Study (IMS) period ran from 1976 to 1979. NASA

scrambled to participate in this effort. (See Document II-10.) The principal NASA

contribution consisted of correlative data from operating spacecraft, data from the

International Sun-Earth Explorer (ISEE) program (which had three spacecraft), and

support from the NSSDC. During and shortly after the IMS period, the NSSDC held a

series of intensive data comparison workshops enabling scientists to use data from many

162 SPACE PHYSICS
sources. These workshops were called Coordinated Data Analysis Workshops8 and were

designed to understand the response of the magnetosphere to changes in the solar wind.

The IMS period and the workshops had a major effect on the thinking of the science

community, turning its attention from exclusive analysis of local, in situ measurements to

more global science questions that needed to be answered using multiple data sources.

Attempts to respond continued into the 1980s and 1990s. 

4. The Tortuous Path to a Comet’s Tail 

In 1977 and 1978, three ISEE spacecraft were launched to study the solar wind and its

impacts on Earth’s geospace environment during the maximum period of the sunspot

cycle. The ISEE-1 and -2 spacecraft orbited Earth in a highly elliptical orbit and remained

mostly in the magnetosphere, but ISEE-3 was placed into a halo orbit (as observed from

Earth) at the Sun-Earth libration point, L1 (the location between the Sun and Earth

where the pull of the gravity of the two bodies effectively cancel one another out, allowing

an object in that position to remain there without expending station-keeping energy).

The value of ISEE-3 in measuring solar wind input into Earth’s magnetosphere was

immediately appreciated by the entire space physics community. Within a few years of

operations, the three spacecraft had completed an impressive list of space physics firsts.

By August 1981, in the declining phase of the solar cycle, they had completed their

primary mission. ISEE-1 and -2 were the last two missions in the IMP series and provided

data for over eight years after they were launched. The long-term fate of ISEE-3, however,

would be determined in a very different, highly political way.

Comets were created at the birth of the solar system and as such have been of

considerable interest to planetary scientists. The most famous comet has probably been

Comet Halley, which is visible once every 76 years. In the late 1970s, the Japanese space

science agency ISAS, the Soviet bloc grouping Intercosmos, the European Space Agency,

and NASA were all planning missions to Comet Halley at the time of its March 1986 passage

by the Sun. Though the rationale offered in support of NASA’s planned mission to explore

Halley was a combination of scientific curiosity and national prestige, obtaining the

scientific priority and, ultimately, the funding proved to be impossible.9 After more than

three years of planning, Halley rendezvous mission was never approved. NASA’s dropping

out of the race to a comet did not affect the efforts of the other space agencies; in fact, it

stimulated ESA to plan, on its own, what became the Giotto mission. Previously, ESA had

planned to collaborate with NASA in a single Halley mission.

Even though NASA did not gain approval for a dedicated comet mission, the goal of

being the first nation to visit a comet was quite important to some U.S. scientific working

groups. In addition, many American scientists were surprised and even embarrassed to

learn that NASA would not be first to a comet. It was in this climate that in March 1981,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 163

8. J. I. Vette, D. M. Sawyer, M. J. Teague, and D. J. Hei, “The Origin and Evolution of the Coordinated Data

Analysis Workshop Process,” The IMS Source Book (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1982), pp.

235–241.

9. John M. Logsdon, “Missing Halley’s Comet: The Politics of Big Science,” Isis, June 1989. 
Fred Scarf (Principal Investigator for ISEE-3) and Robert Farquhar (ISEE-3 orbital

engineer) devised a plan for ISEE-3 to move from the L1 point to deep into Earth’s

magnetospheric tail, and then on to Comet Halley using lunar swingby trajectories. ISEE-3

still had onboard fuel remaining after it had been maneuvered to L1, and it had

maintained its halo orbit for three years.10 Even before the launch of ISEE-3, plans for a

magnetotail excursion had been discussed, but using the remaining fuel for a Comet

Halley encounter was a new twist brought about by the circumstances of not having a

NASA mission to Halley. 

This intriguing proposal was investigated by NASA’s space science leaders. On 27

April 1981, Andrew Stofan, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, authorized Thomas Young (Director, GSFC) to conduct a feasibility study

for the Comet Halley encounter. (See Document II-11.) During this initial study, it

became clear that although reaching Halley in March 1986 was possible, a better option

was an encounter with Comet Giacobini-Zinner (GZ) in September 1985. 

On 8 February 1982, the plan for ISEE-3 to encounter Comet GZ after its deep-tail

mission in Earth’s magnetosphere was presented to the ISEE-3 science working team. The

science working team rejected the Comet GZ mission option and voted to send ISEE back

to L1 after the deep-tail encounter. But Scarf and Farquhar remained undaunted; they

sought and received the endorsement of their magnetotail-GZ plan by the Comet and

Asteroid Working Group of the Solar System Exploration Committee (SSEC), which

reported to Burton Edelson (who in 1982 had replaced Stofan as Associate Administrator

for Space Science and Applications). David Morrison, SSEC Chair, stated, “This use of the

ISEE-3 spacecraft [for encountering Comet GZ] in its extended mission mode has our

warm endorsement, and it is hard to imagine that NASA would decline this opportunity to

obtain new and unique data with such a small expenditure of resources.” An endorsement

for the magnetotail-GZ encounter plan from the powerful Space Science Board of the

National Academy of Sciences followed. The Board also recommended that NASA should

take steps to replace the monitoring functions of ISEE-3 of the upstream solar wind at L1,

but the majority of the ISEE-3 investigators still remained against the Comet GZ option. In

the face of this conflict, NASA Headquarters remained silent, and no decision was made. 

A major decision point finally appeared that would either doom the Comet GZ

encounter option or maintain it. For ISEE-3 to even make Comet GZ, it had to be

repositioned in its halo orbit about L1. The Director of Space Sciences at GSFC, George

Pieper, although initially against the Comet GZ option, approved the repositioning of

ISEE-3. (See Document II-12.) In a memo to Frank Martin, Office of Space Science and

Applications at NASA Headquarters, Pieper stated that “unless you advise me to the

contrary, the 10 June 1982 orbit maneuver will be carried out.” This gave NASA

Headquarters ten days to decide; again it remained silent. With the repositioning of 

ISEE-3 completed, Pieper bought time for the study team to complete its work and

Headquarters to make a final decision.

On 6 August 1982, the decision meeting was held at NASA Headquarters. Charlie

Pellerin, Deputy Director of the Astrophysics Division of NASA Headquarters, made the

164 SPACE PHYSICS

10. Robert W. Farquhar, “The Flight of ISEE-3/ICE: Origins, Mission History, and a Legacy,” American

Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics paper 98-4464, August 1998. 
presentation to Sam Keller, Deputy Associate Administrator of the Office of Space Science

and Applications (OSSA), to obtain approval for in situ exploration of Comet GZ. (See

Document II-13.) The pros and cons were discussed extensively, with the focus of the

discussion centering on the risk of losing ISEE-3. Pellerin argued that “the

uncertainties/risks cited . . . appear to me to be less than those that generally exist when

we start a project” and that two major risks already had been overcome; there had been

no launch vehicle failure and no “infant mortality” (failure during the early days of

spacecraft operation). ISEE-3 was operating nominally and was in space ready to go. In

summary, Pellerin argued that the “return justifies the risk—NASA should do it.” 

From the viewpoint of the ISEE-3 Principal Investigators, Fred Scarf, Ed Smith, and

Sam Bame all supported the GZ encounter; Ed Stone, Dieter Hovestadt, and Harry

Heckman supported it, but with conditions; and Keith Oglivie, Robert Hynds, Jean-Louis

Steinberg, Kinsey Anderson, Tyco Von Rosenvinge, Peter Meyer, Bonnard Teegarden, and

John Wilcox all opposed it. Weighing all the facts in a controversial decision, Burt Edelson

approved the Comet GZ mission on 30 August 1982. (See Document II–14.) On 22

December 1982, ISEE- 3 was renamed the International Cometary Explorer (ICE).

To ensure rapid delivery of the data to the ICE European investigators, a transatlantic

link was established connecting GSFC, a main SPAN (Space Physics Analysis Network)

routing center, to the European Space Operations Center (ESOC) in Darmstadt,

Germany.11 ESOC then directly connected all the ICE investigators in Europe together,

thereby creating ESA’s first Internet; the network was called European-SPAN or E-SPAN.12

On 11 September 1985, ICE made history as the first spacecraft to fly through a comet tail.

For the first time in NASA’s history, real-time spacecraft data flowed directly from the

tracking stations to the central SPAN network hub, across the United States to ESOC, and

then to all the ICE investigators for rapid analysis.13 The scientific return from ICE was

impressive, but the space physics community would have to wait nine years before it would

be able to replace ISEE-3 at the L1 location, a loss that some still feel was an enormous

blow to making rapid progress in the understanding of solar wind interactions with

Earth’s magnetosphere. 

5. Saving Space Physics: The Selling of ISTP

NASA organized a study group in 1977 to define a major program in space plasma

physics for the 1980s. The result of this effort led to the Origins of Plasmas in the Earth’s

Neighborhood, or OPEN, program. OPEN had plans to launch four spacecraft, one each

in solar wind (Wind), polar (Polar), and equatorial (Equator) orbits in the inner

magnetosphere, and one in the deep geomagnetic tail (Geotail) region. Similar studies

were being conducted by ESA and ISAS at the time. The concept behind OPEN was to

observe the solar wind energy, from the Wind spacecraft, as it flowed into the deep tail of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 165

11. T. Sanderson, S. Ho, N. Van der Heijden, E. Jabs, and J. L. Green, “Near-real-time data transmission

during the ICE-Comet Giacobini-Zinner Encounter,” ESA Bulletin, 45, p. 21, February 1986.

12. T. Sanderson, M. Albrecht, W. Baumjohann, P. Benvenuti, J. Franks, G. Green, J. L. Green, M. Hapgood,

C. Harvey, N. Van der Heijden, E. Jabs, P. A. Lindqvist, D. de Pablo, F. Pasian, and G. Veldman, “The European

Space Physics Analysis Network,” ESA Bulletin, 53, February 1988, p.45.

13. J. L. Green and J. H. King, “Behind the Scenes During a Comet Encounter,” EOS, March 1986, pp.67, 105.
the magnetosphere where magnetic reconnection, to be observed by Geotail, was believed

to start the flow of energized plasma from the tail into the inner magnetosphere, where

Equator and Polar would observe the results. This overall explosive flow of energy into the

inner magnetosphere, producing an intense current around Earth (called the ring

current) and an intense aurora, was called a geomagnetic storm. 

NASA, ESA, and ISAS hoped that there could be convergence among their separate

plans for solar-terrestrial work, but getting approval for a new space science mission,

much less a coordinated set of missions among international partners, was a complex

process. In the first stage, the separate scientific communities involved established their

highest-priority scientific objectives. They agreed on the scientific questions that

needed answers and the logical steps to get those answers. A certain amount of logic

should have prevailed in this stage. In the second stage, the scientific community, NASA,

and, in the case of the joint project, the space agencies of the other countries involved

decided on the basic instruments, the kinds of spacecraft, the funding, and the missions

to be flown. This process had some logic, but generally was chaotic. The project team

had to consider national priorities, several bureaucracies, and the state-of-the-art

technology of the instruments and the spacecraft, just to name a few of the issues.

“Selling the mission,” or obtaining the necessary funds and authority from multiple

governments to conduct the mission, constituted the third and most chaotic and

unpredictable stage. All of these patterns were manifested in creating the International

Solar-Terrestrial Program (ISTP). 

In 1979, NASA released an Announcement of Opportunity for OPEN. Investigators

who provided instruments and participants in the science working groups on these

missions were selected in 1981. Even with all this effort on the part of NASA and the space

physics community, OPEN did not receive a new start in the President’s budget for 1983;

its future was quite uncertain.

The Solar-Terrestrial and Astrophysics Division within OSSA, home of the OPEN

program, was reorganized and became the Astrophysics Division in late 1981. This

reorganization eliminated the Plasma Physics Branch and the Solar and Heliospheric

Physics Branch. Key space physics personnel were dispersed into other divisions. Not only

was the OPEN program in jeopardy, but the discipline of space physics also no longer had

any advocacy within the NASA management. Without such advocacy, the entire space

physics community would not endure long. 

Against this backdrop, Burt Edelson, an engineer with long experience in

communications satellites, became the Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications in February 1982. During Edelson’s first month at NASA, a number of

scientists put pressure on him to get some form of space physics program restarted. In

response, Edelson initiated another reorganization and brought back the Solar and

Heliospheric Physics Branch, but now within the Astrophysics Division, and created an

Upper Atmospheric and Magnetospheric Branch within a new organization named the

Earth Science and Applications Division. In addition, Edelson decided to bring to NASA

someone from the community who was dynamic and could take the OPEN program to the

next step. He contacted James Van Allen from the University of Iowa for suggestions. Van

Allen recommended Stanley Shawhan, an outstanding professor and Principal

Investigator on the Dynamics Explorer 1 mission at the University of Iowa. Shawhan

166 SPACE PHYSICS
accepted an IPA (Intergovernmental Personnel Act) position at NASA Headquarters and,

in September 1983, joined the Upper Atmospheric and Magnetospheric Branch. 

Shawhan’s first assignment from Edelson was to get the OPEN program started through

some sort of international cooperation; the new Associate Administrator was a strong

advocate of such collaboration. Shawhan initiated a series of bilateral meetings between

NASA and ISAS, and between NASA and ESA. In Shawhan’s first year at Headquarters, he

merged the NASA OPEN program with NASA’s participation in ISAS and ESA solarterrestrial missions into a single endeavor and established a project office at GSFC. This new

program was called the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) Program. As the

program developed, NASA would be responsible for the Wind, Polar, and Equator missions,

along with fast-paced, ground-based, and theory activities. ESA was responsible for the

SOHO and Cluster missions, with ISAS responsible for the deep-tail Geotail mission. 

In addition to these ISTP project activities, it was clear that a strong archive and

communications capability had to be a key element of an infrastructure necessary to

facilitate data exchange between the agencies. Neither ESA nor ISAS maintained a space

physics archive, and the NASA archive, the NSSDC, was, as discussed in a 1984 report14

from the NAS Joint Data Panel of the Committee on Solar and Space Physics, in desperate

need of overhauling. In response to this NAS report, Edelson stated that NASA would

undertake a number of important activities that would establish improved access to

archives and data. (See Document II-15.) In particular, Edelson redefined the NSSDC and

provided baseline funding for the SCAN network, which was later renamed the Space

Physics Analysis Network (SPAN). SPAN became NASA’s first Internet-based

communications network. 

With these activities initiated, all seemed ready for implementation. However, as part

of the budget process, NASA’s upper management determined that ISTP was too costly in

1984. In late summer of that year, the NASA Administrator challenged OSSA to

restructure the NASA contribution to ISTP for about half its original proposed cost. 

By 24 August, Shawhan and Mike Calabrese (a space physics program manager)

developed and documented15 possible approaches for reducing the costs of the NASA part

of the ISTP program. The key element of reducing the costs was the dropping of the

Equator spacecraft. At that time, NASA was negotiating with the Air Force on a new mission

called the Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES); NASA decided that

this mission would serve as the replacement mission for Equator. Shawhan broke the news

to the selected investigators on Equator that the available budget could not support three

NASA missions, and Equator would be deleted with the equatorial measurements to be

provided by CRRES. He indicated that this action was needed to keep the rest of the

program intact. Shawhan was persuasive. Even though the investigators were tremendously

disappointed, they supported his overall goal of a coordinated set of spacecraft. 

The scientific goals of the revamped ISTP program were to develop a comprehensive,

global understanding of the generation and flow of energy from the Sun and through

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 167

14. National Research Council, Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, Distribution, and Archiving (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1984).

15. Stanley Shawhan and Michael Calabrese, “Overview of Possible Approaches to a Reduction-in-Scope of

the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program,” 24 August 1984. 
Earth’s space environment (called geospace). Shawhan redefined NASA’s portion of the

ISTP program into two distinct parts. The Global Geospace Science (GGS) program

would contain Wind, Polar, ground-based analysis, theory, and NASA’s portion of the

CRRES program. The Collaborative Solar-Terrestrial Research (COSTR) program would

contain NASA’s portion of Geotail, SOHO, and Cluster. 

NASA’s budget for fiscal year 1985 contained only funds for further design and mission

analysis of ISTP; there were no funds for a new start. But Shawhan was undaunted; he told

the Director General of ISAS, Professor Minoru Oda, that NASA would fully support its role

in the Geotail mission. (See Document II-16.) NASA’s commitment enabled Oda in April

of 1986 to receive approval for ISAS to build Geotail, the most expensive ISAS mission to

date. ISAS was the first agency to gain budget approval for an ISTP mission, which showed

its trust in NASA and its reliance on Shawhan to keep the U.S.-Japan bargain.

Prior to Shawhan’s joining NASA, Edelson had become involved in the international

Inter-Agency Consultative Group (IACG).16 The science heads of the four major space

agencies, NASA, ESA, ISAS, and Intercosmos, were the members of the IACG. The IACG

had been formed in 1981 specifically to better coordinate the set of international missions

that were to encounter Comet Halley in order to enhance their scientific return. 

After the successful Halley encounter, Edelson wanted to keep the IACG going. He

could see that international cooperation, at the right level, had a role to play in selling

certain programs, and that solar-terrestrial physics was the next logical program for the

IACG. Edelson noticed that each of the agencies had space physics projects, and they all

had a number of political problems, especially NASA’s ISTP program. At the 1985 meeting

of the IACG, Edelson suggested that if the IACG were to continue to work as a multiagency coordinating body, a permanent “Terms of Reference” would need to be

developed. The first post-Halley mission meeting of the IACG was held in Padua, Italy, in

November 1986. Using the principles that the agencies had already worked out for

coordinating the Comet Halley encounters, a set of general IACG principles were drafted.

These new Terms of Reference were quickly signed by all agency space science leaders.

The IACG decided that solar-terrestrial physics would be its next area of focus and created

the following three working groups to support this effort: Science, Data Exchange, and

Mission Design and Planning. Members of these three working groups were from the

science communities and space agencies of the participating countries. 

At IACG meetings, the chairman from each working group would make

recommendations designed to better coordinate the efforts in each of the agencies to

further facilitate ISTP science. Each recommendation was either approved, not approved,

or modified before approval by unanimous agreement of each agency space science chief.

Under the IACG auspices, international science communication networks between NASA,

ESA, ISAS, and Intercosmos were put into place or maintained. With NASA’s SPAN well

established and an international link to Europe already operational, one of the first IACG

recommendations was to maintain this transatlantic link. By 1987, the NASA SPAN

network was connected to ISAS. The establishment of Internet-based communications

168 SPACE PHYSICS

16. Joan Johnson-Freese, “A New Model of International Cooperation: The Inter-Agency Consultative

Group,” Changing Patterns of International Cooperation in Space (Melbourne, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1990),

pp. 101–111.
between the agencies provided a revolution in the way scientists and mission planners

worked together. International cooperation was at its highest, but NASA still had no firm

commitment for its own ISTP missions. 

The space physics community in the U.S. was vigorously pushing for a new start for

ISTP, which scientists believed was vital for the survival of the space physics discipline.

Although Shawhan supported a new start for the entire ISTP program, he was unable to

obtain administration support for such an initiative. Consequently, Shawhan developed a

strategy that would present to Congress the COSTR program one year before the GGS

program. By starting the NASA portion of the cooperative ISAS and ESA programs ahead

of NASA’s own programs, Shawhan would be able to make good on his commitment of

NASA support to those efforts. Although the science community had hoped that the

entire ISTP program would be approved at one time, there was confidence that Shawhan’s

leadership could deliver the program in a two-phase approach. The initial COSTR

arrangements were for NASA to provide 40 percent of the Geotail payload, 25 percent of

Cluster and SOHO payloads, data support, and a NASA launch of Geotail. The selling of

the GGS program to Congress involved NASA retaining a leadership role. In the COSTR

program, NASA was playing only a supporting role. This strategy worked; the White House

and Congress approved a new start for COSTR in 1986 and for GGS in 1987. With these

two programs approved, the entire NASA ISTP program was now in place, with the IACG

providing a capability to facilitate the international collaboration on both operational and

scientific levels. Once COSTR was approved, international support became solid. In

March 1987, the joint ESA/NASA Solar-Terrestrial Science Programme (STSP), Cluster,

and SOHO Announcement of Opportunity was released. Within a year, Geotail

investigators were selected and confirmed for flight. 

Meanwhile, at NASA Headquarters, Edelson left, and Lennard Fisk became Associate

Administrator for Space Science and Applications on 6 April 1987. A new Space Physics

Division was created in 1988 and, within a year, included the Cosmic and Heliospheric

Physics Branch, the Solar Physics Branch, the Magnetospheric Physics Branch, and the

Ionospheric Physics Branch. In addition, NASA received a budget augmentation for the

COSTR program which increased NASA’s contribution from 25 percent to 33 percent of

the SOHO and Cluster missions. This augmentation was necessary in order to preserve

collaboration with ESA in SOHO and Cluster, and ensure the development of both

missions. The GGS investigators were selected based on the original OPEN AO and

confirmed for flight. Instrument investigations were jointly selected for definition for

SOHO and Cluster. By the end of 1989, ESA confirmed SOHO and Cluster investigations

for flight. With that confirmation, the complex national and international components

for ISTP were in place. 

By the late 1980s, space physics was a discipline brought back from near extinction by

the sheer energy, devotion, and leadership of Shawhan; the support of the NASA ISTP

team of Mario Acuna, Joseph Alexander, Dave Bohlin, Mike Calabrese, Art Poland, and

Ken Sizemore; the overall guidance and management insight from Edelson and Fisk; and

the support of the science community.

For NASA, in general, this was a period of undertaking large missions such as the

Great Observatories. (See Volume V, Chapter 3, for a discussion of these missions.) The

ISTP program became the “Great Observatory” set of missions for space physics. In this

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 169
era, with adequate budgets available, spacecraft and instrument performance was the

highest priority. ISTP was now established and under construction, but one more major

challenge lay ahead for NASA’s GGS mission before it would finally become a reality. 

6. The Cost Conscious 1990s—Trading Performance and Cost

Lennard Fisk had not been at NASA Headquarters a month in 1987 when he was

faced with a major decision. One of the instruments on the Magellan mission to Venus was

significantly over budget. At an earlier time in NASA’s history, money would just be

“found” to cover instrument overruns, since performance was the highest priority. In

contrast, Fisk decided to cancel the instrument on Magellan based on the projection of its

high cost to completion. Fisk told his staff that he did not want to cancel another

instrument and that they had to figure out a way to keep costs under control. NASA

budgets were getting tighter, with much less flexibility to accommodate cost growths. Fisk

challenged his program managers in OSSA to come up with some sort of science

investigation cost-control procedures. The result was a Cost Control Plan (CCP) for each

proposed mission which contained a series of de-scoping options. The CCP became a

requirement for mission approval and was to be created at the onset of the development

phase for every new mission and implemented when the investigation was confirmed. The

de-scoping options in the plan were identified on an instrument-by-instrument basis, with

the key options delineated in the confirmation letters to the investigators for each

instrument. If unforeseen costs occurred during the development phase of an instrument,

CCP procedures would be implemented. Decreasing instrument performance or

reducing redundancy were the typical compromises outlined in the CCP. By January 1990,

the CCP for NASA’s ISTP program was completed. (See Document II-19.) This document

was also NASA’s first CCP. 

A number of changes in key personnel at NASA Headquarters occurred in the early

1990s. The space physics field experienced a major setback with the sudden death of

Shawhan in 1990 from a heart attack. Shawhan was well-respected, and his death was a major

loss to the community, both as a person generally well-liked because of his fairness and as a

person who made significant contributions in saving the field and in creating a number of

new missions. Fisk moved quickly to replace him; George Withbroe came on board within a

year as the new head of the Space Physics Division. Shawhan was a tough act to follow, but

in time Withbroe would prove to be another major strength for the community. In 1992,

Daniel Goldin became the new NASA Administrator. Goldin was known for his ability to

make broad and sweeping changes in an organization and to force it to reinvent itself

throughout. In October 1992, Goldin split Fisk’s jurisdiction into three separate offices, one

for Earth Science, one for Life and Microgravity Science, and one for Space Science. Fisk

retained control over only a third of these new units. By 1993, Fisk had departed and was

replaced by Wes Huntress as the new Associate Administrator for Space Science. 

Goldin was determined to usher in a new era of more cost-control measures and

approaches. He believed that such steps were necessary for the Agency to survive past the

end of the Cold War. Goldin told both the White House and Congress that he was going

to implement a system to better establish and control NASA’s ongoing programs. Goldin’s

170 SPACE PHYSICS
“faster, better, cheaper” approach to new missions was first delineated in the 1992

Discovery Program Handbook (see Volume V, Document II-39) and continued into the

Explorer program (see below), but he did not stop with these approaches.17

Goldin established Program Commitment Agreements (PCAs) between him and his

Associate Administrators to do a particular mission with a delineated set of

requirements in science and cost. In a 15 June 1993 memo to his staff, all Center

Directors, and the Director of JPL, Goldin established a Program Management Council

(PMC), headed by his Deputy, General Jack Dailey. (See Document II-22.) The Council

would provide an additional program review at the Agency level for “addressing

strategic planning, implementation, and management of all major Agency programs.” A

review would be initiated by the Deputy Administrator when the cost to completion, as

estimated by the Comptroller, was projected to exceed the established baseline cost of

a mission by more than 15 percent, or when any other PCA threshold requirement, as

determined by the PMC chair, was being violated. The PMC was directed specifically to

recommend “cancellation or continuation of programs and projects.” This approach

was designed to prevent going back to Congress for more money to solve the problem

of escalating costs in the mission development phase. It was commonly believed among

the NASA staff that Goldin intended to cancel a project or mission to demonstrate his

serious intent. 

The first project to be seriously reviewed for cancellation was GGS (Wind and

Polar). By this time, the workload of the ISTP development had brought about the

establishment of a GGS (Wind and Polar) and a COSTR (Geotail, SOHO, and Cluster)

program office at GSFC to manage the ISTP program. Bill Huddleston served as

Program Manager for GGS at NASA Headquarters, while John Hrastar was the GGS

Project Manager at GSFC. The Wind and Polar spacecraft were being developed by

Martin Marietta and were both experiencing a variety of development problems and

cost overruns. The GGS review occurred on 5 April 1994. In an effort to save the

program, John Hrastar presented to the PMC a series of options. Hrastar’s preferred

option was for a program re-baseline in which Wind would move forward while Polar

would be put in storage; this was seen as a way to move the GGS project forward and get

costs under control. Wind was still a very viable scientific mission without Polar. Hrastar

argued that if Wind was launched and operating successfully and there were enough

funds remaining, the project office would then consider restarting Polar. This approach

was accepted by the PMC. (See Document II-23.) Both Wind and Polar were finally

completed. They did not exceed 15 percent above the baseline cost ceiling. Wind was

launched on 11 November 1994 and Polar on 24 February 1996. The cancellation of

GGS would have been devastating to the space physics community and might very well

have ended serious research in the field in the United States.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 171

17. For an assessment of this approach, see Howard McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper: Low-Cost Innovation in

the U.S. Space Program (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 2001).
7. The New Explorers 

With the 1980s emphasis on performance versus cost and schedule, the development

of NASA’s flagship missions were costing almost a billion dollars each. However, overall

funding for NASA space science missions was being reduced by the end of the decade.

The impact of the high costs of large space science missions even influenced the progress

of the long-running Explorer program of small satellites, which had been providing

relatively low-cost access to space for physicists since NASA’s early days. 

Due in part to the Challenger accident in 1986 and the complexity of the existing

approved missions, the stretching out of all programs undergoing development in the

Explorer line was increasing their costs significantly and thereby delaying the new

Announcements of Opportunity that were necessary for initiating new missions. In

essence, the OSSA budget in the post-Challenger period was overcommitted. At that point

in time, Charles Pellerin headed the Astrophysics Division where the Explorer program

resided. He recognized the need for major changes in this program. His goal was to

shorten the time from mission selection to flight. He also recognized that given the

number of missions already in development, any new announcement at that time would

lead to “five missions being selected,” and that such an action could possibly close the

Explorer opportunity to the end of the 1990s. (See Document II-17.) Pellerin made a

decision to hold off on any new large Explorer missions, to have a competition for Small

Explorer missions (SMEX), to concentrate on launching the existing backlog of approved

missions, and to use the time gained to decide on how to restructure the Explorer

program. (Dan Goldin’s 1992 push for faster, better, cheaper was in line with what Pellerin

had decided he needed to do six years earlier.) After intense discussions with the science

community, the new Explorer program began to emerge. (See Document II-18.)

In September 1994, the Office of Space Science announced that the restructured

Explorer Program would emphasize faster, better, and cheaper missions, and would

consist of three classes. The new Explorer classes were the medium-sized or MIDEX, cost

capped at about $70 million; the small Explorers or SMEX, capped at about $35 million;

and the university class or UNEX, capped at about $25 million (all excluding the launch

vehicle costs). The restructuring also caused the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer

(FUSE) to be re-baselined from its then current estimate of nearly $300 million to $125

million to avoid cancellation. The last large Explorer mission would be the X-ray Timing

Explorer (XTE), which was launched in 1995. In addition to the cost caps, the

restructured Explorer program had a plan for launching two Explorer missions

(nominally one space physics and one astrophysics mission) per year and included a

Principal Investigator mode in which the PI could take full responsibility for all aspects of

the mission. PIs could be from a government or industry center, laboratory, or university. 

With the restructuring of the Explorer program, space physics benefited enormously

through the successes of a number of small focused science missions that complemented

NASA’s flagship GGS program and thereby provided a more comprehensive ISTP

program to better understand the solar-terrestrial system. These missions included Solar

Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer (SAMPEX, launched 1992); Fast

Auroral Snapshot Explorer (FAST, launched 1996); Advanced Composition Explorer

(ACE, launched 1997); Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE, launched

172 SPACE PHYSICS
1998); and the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE,

launched 2000). 

8. Mission Operations and Data Analysis

By the early 1990s, NASA was entering a time of the highest launch rate for science

missions in the history of the space program. Cost controls and procedures for missions

in the development phase were being initiated, but a significant fraction of the OSSA

budget was going into operating its ongoing missions. In 1992, Lennard Fisk asked

Guenter Riegler (Chief, Space Science Operations Branch, NASA Headquarters) to put

together a Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) “Blue Team.” The charter of

the team, issued on 17 June 1992, was to seek efficiencies and reduce the cost of operating

missions. (See Document II-20.) Fisk’s rationale for this activity was to create a funding

wedge for new initiatives. 

This effort highlighted the large infrastructure that NASA had developed to operate

its missions. There were a number of multimission facilities, designed to handle a large

number of missions, that were not cost effective due to the small number of missions that

actually used the facilities. It became nearly impossible to accurately determine all the

costs for a mission because of the overhead related to existing infrastructure; few potential

savings were identified. It was realized that the greatest cost saving would be obtained

from ensuring that the developing missions were also developing a cost-effective mission

operation system. Based on the results of the Blue Team, Riegler issued an

implementation plan on 6 August 1992. (See Document II-21.)

In the FY93 budget, Congress mandated a cut of 10 percent in NASA’s MO&DA costs.

In addition, in such a limited budget environment with many operating missions, funding

was needed to operate new missions during their prime phase. The situation finally came

to the point at which NASA had to find a way to stop operating missions whose prime

objectives were accomplished. It was no longer acceptable to continue a mission beyond

its prime phase just because it was operating nominally. 

In December of 1992, Riegler was again asked to reconstitute the Blue Team and

create a Red Team (to critique the Blue Team’s work) to make other recommendations

for MO&DA reductions. A requirement that resulted from Blue/Red team reports in 1993

became known as the Senior MO&DA Program Review. The first Senior Review was

implemented in 1994 for astrophysics missions; in June 1997, a review was implemented

for space physics missions. The Senior Review process was designed to evaluate scientific

return from each operating mission and to cut costs accordingly. All missions had to be

put through the Senior Review process in order to be approved for an extension.

Beginning in 2000, space science archival data centers like the NSSDC, funded by NASA,

were also added to the list of projects to be reviewed. 

The 1997 Senior Review approved an extended mission for ISTP but with much

reduced funding. Over several years, major efforts were undertaken to reduce the cost of

the GGS mission operations by nearly 70 percent. This was accomplished by dismantling

the multimission infrastructure, paying for only the services the Wind and Polar missions

needed, and by taking greater risks in operating ongoing missions.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 173
9. Solar-Terrestrial Probes and Living With a Star

In the mid-1990s, Administrator Goldin continued to make a number of dramatic

changes in the structure of NASA by moving several key functions, including program

management, out of NASA Headquarters to the Field Centers. Within the Office of Space

Science (OSS), the discipline divisions and their associated branches were abolished.

Headquarters space science staffing was reduced from more than two hundred civil

servants to fewer than seventy persons. The Office of Space Science was restructured.

Associate Administrator for Space Science Wes Huntress replaced the discipline divisions

of Astrophysics, Space Physics, and Planetary Exploration by a functional organization,

with all program scientists in the Research Division and all engineers and program

managers in the Flight Division.18

By the summer of 1996, the heads of the science disciplines became members of a

Science Board of Directors, each representing a specific science theme. Withbroe went

from the Chief of the Space Physics Division with a staff of twenty-six to an advisor to

Huntress for a new Sun-Earth Connections theme. Withbroe had no budget authority in

his new role. Undaunted, he continued to hold regular meetings with his former staff,

sharing goals and information. It was in this atmosphere of organizational chaos that the

former members of the Space Physics Division had to work with the science community to

develop follow-on programs to ISTP. This matrix approach to organization continued until

2001, when the original line organization was reconstituted by new Associate Administrator

for Space Science Ed Weiler; the Sun-Earth Connection theme became a separate division

with OSS. By mid-1996, the last mission in the ISTP queue, Polar, was successfully launched. 

In 1998, Wes Huntress left NASA. The new Associate Administrator, Edward Weiler,

encouraged Withbroe to continue to push a new concept he had developed, in which

space physics missions would perform the scientific research necessary to support a variety

of practical applications with respect to space weather and its effect on human society and

life. (Space weather is the term describing the conditions in space, including the behavior

of the Sun and its interactions with Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere, that influence

Earth and its technological systems.19) 

Withbroe saw a strong linkage between NASA’s research into the causes and effects of

solar variability and societal needs in the areas of space weather, human exploration, and

climate change. He employed the Pasteur Research Model20 in promoting a new initiative

that expanded the traditional rationale for space science from one that stressed increased

understanding to one that also included applying that understanding in useful ways.

Withbroe worked with the interagency National Space Weather Program Council

members that included the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and

Transportation, along with NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Federal

Coordinator of Meteorology, to develop interagency linkages to the space weather

initiative and to ensure it was responsive to national needs. Planning for the initiative,

174 SPACE PHYSICS

18. G. Riegler, “Reorganization of NASA’s Office of Space Science,” AAS Newsletter, Vol. 109, March 2002, p. 16.

19. See www.nas.edu/ssb/swwhat.html for more information on space weather.

20. See Donald Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), for an

explanation of this model.
which became known as “Living With a Star” (LWS), focused on human radiation

exposure related to spaceflight and high-altitude flight, the impact on space assets,

satellite operations, communication systems, terrestrial power grids, and the effects of

solar variability on terrestrial climate change.

Weiler wanted to pitch this concept to Goldin; Withbroe prepared the presentation.

The first opportunity Withbroe had to present the LWS program to Goldin was at a 3 August

1999 Science Council Meeting. (See Document II-24.) Goldin enthusiastically supported the

concept. By August 1999, the main elements of NASA’s FY01 budget request to the White

House had been finalized. LWS had to be proposed as an “add-on” option. Fortunately, the

Clinton administration liked the concept and folded it into its proposed NASA budget to

Congress. In this way, LWS became a new initiative for NASA starting in FY01. 

The major elements of LWS included coordinated science missions, targeted research

and technology (TR&T), and space environment test beds. The initial LWS missions

included a Solar Dynamics Observatory aimed at providing the solar observations to

understand the origins and flow of energy from the Sun and the solar drivers of variability

at Earth. Additionally, Ionosphere Thermosphere Storm Probes and the Radiation Belt

Storm Probes would determine the solar variability effects on Earth’s space environment.

Finally, Sentinels would connect eruptions and flares on the Sun with Geospace

disturbances. An International LWS Working Group was formed in 2002 to pursue

international cooperative missions within the LWS program.

The combination of Withbroe’s leadership, the match-up of NASA’s scientific research

capability to the societal needs, and the importance of the relevancy of NASA programs all

contributed to the approval of the LWS initiative. The solar maximum in the 1999–2000

period also cooperated in demonstrating the relevance of the LWS initiative, with solar storms

and Earth effects that were monitored by the ISTP missions, along with other spacecraft. 

During this period, Withbroe also was working hard to provide a continuing space

physics research capability. He proposed a line of missions which would provide in situ

and remote-sensing observations from multiple platforms for sustained study of the SunEarth system. A new start for the Solar-Terrestrial Probes (STP) program was included in

the FY 1998 budget. Six STP satellites were planned; they continued research on how and

why the Sun varies, and the effects of that variation on Earth and other planets. The first

STP mission, TIMED (Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and

Dynamics), was launched in December 2001. TIMED was scheduled to be followed by

SOLAR-B, Solar-Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), Magnetospheric Multiscale

(MMS), Global Electrodynamic Connections (GEC), and Magnetospheric Constellation

(MC). The initiation of the STP program represented a major programmatic success in

space physics. Planning for LWS and STP missions anticipated a number of constellations

providing multi-spacecraft-coordinated observations extending to 2025.

10. Conclusion

NASA space physics activity clearly has evolved over the years. In the late 1950s and

1960s, a series of mission lines (e.g., Explorer, IMP, Injun) were created to explore

unknowns about space physics, beat the Russians in doing so, and improve the nation’s

space capability. Cost was constrained to the rate authorized by Congress, so the schedule

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 175
was fairly flexible. Each series was built in an overlapping way. In a line of missions with

similar instruments, a mistake in an instrument design on mission A would be found when

it reached orbit, but mission B was already in testing, so a complete fix could only be made

with mission C. The fact that launch vehicles were not reliable was probably behind the

acceptance of this mode of operation.

Up until the mid-1970s, investigators were publishing results from single instruments that

reflected the exploring phase of space physics research. But in the late 1970s, a set of smaller,

focused science Explorer missions, such as ISEE (three satellites), were designed to work

together as a coordinated multispacecraft effort taking simultaneous data. A shift in research

emphasis began to take place, away from initial discovery and more toward understanding

the physics of the magnetosphere. Theorists began to take a greater interest in space plasma

physics. As this transition was occurring, the field of space physics almost died in NASA. 

By the late 1980s and into the early 1990s, a series of connected missions were

implemented in the ISTP program. These missions had a well-defined purpose and produced

coordinated observations that were designed to monitor energy flow into the magnetosphere.

The faster, better, cheaper era began in the early 1990s as a reaction to the end of the Cold

War, declining budgets, and the excesses of the previous era. Daniel Goldin may have “saved

the Agency” by insisting that smaller, cheaper missions get done more rapidly. 

In the late 1990s, the STP and LWS mission lines were developed as part of a more

strategic approach to planning NASA’s missions. This required looking at the Sun-Earth

system as it really was, a connected system of actions and responses. These missions made

coordinated sets of observations from a constellation of spacecraft designed to perform

fundamental research in space physics and to develop the tools and techniques to

understand and predict space weather. Today it is increasingly recognized that space

physics is a fundamental science discipline that also has the potential of utility for

addressing issues on Earth.

Document II-1

Document Title: “Proposal for Satellite-Borne Cosmic-Ray Experiments,” The University

of Chicago, 1 April 1958.

Source: John A. Simpson Papers, University of Chicago Library, Chicago, Illinois

John Simpson, a physicist at the University of Chicago, was one of the scientists who took an early lead

in developing proposals for conducting science in space. He remained active in space science for almost

three decades. This excerpt from a 1 April 1958 proposal which was widely distributed is one of the

first comprehensive plans for a series of space science missions. It led to the participation of Simpson

and his associates in the Thor-Able 1, or Pioneer space probe, built by TRW and sponsored by the Air

Force.

CML-PR-E-127 

Copy No. _ of _ copies

176 SPACE PHYSICS
Consisting of _ sheets

Proposal for

SATELLITE-BORNE COSMIC-RAY EXPERIMENTS

Submitted by

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 

Chicago 37, Illinois

1 April 1958

[iii]PREFACE

A significant portion of the physical sciences at the University of Chicago is devoted

to fundamental questions concerning the physics of the earth and astrophysics--especially

the problems of interplanetary and interstellar space, the origin of the elements, cosmic

rays, stars and the galaxies. Contributions of the University of Chicago in these fields have

been unique. To its present facilities for the pursuit of these researches the University

considers essential the addition of artificial satellite instrumentation. With this new tool at

the disposal of its physicists, astrophysicists and meteorologists, it is anticipated that

significant strides in science will be made which would be otherwise unattainable within

the next few years.

The incentive to take this step immediately has come from physicists in the Enrico

Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies who have devised experiments to extend their

research in cosmic rays and in interplanetary magnetic fields which require satellites and

rockets.

It is proposed to begin by undertaking these specific cosmic ray experiments and this

request for financial support is directed toward that end. However, at a later time it is

anticipated that other scientists in the Departments of Physics, Astrophysics and

Meteorology will wish to participate in additional experimental observations not now

included in the present budget.

The technical staff, laboratories, and instrumentation shops of the Chicago Midway

Laboratories of the University of Chicago will be available for this enterprise. No new

laboratories or large additions to the staff are required to accomplish the objectives

outlined in this proposal.

The cosmic ray experiments are the logical outgrowth of studies at the Enrico Fermi

Institute for Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago. Over the past years the

University's scientists have been concerned with:

1. The origin of cosmic radiation.

2. The production of cosmic radiation in solar flares. 

3. The influence of the sun upon cosmic ray intensity.

4. The magnetic fields which exist in interplanetary space.

5. The electrical and magnetic properties of the interplanetary medium surrounding

the earth and the changes in these conditions with time, using techniques derived

from cosmic ray observations.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 177
6. Hydromagnetic phenomena within the solar system.

[iv]The new experiments are directed toward answering crucial questions which have

arisen as a consequence of these experimental and theoretical research programs. The

new experiments can only be carried out successfully in satellites and rockets. The proper

selection of orbits is an essential requirement in the successful prosecution of the

experiment. One of the required orbits will enable the satellite to co-rotate with the earth.

It is proposed that the Chicago Midway Laboratories of the University of Chicago

undertake the necessary instrumentation development, design, construction, and

preparation for satellites and rockets to be launched by an assigned agency of the U. S.

Government. The Chicago Midway Laboratories will be responsible for the data-handling

systems and for the reduction of the data after they have been recorded at earth stations.

The Cosmic Ray Group of the Enrico Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies will plan the

experiments and undertake the analysis and scientific interpretation of the experiments

when they are completed.

Details of the experiments, their required instrumentation development,

construction problems, orbit requirement, data handling, etc. , are considered in some

detail in the body of this proposal. The appendixes treat some of the major engineering

problems in further detail.

It is emphasized throughout the document that these experiments are to be

performed at different phases of the solar activity cycle. Consequently, to obtain the full

fruits of the observation, it is essential that the work begin as soon as possible to take

advantage of the current high solar activity. It is also pointed out that the observations are

necessary over a long period of time and it is planned to telemeter to the earth over

periods of approximately 400 days.

[v]ABSTRACT

Proposed herein is a program to undertake special cosmic ray and astrophysical

experiments as an extension of the cosmic-ray research program of The University of

Chicago. The proposed experiments require the use of rockets and earth satellites.

A detailed outline of the desired data, required instrumentation and communications

link and the time and cost estimate for the program are included with the

recommendation that the measurements be obtained while solar activity is still at a high

level.

[1] 1. INTRODUCTION

This is a proposal for fundamental physical and astrophysical experiments to be

carried out with earth satellites and high-altitude rockets, with the purpose of increasing

basic understanding of the origin of cosmic rays, the electrodynamics of the solar system,

geomagnetism, and the properties of interplanetary space, in the environments of both

the earth and the sun.

Over the past decade various experimental and theoretical studies, mainly concerning

the origin of cosmic rays and their intensity variations, have been carried out in the Enrico

Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies at The University of Chicago (see the attached

178 SPACE PHYSICS
bibliography of published research). These researches have led to many new concepts,

which bear on the nature of magnetic fields in the vicinity of the sun, the earth, and

throughout interplanetary space; they stress the importance of solar electromagnetic

phenomena in our understanding of cosmic ray effects and the properties of the

interplanetary medium.

We know that there are rare but important occasions when the sun, through a sudden

tremendous release of energy, can produce cosmic ray particles with energies up to or

exceeding 20 Bev. The associated electromagnetic phenomena have a profound influence

upon the earth’s magnetic field and its interplanetary environment. Through The

University of Chicago’s continuing cosmic-ray research program, we have also learned that

those cosmic rays which come to us from beyond the solar system may undergo radical

changes in their energy spectrum as a result of electromagnetic processes within the

interplanetary space of the solar system. Current theoretical ideas indicate that hightemperature gaseous plasma emissions from our sun are the cause of these changing

electromagnetic conditions in interplanetary space, resulting in such terrestrial effects as

magnetic storms and auroral displays. Clearly, these phenomena are most important in

explaining many of the observations in experimental cosmic-ray physics and in

astrophysics. So far, cosmic-ray experiments have been the most successful approach to

the investigation of the interplanetary magnetic conditions.

Thus the problems which are under current attack fall into two broad categories.

First, there are the questions associated with the nature and origin of cosmic rays. They

are of the following nature: Does the sun only rarely produce cosmic ray particles in solar

flares, or does the sun produce low-energy cosmic rays also through other phenomena? Is

the entire range of the energy spectrum due to cosmic rays coming from our galaxy or are

they produced locally? The second category of questions is [2]concerned with the

electrodynamics of the solar system. How are the magnetic fields distributed in

interplanetary space? How do these fields change over the years between maximum and

minimum solar activity? These questions are open to investigation because the charged

particles of the cosmic ray act as probes to detect the presence of magnetic fields in the

interplanetary medium and in the region of the earth. As investigations in both areas of

research are so intimately related, most of the proposed experiments will yield answers in both.

Cosmic-ray research also has a significant impact upon some of the earth sciences--

particularly our understanding of the shape of the earth’s magnetic field above the

surface of the earth. For example, experiments performed by The University of Chicago

with aircraft and surface vessels from 1954 to 1956 proved that the dipole field analysis

used during the past 100 years to determine the distribution of the earth’s magnetic field

is incorrect for describing the motion of cosmic ray particles approaching the earth. We

expect that the observations of the current satellites will soon extend those results.

Through techniques evolved in the Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago

established by 1951 a series of continuously operating neutron monitor piles extending

from as far south as Peru to as far north as Chicago to analyze the energy spectrum of the

incoming cosmic rays as a function of time by utilizing the earth’s magnetic field. Aircraft

and balloon observations supplemented this world-wide network. Always the problem has

been the fundamental limitation in overcoming the effects of our own atmosphere and

the earth’s magnetic field. Now we wish to press with alacrity to the final step: experiments

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 179
with satellites and rockets.

With such experiments, which may avoid the limitations of our atmosphere and

reduce the influence of the earth’s magnetic field, we wish to study the properties of the

low-energy cosmic radiations, including their charge distribution, energy spectrum, and

changes with time. We also wish to search for radiations the existence of which is not yet

established. For example, we plan to search for high-energy gamma rays of galactic and

solar origins and for neutrons of solar origin; i. e. , neutral radiations. In addition, we plan

to explore the possibilities of detecting electrons and positrons of nonterrestrial origin.

These experiments have a bearing on the nature of our galaxy and its genesis.

The proposed experiments will include the launching of three satellites and two veryhigh-altitude rockets. Each of the satellites is to transmit information for approximately

400 days. The experiments should

[3]begin at the earliest possible moment (not later than 1959) so as to cover as much

as possible of the present maximum of the sun’s activity, and extend through the

forthcoming minimum (about 1964) . Only the first two-year program is covered by this

proposal.

These experiments depend upon the proper selection of satellite orbits; this matter is

discussed in Sec. 3.

Development of new types of detectors and information storage systems will be

necessary, although preliminary investigations have shown that an appreciable amount of

the instrumentation already developed by the Fermi Institute, or available elsewhere

within the International Geophysical Year satellite program, can be directly applied to the

proposed experiments. Development work will be necessary to achieve instrument

packages which can provide continuous information for approximately 400 days and at

the same time meet the weight requirements for launching.

Obviously a program of this scope and character must be a joint effort between

scientists and engineers. The University of Chicago recommends that its Chicago Midway

Laboratories undertake the development program and that scientists in its Fermi Institute

plan the experiments, maintain close association with Chicago Midway Laboratories, and

interpret the data obtained from the satellites and rockets. It is also likely that the Yerkes

Observatory, the Department of Meteorology and other groups within the Physical

Sciences Division of the University will contribute ideas for experiments and

instrumentation requiring future satellite observations. Furthermore, it is possible that

experiments involving mass spectroscopy may be considered later.

This is a program designed to give our scientists the opportunity for full-scale

exploration of the fundamental problems. Although this is not a “crash” effort, these

problems are of such concern than the experiments will receive the most careful attention

and highest priority.

The proposed experiments are the logical outgrowth of a decade of research which

has led to many new results in cosmic rays and astrophysics. This is not a data-collection

program but rather a series of carefully designed experiments which we anticipate will

yield decisive results in both cosmic-ray physics and astrophysics.

180 SPACE PHYSICS
Document II-2

Document Title: Memorandum from Presidential Science Advisor James R. Killian, Jr., to

the President, 23 August 1958.

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Abilene, Kansas

This concise summary of the results of the first four U.S. satellites, all of which carried out space

physics investigations, was prepared for President Dwight D. Eisenhower by his assistant for science

and technology and former President of MIT, James Killian. Killian did not hesitate to provide a great

deal of technical detail on the satellites and their investigations to the President.

[no page number]

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

August 23, 1958

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

I inclose [sic] a brief summary of information which has been obtained by the four

earth satellites we have placed in orbit. One of the most significant findings is the

unexpectedly high radiation intensities at altitudes greater than 620 miles.

The "air" temperature has not yet been directly measured, but there are reports on

satellite surface temperatures. These have varied from –13oF to 167oF.

It is interesting to note that the air density at sea level is 92 billion times greater than

at 230 miles altitude.

[Original Signed by J. R. Killian, Jr.]

J. R. Killian, Jr.

1 Incl: Notes on U.S. Satellite Measurements

[no page number]

NOTES ON U. S. SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS

1. The U.S. has successfully placed in orbit four earth satellites (Explorers I, III and IV,

and Vanguard I). All except Explorer III are still in orbit. Explorer III, because of its low

altitude perigee (118 miles) and the resulting relatively high air resistance, remained in

orbit for only three months. Some pertinent information about these satellites is

contained in the following table:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 181
Expected Life- Perigee Apogee Payload

Satellite Launching Date Time (Years) (Miles) (Miles) (Pounds)

Explorer I Jan. 31, 1958 3-5 224 1573 30.8

Vanguard I Mar. 17, 1958 200 404 2465 3.3

Explorer III Mar. 26, 1958 .25 118 1740 31.0

Explorer IV July 26, 1958 .7-1 157 1380 38.4

2. The most extensive scientific measurements that have been conducted with the satellites

have been in the area of cosmic radiation. In addition, measurements have been made

of micrometeorite impact and the temperatures reached by the satellites. The

measurement of the path of the satellite, which has been done by both electronic and

optical means, has also allowed a determination of the air density at various altitudes.

3. Cosmic radiation measurements have been made with Explorers I, III and IV. New

and unexpected results have been obtained from these measurements. Explorers I

and III each carried a single Geiger-Mueller counter. These counters indicated

radiation intensities as expected up to about 620 miles. This information correlates

with data obtained in previous rocket tests. [2] At altitudes greater than 620 miles,

however, unexpectedly high radiation intensities were measured which exceeded the

measuring capacity of the counters.

Explorer IV carried more extensive instrumentation which in addition to measuring

the radiation intensities, also allows insight as to the type and characteristics of the

particles causing the high measurements. Preliminary results from Explorer IV indicate

substantiation of the estimates made from the Explorers I and III data. The radiation

intensity increases by a factor of several thousand between 180 and 1000 miles. The

intensity continues to rise to 1500 miles, the maximum altitude for which data is currently

available. At 1000 miles the exposure level would be 2 roentgens per hour, as compared

to the permissible human rate of approximately .002 roentgens per hour. This does not

necessarily preclude manned space travel, but does make imperative proper shielding. In

addition, the high radiation levels need to be considered in relation to the heating of the

high atmosphere, the amount of visible light, radio noise and ionization produced.

4. Temperature measurements have been made on Explorers I and III, and in addition

have been derived from transmitter frequency changes on the Vanguard satellite. The

measurements have been made on the surface or within the satellites themselves,

using "thermometers" whose electrical resistance changes with temperature. No

attempt has been made as of yet [3] to measure the "air" temperature in space. The

temperature measurements on the satellites have been made during the early state of

satellite operations for engineering rather than scientific purposes. The purpose of

the measurements was to ascertain the reliability of the method used to control the

temperature of the satellite and therefore the internal electronic components.

182 SPACE PHYSICS
In order to operate properly, these electronic components must be maintained within

certain temperature limits, hence the concern over the temperature of the satellites. The

temperature of the satellite will be determined by the quantity of heat transferred to it by

means of conduction, convection or radiation. Since there is no body in contact with the

satellite, there is no heat transferred by conduction. Convective or frictional heating

resulting from the satellite passing through the "air" is negligible. It is not meant to imply

that the "air" temperature is negligible, but that the heat transferred from the "air" to the

satellite is negligible. This is because the heat transfer rate is dependent upon the density

of the air, and the density at these altitudes is extremely small. Consequently, the

predominating heat transfer process will be radiation. This radiation will be from the sun,

either directly or reflected from the earth, and infrared radiations from the earth. A

relatively small amount of heat is also generated within the satellite due to dissipation of

power, but the temperature effects of this source of heat are small compared to the

radiative heat transfer. The radiative heat transfer rate is directly [4] affected by the

emissivity of the surface of the satellite. Consequently, by proper choice of surface

material and finish the heat transfer rate, and thereby the temperature, can be controlled.

For the Explorers, the stainless steel surface was partially covered by eight equally spaced,

aluminum oxide strips running longitudinally along the cone-cylinder body. Calculations

indicated that the resulting average emissivity would result in maintaining the electronic

components between the desired 23°F and 113°F. The success of the method used is

indicated by the measured temperatures in the transmitter which varied from 32°F to

97°F. The satellite surface temperature varied from -13°F to 167°F. The temperature

variation results from the fact that part of the time the satellite is in the shadow and

therefore not subject to direct radiation from the sun, resulting in a cyclic temperature

history. The smaller variations in temperature in the components, as compared to the

satellite surface, result from the fact that the rate of heat transferred from the satellite

surface to the internal electronic components is retarded by the use of insulators between

the surface and the internal components.

5. Explorers I and III carried wire grids for the detection of micrometeorite impacts.

Explorer I also carried a microphone for micrometeorite detection. In one thirty-two

day period the wire grid registered only a single impact, whereas the microphone

detected seven hits. Taking into account the sensitivity of the instrument, the average

influx of particles 4 ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter or greater was 8 per

square foot [5] per twenty-four hour day, whereas the average influx of particles 1.6

ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter or greater was 80 per square foot per day.

These values are in fair agreement with previous predictions, but are too limited for

statistical analysis. While the probability of micrometeorite impacts of a size large

enough to do structural damage is extremely small, the sandblasting effect of small

particles over long periods of time could affect the satellite’s surface condition.

Surface conditions are important for temperature reasons as indicated previously, and

in addition solar battery "windows" may be sensitive to surface conditions.

6. The density of the air determines the air resistance to the satellite, and in turn affects

its path and orbital characteristics. Conversely, a knowledge of the change in orbital

characteristics will allow the density of the air to be derived. All the satellites are

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 183
tracked electronically and optically, and from these measurements various

investigators have derived values of air density in the altitude range of 110 to 230

miles. Previous measurements with vertical sounding rockets extended up to 135

miles. Above this altitude estimates of density were obtained from the observation of

meteors. The satellite density data falls roughly between the measurements obtained

with these two methods, and varied from 4170 X 10-14 pounds per cubic foot at 110

miles altitude to 88 X 10-14 pounds per cubic foot at 230 miles altitude. The air

density at sea level, therefore, is 92 billion times greater than at 230 miles altitude. [6]

The data is quite sketchy at this time, but as tracking techniques improve and data is

accumulated, the satellites will provide a powerful tool for the accurate determination

of density over a wide range of latitude, altitude and time.

Document II-3

Document Title: Homer E. Newell, Deputy Director, Space Flight Programs, NASA, “The

United States Program in Space Research,” 27 October 1958.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Dr. Homer Newell was one of the pioneers of the U.S. space science program. When NASA opened for

operation on 1 October 1958, he was one of the people who transferred from the Naval Research

Laboratory to the new space agency. Newell was given primary responsibility for shaping NASA’s

initial space science efforts. This talk, dated less than a month after NASA was created, reflects his

thinking on those efforts.

27 October 1958

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM IN SPACE RESEARCH*

by

HOMER E. NEWELL, JR.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

*Prepared for presentation at the Royal Society, London, on 12-13 November 1958.

[no page number]

On July 29, 1958, the President of the United States signed into law a bill passed by

the Eighty-fifth Congress and entitled the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958”.

The Act calls for an integrated national program under civilian direction and control, of

research and development in the fields of aeronautics and space, and specifically declares

“that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to

peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.”

The form and conduct of any program depends on the objectives of that program.

The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 specifically states that objectives of

aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be:

184 SPACE PHYSICS
(a) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(b) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of

aeronautical and space vehicles;

[2] (c) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, 

equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;

(d) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained

from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of

aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes; and

(e) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in

aeronautics and space activities and in the peaceful applications of the results

thereof.

These objectives call for an extremely broad program that will take considerable time

to get fully underway. To conduct such a program, the Space Act created a National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which it vested with the necessary power

and authority. Dr. T. Keith Glennan was appointed the Administrator of NASA.

Since the NASA program is still in its planning and organizational states, it will not be

possible to present you with a detailed description of the program. Instead, it will be

necessary to speak in general terms of areas of interest and the immediate and long-range

plan of attack. I shall further confine myself to remarks on the space science portion of

the [3] program, and in particular to those aspects of space science involving the use of

rockets, satellites, and space probes.

The present U.S. activity in space science has grown out of the rocket upper

atmospheric research of the past twelve years. Prior to the start of the International

Geophysical Year several hundred high altitude sounding rockets had been fired to study

the upper atmosphere and the sun. Although some of the soundings reached the F2-

region of the ionosphere, for the most part the studies were confined to the E-region and

below. For the IGY, now drawing to its close, a couple hundred additional rockets have

been launched, including a special effort to probe the F-region. The IGY has also seen the

launching of the Explorer and Vanguard satellites, and probes far out toward the distance

of the moon.

NASA plans to continue the use of sounding rockets and satellites in exploring the

earth’s atmosphere and the space beyond the atmosphere, and to add deep space probes

for the study of cislunar and interplanetary space. Without attempting to give a complete

review, we list here some of the areas of major scientific interest.

[4] (a) Atmospheres. The earth’s upper atmosphere continues to present many unsolved

problems. Although the work of the IGY has moved us a long way toward a full

understanding of the atmosphere up through the E-region of the ionosphere, much

remains to be done. This is all the more true of the F-region and beyond. In particular a

considerable amount of work remains on the dynamical aspects of the high atmosphere,

and on the geographic, daily, and seasonal variations of atmospheric parameters and

phenomena. There is also the question of where and in what manner the earth’s

atmosphere merges with that of interplanetary space.

In addition to the earth’s atmosphere, the atmospheres of the moon and planets

present fascinating and challenging problems. Those of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are of

special scientific interest and challenge. There is, of course, the ever present question of

whether or not the moon has any atmosphere; if it does have any, how far does it extend

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 185
and of what is it composed?

Finally, the sun’s atmosphere is of major interest. How far does it extend? Is the earth

enveloped in it outermost reaches? If so, what is the temperature of the solar atmosphere

at the distance of the earth?

[5] (b) Ionospheres. Recent work in the investigation of the earth’s ionosphere,

particularly during the IGY, both from the ground and in rockets, has brought about a

considerable advance in our understanding of the ionosphere. But here too, as in the case

of the more general aspects of the atmosphere, there is need for further measurements in

the F-region and beyond, and to determine geographical, daily, seasonal, and solar cycle

effects. How does the ionosphere merge with the medium of outer space? What is its

relationship to the Van Allen radiation belt? To the aurora? To the solar atmosphere?

What sort of an ionosphere, if any, does the moon have? What sort of ionospheres do

the planets have, particularly Venus, Mars, and Jupiter?

(c) High energy particles. A strong attack is underway with satellites and space probes

on the study of energetic particles from cosmic rays to those of kilo-electron-volt energies.

The discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt is one result of these studies. What are the

total spatial distribution of such particles, their fluctuations with time, their nature and

spectral distribution, and their ultimate origin? The answers to these questions are not

only of great [6] scientific interest, but also may reveal whether or not it will be possible

for man to fly out into space.

(d) Fields. What are the details of the gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields that will

be encountered in interplanetary space? Do the moon and planets have magnetic fields?

What is the detailed structure of the moon’s gravitational field? How is the earth’s magnetic

field modified and distorted by clouds and streams of charged particles from the sun? These

are questions whose answers can be sought by means of satellites and vertical probes.

(e) Photons. We can study the sun, stars, and galaxies because of the radiations from

them. With satellites and space probes it will be of interest to observe and measure

throughout the spectrum from gamma ray wavelengths all the way to the radio wave

region. Also of interest are the airglow and auroral radiations from the earth’s atmosphere

in both the visible and ultraviolet wave lengths; infrared emissions from our atmosphere;

atmospheric radiations from other planets; and radiations from the material in

interplanetary space.

(f) Astronomy. There is especial interest in ultraviolet astronomy, which can be

pursued only from above the [7] atmosphere. The small amount of work done to date in

sounding rockets has shown the existence of many strong ultraviolet sources in the sky,

and this work should be continued. An obvious extension of this work will be to observe

in the x-ray and possibly gamma ray regions.

(g) Controlled experiments. The high atmosphere and outer space provide a huge

laboratory in which it will be possible, by means of satellites and space probes, to expose

materials and biological specimens to conditions unattainable in laboratories on the

ground. One can conduct tests in extreme vacuums and over long periods of

weightlessness. The possibility also exists of using for special studies the highest energy

cosmic rays, which are many orders of magnitude more energetic than those obtainable in

man made accelerators. Likewise it may be possible, with highly accurate clocks installed

in orbiting satellites, to provide additional checks on the general theory of relativity.

186 SPACE PHYSICS
The developing NASA program will include experiments and observations in the

areas listed above.

Prior to the establishment of NASA, rocket and satellite research had been carried out

on a rather [8] broad base, with government agencies, universities, and industry

participating. The major strength of the effort lay in the programs of the Department of

Defense. Now NASA provides a natural center for such activity, and it is the plan to build

up a strong space research operation within NASA itself. This internal operation will,

however, be only a portion of the total national space science program, for it is planned

to maintain and if possible to extend the current base of the program. The best talents

will be utilized wherever they exist, and NASA will provide financial support where

necessary.

The National Academy of Sciences has established a Space Science Board, with Lloyd

Berkner as Chairman, and drawing upon scientific leaders in a wide variety of fields for its

membership. The Board has had set before it the task of reviewing and assessing the

relative scientific value of proposals for space research that have been submitted to the

Board, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Advanced Research Projects

Agency of the Department of Defense. Through a number of committees in such areas as

meteorology, the ionosphere, astronomy, the physics of field and particles in space, and

geodesy, further [9] scientific talent is drawn into the deliberations of the Space Science

Board. The conclusions and thinking of the Space Science Board will be available to

NASA and should be of invaluable assistance in planning the total program and in

deciding what proposals to support.

On the international side, there is now the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)

of the International Council of Scientific Unions. It is the hope of NASA that through

bodies like COSPAR scientific thinking of an international scope will be available to

NASA. Such an input will help the NASA to guide the U.S. space research program so that

it will contribute effectively to the benefit of all mankind.

Document II-4

Document Title: “Memorandum from Homer Newell to Dr. Silverstein,” (Abe Silverstein,

Director, Space Flight Operations, NASA) Transmitting “Policy on Release of Reduced

Data Acquired from Experiments Carried on NASA Sounding Rockets, Satellites, and

Space Probes,” 15 August 1960.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

An important issue from the start of the NASA space science program was access to the data acquired

in the course of NASA’s scientific efforts. NASA wanted to make sure that these data were well archived

and eventually made available for analysis to all in the scientific community with an interest in using

them. NASA’s policy on data release was developed by its Space Science Steering Committee.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 187
[cover letter]

MEMORANDUM To Dr. Silverstein

SUBJECT: Policy on Release of Reduced Data Acquired from Experiments Carried on 

NASA Sounding Rockets, Satellites and Space Probes

1. The Space Sciences Steering Committee has considered the subject of the release

of reduced data acquired in experiments flown on NASA sounding rockets, satellites, and

space probes. The policy which it approved on 9 August and recommended for approval

as a NASA policy is attached for your consideration.

2. The Space Sciences Steering Committee in its consideration of a policy kept two

points in mind. The first was to give the individual scientific experimenter maximum

freedom in the use of data that he obtained from his own experiments. The second was

to avoid loss of data by an experimenter’s inability to release them in the technical

literature, and to specify the conditions under which NASA itself would release the data

in advance of any actual case.

3. The policy recommended is practical, and it is simple administratively. It agrees

with traditional scientific practice in giving the experimenter the right to his own data, but

it does set up provisions for NASA to recover data that might otherwise be lost and for

NASA to release the data for general use after the experimenter has finished with them

himself.

Homer E. Newell

Deputy Director

Space Flight Programs

Enclosure

Dr. Stauss/jn/15 Aug 60

[no page number]

POLICY FOR RELEASE OF DATA ACQUIRED ON NASA SOUNDING ROCKETS,

SATELLITES AND SPACE PROBES

Background

An important goal of the NASA is the encouragement of the widest possible

participation in the space sciences program. Within the scientific community the

individual scientist is of prime importance to the space science program. He is responsible

for the conception of experiment, for carrying out the experiment, and for interpreting

its results. To support the space sciences program the NASA makes available vehicles and

funds for research in space and assists in the dissemination of the resulting experimental

information.

In assigning the use of its facilities for space research the NASA endeavors to choose

the best experiments and experimenters available. In order that new knowledge in the

space sciences may be disseminated as widely and as rapidly as possible it is essential that

the experimenters publish their findings as soon as they can.

188 SPACE PHYSICS
This paper defines the procedures which NASA will follow in its relations with the

individual scientists or groups participating in the NASA Program with regard to the

publication of experimental data obtained in NASA sounding rockets, satellites, space

probes or other spacecraft operations.

Basis of Policy

Scientists as a group feel a responsibility for making the results of their efforts known

to the worldwide scientific community. Scientists have been the most vigorous proponents

of free dissemination of the knowledge gained from their investigations and, in general,

can be expected to release experimental scientific information rapidly.

In the usual case, an agreement that will assign the responsibility for the analysis and

publication of the data to the scientist will exist between the NASA and the scientist. In

the period before the publication of the results of the experiment it may happen that

another scientist may wish to have access to the experimental data in its preliminary form.

This is generally arranged informally by a request made directly to the experimenter.

[2] Occasions may arise when it will be necessary for NASA to release the results of

experimental investigations made under its sponsorship, without waiting for publication

by the cognizant scientist. It is expected that this will happen only when the responsible

scientist is unable to meet his commitments within a reasonable time.

In many instances the data acquired from space vehicles, like the observations made

in astronomy, will have cumulative value. Whenever this is the case, it is desirable that such

data be made available for the general use of the scientific community.

The original data received from a satellite or space probe is meaningless until the

various channels are separated or demultiplexed, the calibration of the instrumentation

is introduced, and the data put in chronological order. Provisions for these operations

must be included in the arrangements made for supporting the applicable experiments.

Policy

The original data recordings received from a satellite or probe will be stored at the

cognizant NASA center.

Secondary records containing reduced data will be prepared under the cognizance of

the responsible NASA center. On occasion this operation may take place at contractor’s

or experimenter’s establishments. In the secondary records all extraneous material and all

confusion of data will be removed to the fullest extent possible. The records will be

prepared by the NASA activity or contractor with the cooperation of the experimenter so

as to satisfy the experimenter’s and NASA’s needs for reduced data.

The experimenter will be given whatever original or reduced data from his

experiment that his agreement with NASA calls for as soon as possible after they are

received. The cognizant NASA center will retain copies of the reduced data furnished the

experimenter. The experimenter will have sole use of the reduced data for study for a

period previously decided upon between him and the cognizant research center, with the

approval of Headquarters.

[3] No fixed time is set for the period of exclusive use of reduced data by the

experimenter. Each case will be considered individually and no general rule is established.

If, during the period in which the experimenter has not reported the results of his

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 189
experiment, information on the progress of the experiment or portions of the reduced

data are requested by another scientist for designing space science experiments, or for the

preparation of a technical paper, informal arrangements for the release of the needed

data should be made by the experimenter concerned. Both the cognizant NASA center

and the NASA Headquarters should be informed of these arrangements.

At the end of the agreed upon period, during which the experimenter will have the

opportunity to analyze and report on the reduced data, the reduced data may be released

for general use if such a course seems best for developing the space sciences. An extension

of the period of sole use requested by the experimenter will require the approval of

Headquarters.

All releases of the reduced data by the NASA centers to other than the original

experimenter must be approved by Headquarters.

[no page number] 

Definition of Terms

Used in the Policy Statement

Original data records

Those records made by the various telemetering and/or tracking stations as part of

the basic field operations. Those recordings will generally require editing for the removal

of useless segments, playback to introduce calibration factors, correlation with related

recordings and the application of specialized processing techniques to recover weak

signals from noisy recordings.

Reduced data records

Those records prepared from the original data records by editing, introduction of

calibration factors and inter-record correlations. These will contain a minimum of

extraneous information and/or noise and will generally present the value of the physical

quantity measured as a function of time and position. It is from these records or the

tabulations or graphs prepared directly therefrom that the responsible scientist will form

his analysis and conclusions.

Analyzed data

Those data which have been reviewed and correlated by either the original

experimenter or another scientist so as to form the experimental basis for a technical

paper submitted for publication to either NASA or a scientific journal.

Document II-5

Document Title: Letter from M. (Merrill) A. Tuve, Chairman, Geophysics Research

Board, National Academy of Sciences to NASA Administrator James E. Webb, 13

September 1968.

190 SPACE PHYSICS
Source: Archive of National Space Science Data Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight

Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

Document II-6

Document Title: Letter from Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, to Merrill

A. Tuve, Chairman, Geophysics Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 12

November 1968.

By the mid-1960s, data about the structure of the magnetosphere and the radiation belts were rapidly

accumulating from the numerous NASA missions, but access to the data for the whole science

community was very difficult since the data was largely held by a group of instrument teams

distributed across the United States. Finally in 1966, NASA established the National Space Science

Data Center (NSSDC) at Goddard Space Flight Center. The establishment of the NSSDC enabled U.S.

investigators to archive NASA data at a central location and provided a mechanism to distribute the

data to any U.S. scientist upon request. But the international science community could still not obtain

access to this archival data. In September 1968, Dr. Merrill A. Tuve, Chairman of the Geophysics

Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), asked NASA Administrator James Webb

to approve the transfer of the responsibilities of the U.S. Rockets and Satellites Center from NAS to

NASA. The Rockets and Satellites Center was part of the World Data Center system that maintained

important international agreements for the exchange of archival data with the international science

community. The task of responding to this request fell to Newell, who assigned the management

responsibility to the NSSDC. As part of the World Data Center system, the NSSDC could then make

its archival data available to foreign scientists upon request. This arrangement greatly facilitated the

distribution of space physics data and stimulated important national and international scientific

collaborations in space physics. 

[no page number]

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

GEOPHYSICS RESEARCH BOARD

13 September 1968

Mr. James E. Webb

Administrator

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington D. C. 20546

Dear Mr. Webb:

The Committee on Data Interchange and Data Centers has approved the proposal to

transfer the Subcenter for Rockets and Satellites of World Data Center A from the

National Academy of Sciences to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As

you know, discussions on this have been held between members of the GRB staff and

NASA. The following comments seem appropriate.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 191
WDC-A and its subcenters are committed to international arrangement that must be

honored. The arrangements in some countries are crucial to their over-all ability to

cooperate in international programs and evens, in some countries, for carrying on what

we consider normal programs of observations and measurements in geophysics. Thus

continuity as well as adequacy of support of the subcenter is required. Moreover, the data

in question are important to our domestic interests. The WDC system now provides for

the flow of certain data, compilations, and reports to the world data centers on a voluntary

basis; disruption of the system could undermine this approach, and we could be faced

with the spectacle of public and private groups engaged in unilateral purchasing efforts.

Within the Academy, the GRB is responsible for the general guidance of the

subcenters of WDC-A. This is accomplished through an advisory Committee on Data

Interchange and Data Centers (Data Committee) and through the GRB staff (in

particular, the Director of WDC-A). In addition to its international responsibility in the

conduct of WDC-A, the Data Committee is concerned with the national aspects of

interchange of geophysical data. An assessment of national aspects of collection of space

data was made by an ad hoc Committee chaired by A. H. Waynick (copy of report enclosed

[report not included]). The Data Committee is continuing to look into ways to enable the

WDC’s and the relevant national data centers to best serve the scientific community.

We ought soon to formalize the transfer of WDC-A for Rockets and Satellites to NASA,

taking into account the attendant responsibilities. The essential considerations in the

transfer of the subcenter from the Academy to NASA are the following:

1. International Provisions. The general provisions of such understandings are

published in the ICSU Guide to International Data Exchange. They include: (a)

collection and suitable archiving of specified material, (b) interchange of such material

with the other World Data Centers, (c) issuance [2] of catalogues of data, (d) provision of

data to scientists, and (e) free access to the data collection of the subcenters by visiting

scientists from nations participating in appropriate ICSU endeavors. In contrast to most

discipline areas, you will note the simplicity of provisions in the rocket and satellite areas,

where raw data and even processed data are not presently involved; we would hope that

more useful arrangements might evolve over the coming years.

The Academy’s responsibility for supervision of the WDC subcenters includes an

obligation to ensure that the subcenters meet these international commitments. The

Academy is particularly concerned about free access to the data in the WDC subcenters;

this means that visitors to WDC-A subcenters should have free access not only to all data

in the subcenters, but also to the subcenter itself. Therefore, the subcenter should be free

of complex restrictions that might apply to other activities in the organization in which

the center is located. In this connection, physical arrangements will be required that will

clearly distinguish the WDC subcenter from other activities in the building in which it is

housed in order to ensure that free access to the subcenter is not complicated by access

requirements of other facilities.

2. Head of the subcenter. The head should be a technically qualified individual with

adequate authority to conduct the subcenter as indicated in (1) above, and to represent

192 SPACE PHYSICS
the Academy in domestic and international matters as called upon. He should understand

the distinction between his role as head of the subcenter, when he functions as an

international official on behalf of the Academy, and other duties he may have as a NASA

employee.

Formal concurrence in these provisions by NASA would permit the Academy to

transfer the activities of the WDC-A subcenter in the near future.

Sincerely yours,

M. A. Tuve

Chairman

Enclosure

cc Donald R. Morris

James I. Vette

Document II-6

[no page number]

[NASA logo]

[stamped NOV 12 1968]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Dr. M. A. Tuve, Chairman

Geophysics Research Board

National Academy of Science

2101 Constitution Avenue

Washington, D. C. 20418

Dear Dr. Tuve:

In reply to your letter of 13 September 1968, to Mr. Webb, we agree with the transfer

of the Subcenter for Rockets and Satellites of World Data Center A (WDC-A) to the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and are willing to assign management of

the subcenter to the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at the Goddard Space

Flight Center (GSFC). Such a move has distinct advantages for both the subcenter and our

NSSDC. In operating the subcenter it is definitely our intention to continue to honor the

existing international arrangements, and to be responsive to the general policy guidance

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 193
as it pertains to international affairs from the National Academy of Sciences in the future.

In addition, we will provide adequate support to the subcenter so that the identity of the

subcenter will be preserved.

We agree with the essential considerations cited in your letter. Although I believe we

understand these provisions, I think it is advisable to detail the responsibilities we expect

to discharge as the operators of the WDC-A for Rockets and Satellites to insure agreement

on both sides. According to the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Guide to

Rocket and Satellite Information and Data Exchange adopted by the Xth COSPAR

Plenary Meeting, London, July 1967, the WDC for Rockets and Satellites endeavors to

collect and maintain rocket and satellite data in the form of reports and reprints from

publications that receive limited distribution. Samples of analyzed data appear in these

reports, but the subcenter does not collect all of the analyzed data from a particular

experiment. On the other hand, NSSDC is mainly concerned with collecting all the

reduced and analyzed data available regardless of the recording medium. It is our desire

that [2] data in the national archive - the NSSDC - be made available to foreign scientists

through the World Data Center network for data exchange. However, it should be clearly

understood that this data collection in the NSSDC will [sic] not be considered a part of

WDC-A for Rockets and Satellites. It would be impractical and extremely expensive to

reproduce and furnish copies of all the data to the other WDCs. The new Guide

recognizes this fact and indicates that the WDCs will assist scientists in obtaining copies of

original or calibrated data held by experimenters in national archives. It is clear that the

NSSDC and WDC-A for Rockets and Satellites would remain separate entities with

complementary functions. In addition to providing copies of reports and reprints to the

other WDCs and to individual requestors, we expect to carry out the following principal

duties of the subcenter for producing catalogues and sounding rocket listings as given in

the Guide:

1. Prepare and distribute every six months, catalogues of materials received during

the previous six months. These catalogues will be accumulated every two years.

2. Prepare and distribute to COSPAR a monthly summary of sounding rocket

launchings.

3. Prepare and submit to WDC-A a summary of rocket launchings to be included in

the U. S. report to COSPAR.

I certainly share your concern over providing access to the subcenter free of complex

restrictions. We anticipate no problems in providing free access to the subcenter for

recognized scientists and administrators from nations participating in the International

Council of Scientific Unions’ endeavors. The subcenter will be housed in a single large

room within the NSSDC (Building 26) at GSFC. The room and building will be marked

with appropriate signs. For your information, the GSFC has established a new procedure

for foreign visitors to the subcenter which will be free of restrictions as long as they

identify themselves properly as WDC-A visitors. Although we intend to announce in the

various WDC-A for Rockets and Satellites catalogues that visitors should provide the

subcenter with advance notification of a visit, it will not be absolutely necessary to do so.

194 SPACE PHYSICS
The mailing address of the subcenter will be:

[3]

World Data Center A for Rockets and Satellites 

Code 601 

Goddard Space Flight Center 

Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 

U.S.A.

The Director of the NSSDC (currently Dr. James I. Vette) will be appointed as the

Director of WDC-A for Rockets and Satellites. It is felt that the technical qualifications

necessary for the Director, NSSDC, are commensurate with those you listed. In addition,

he would be sufficiently versed in both domestic and international matters so that he can

function as an official on behalf of the Academy. Consequently, you can be assured that

the appropriate leadership will be provided regardless of the actual incumbent. The

Office of International Affairs will continue to monitor NASA’s responsibilities to the

Academy in the international aspects of data exchange.

If you agree with our understanding of the responsibilities for the operation of the

subcenter, I suggest that the transfer of the subcenter be made effective January 1, 1969,

or as soon as possible thereafter.

Sincerely yours,

[stamp, “Original Signed by Homer E. Newell]

Homer E. Newell

Associate Administrator

cc: GSFC/Clark

GSFC/Vette

[stamp of arrow pointing to Vette]

Document II-7

Document Title: Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, to Homer E. Newell,

Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science, 23 April 1969.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document II-8

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 195
Document Title: Donald P. Hearth, Director, Planetary Programs, Office of Space Science

and Applications, to Dr. Leo Goldberg, Harvard College Observatory, 3 June 1969.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Scientists working on space physics questions did not limit their interest to Earth’s magnetosphere. As

NASA began to send probes to Venus and Mars, they were eager to have their instruments aboard and

to take measurements in the interplanetary medium and in the vicinity of planets other than Earth.

They also perceived that their interests were not being given high enough priority as NASA selected

scientific payloads for solar system missions. Leo Goldberg, chair of NASA’s Astronomy Missions

Board, expressed his Board’s concern in the following letter to Space Science Chief Homer Newell.

Responding for Newell, Solar System Exploration Director Donald Hearth suggested that

interplanetary particle and field measurements may have gotten too high a priority in early missions

to Venus, and the interests of this area of space science were adequately accommodated in the planned

NASA missions to Mars.

Document II-7

[no page number]

[stamped “Action Copy to AA Info Copy to S” unreadable]

[stamped “RECEIVED MAY 9 04 AM ’69 NASA CODE S]

HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138

April 23, 1969

Dr. Homer E. Newell

Code SG 

NASA 

Washington, D. C. 20546

Dear Homer:

At the last AMB meeting, the Board expressed some concern about the methods used

by NASA to assign various fractions of the budget of joint planetary-interplanetary

missions. Some members suggested budget quotas, fixing the assignment of funds on a

joint mission at the outset, so that specific areas, such as fields and particles of the planets,

are not squeezed out as mission costs increase. However, the Board as a whole was

reluctant to attempt to advise NASA on such specific management techniques, and voted

instead to endorse the recommendation below. The Board also requested that you

consider placing this subject on the agenda of the joint meeting of some members of the

AMB, the L&PMB, and NASA administration in May.

196 SPACE PHYSICS
The Astronomy Missions Board identifies the following problem, that during the

development of planetary missions interplanetary experiments seem to be

preferentially dropped to meet budgetary requirements. The Board asks that

NASA examine this situation, and if they agree that it is a problem, report back to

the Board their proposed solution.

Sincerely,

[original signed by Leo Goldberg]

Leo Goldberg

LG:lf

Document II-8

[no page number]

[stamped 3 JUN 1969]

SL (DPH: mag)

Dr. Leo Goldberg 

Harvard College Observatory

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Dr. Goldberg:

This letter is relative [sic] to your letter of April 23, 1969, to Dr. Newell. I understand

your concern regarding the apparent tendency of NASA to delete particles and fields

experiments on planetary missions when mission costs increase. However, when one

examines the record in the context of the objectives of the missions I believe a different

picture emerges. 

First, let’s look at the Venus program. Mariner II had a plasma probe, magnetometer

and two energetic particle experiments. Mariner V’s payload included a plasma probe,

magnetometer, energetic particle experiment, and a dual frequency receiver. Neither of

these spacecraft included a TV, infrared spectrometer, or an ultraviolet spectrometer,

despite the fact that the Venus atmosphere is very important and these three are prime

tools for atmospheric investigations. In retrospect, I believe that too much emphasis may

have been given to particles and fields, and not enough to atmospheric experiments. I

might note in passing that the mission objectives of the Venus Planetary Explorer in 1972

gave first priority to the interaction of the solar wind with the ionosphere and second

priority to the ionosphere and atmosphere.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 197
The Mars exploration program has developed somewhat differently due to different

scientific objectives. NASA has stressed Mars exploration because of the possibility of

making discoveries important to biology. This, in turn, has influenced the decisions on the

mission payloads.

Our first Mars mission, Mariner IV, carried a plasma probe, magnetometer, and two

energetic particle experiments. Thus, both interplanetary and planetary particles and

fields experiments were conducted. The next spacecraft, Mariners VI and VII, due to fly

by Mars later this year, are [2] atmosphere and surface oriented, with no particles and

fields experiments included. The decision to take this course was based on the prime

objective of exobiology and on the funds available. The same philosophy was originally

adopted in planning the Mariner 1971 orbiters. However, in putting the payload together

NASA decided to include, as a secondary priority, two experiments to measure the cosmic

ray gradient. Subsequently, it was recognized that the Mariner 71 project would cost

significantly more than the funds budgeted. After efforts to completely resolve the

problem without affecting the scientific payload failed, we had no recourse but to delete

the experiments in the second priority category. We sincerely regretted this action, but the

alternative of removing experiments related to the prime objective of exobiology was

unacceptable. This decision does not mean that we have no desire to make particles and

fields measurements in the vicinity of Mars. The Planetary Explorer program, which we

hope to initiate in Fiscal Year 1971, includes missions to Mars which will be largely in this

scientific area.

One final comment should be made on the interplanetary measurements. The

Pioneer series, A-E, is exclusively this type of mission. Furthermore, on Pioneers F and G

these experiments are a major objective and comprise a major portion of the payload.

I trust that when you examine this history, you will agree with my initial remarks. We

all must recognize that scientific priorities must be established and that some decisions

will inevitably be made that will be displeasing to a particular scientific group. Otherwise,

prime objectives will be compromised and the total program will suffer.

Sincerely yours,

[stamped, “Original signed by Donald P. Hearth”]

Donald P. Hearth 

Director of Planetary Programs 

Office of Space Science and Applications

bcc : S / Naugle

SL /Chron

SL /Hearth:Official File

[handwritten SS/Smith SL/Rea]

SL/DPHearth:mag 6/2/69 

A23370

198 SPACE PHYSICS
Document II-9

Document Title: H. (Harold) Glaser, Director, Solar-Terrestrial Program, to Dr. Lewis

(sic—correct spelling is Louis) Lanzerotti, 20 November 1975.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Harold Glaser was brought to NASA Headquarters in the mid-1970s to revitalize what was then

known as the Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program. He began his efforts by reaching out to leading nonNASA scientists interested in the field.

[stamped] Nov. 20, 1975

Dr. Lewis J. Lanzerotti

Bell Laboratories

600 Mountain Avenue

Murray Hill, NJ 07974

Dear Lew:

I am very interested in having an opportunity to discuss with you and a few other

members of the Physical Sciences Committee (PSC) a number of issues regarding the new

Solar Terrestrial Programs. I have discussed the desirability of doing this with George Field

and Ichtiaque Rasool and both are very warm towards the idea of such discussions.

The items I wish to discuss are:

1. Should the new division have a standing committee which would advise me, as

Director, on the balance between various program elements; and provide an overview for

a more detailed look at the scientific merit of the various program elements? Would such

a committee, with the proper membership, be useful in pointing out scientific gaps in

solar-terrestrial physics that NASA should fill? If there is such a committee, who would you

suggest be on it? This committee would not be part of the PSC.

2. The field of magnetosphere [sic] physics seems to be on the defensive. I think it is

extremely desirable to take a careful look at the field; to understand its present status and

to evaluate its future, and to attempt to define an appropriate role for NASA in this field.

If such an examination is warranted, how can it best be performed? Should NASA ask the

Space Science Board to do this? Should it be done by an ad hoc group?

3. Should an examination similar to that of 2 above be done for the atmospheric

sciences? As was mentioned to you at the last Physical Sciences Committee meeting by

Noel Hinners, this division will absorb the Upper Atmospheric Research Office. It may be

that such an examination of the atmospheric sciences is not warranted.

I would like to have an opportunity to discuss these items with you and others on the

occasion of the next PSC meeting. Would it be possible for us to have dinner on either

December 10 or December 11 for this purpose?

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 199
Sincerely,

[signature]

H. Glaser

Director

Solar Terrestrial Programs

Cc: 

George Field/Harvard

SL/Thomas E. Burke

SS/Ichtiaque Rasool

Identical letter sent to: Drs. Donahue, Sturrock, Vogt

ST(HG/aser:svab) – 11/19/75 x51790

Document II-10

Document Title: Memorandum from Chief of Magnetospheric Physics (E. R. Schmerling)

to the Director of Solar-Terrestrial Programs, “Status of International Magnetospheric

Study,” 8 December 1975.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

A major change in direction in space physics research occurred when the Scientific Committee on SolarTerrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP), which operated under the auspices of the International Council of

Scientific Unions, established an international program designed to understand magnetospheric

processes by coordinated observations with space- and ground-based instruments. The International

Magnetospheric Study (IMS) period ran from 1976 to 1979. The principal NASA contribution

consisted of correlative data from operating spacecraft, data from the International Sun-Earth

Explorer (ISEE) program (which had three spacecraft), and support from the National Space Science

Data Center.

[no page number]

8 December 1975

MEMORANDUM

TO: ST/Director of Solar Terrestrial Programs

FROM : ST/Chief of Magnetospheric Physics and NASA Representative/IMS

SUBJECT: Status of International Magnetospheric Study (IMS)

200 SPACE PHYSICS
The IMS Steering Committee met at Goddard Space Flight Center 4-6 December

1975 under the chairmanship of Dr. J. G. Roederer, University of Denver. The IMS period

will start 1 January 1976. Owing to the delay in key spacecraft launches, especially the ESAGEOS (now scheduled for launch April 1977), it is expected that the peak IMS activity will

be in the 1978-1979 period, and that the 1976 activities will center on the ground-based

observations coordinated with data from existing spacecraft.

The principal NASA contributions consist of the Satellite Situation Center (SSC) at

the Data Center, GSFC, and correlative data to be contributed by operating spacecraft and

spacecraft which are part of our on-going approved program.

The SSC has already started to operate, and has provided predicted positions of

spacecraft making magnetospheric measurements in 1976. From these, key times have

been recommended for special attention, when these spacecraft are in especially favorable

positions for determining events at the main magnetospheric boundaries. These total 493

hours, or about 6% of the available time. We should be able to obtain summary data for

these periods for release through the Data Center without using resources beyond those

already anticipated.

The International Sun-Earth Explorers (ISEE/A,B,C) are expected to be close to

schedule, with launches of ISEE/A,B in mid-1977 and ISEE/C in mid-1978. NASA project

costs are in the $42-46M range. The science working groups are planning to release

summary data tapes to the IMS community within two to three months.

[2] U. S. Government agencies will be asked to re-affirm their support at the meeting on

9 December of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The NASA contributions,

as summarized here, are well in hand, and we do not anticipate problems in meeting

them. The proposed press release is quite consistent with this position.

[signature]

E. R. Schmerling

cc: A/Fletcher

AA/Naugle

I/Frutkin

S/Hinners

SS/Rasool

Document II-11

Document Title: Letter from Andrew Stofan, Acting Associate Administrator for Space

Science, to A. Thomas Young, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center, 27 April 1981.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 201
Document II-12

Document Title: Memorandum from George Pieper, Director of Sciences, GSFC, to Dr.

Franklin Martin, Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Headquarters,

“International Sun-Earth Explorer-3,” June 1982.

Source: Robert Farquhar

Document II-13

Document Title: Presentation by Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., Director, Astrophysics Division,

to Sam Keller, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, “ISEE-3:

Obtain Approval for In-Situ Exploration of Comet Giacobini-Zinner,” 6 August 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document II-14

Document Title: Memorandum from Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications (Burton Edelson) to Director, Goddard Space Flight Center (Noel Hinners),

“ISEE-3,” 30 August 1982.

These documents trace the 1981–1982 debates within NASA over the possibility of sending an

existing spacecraft, the International Sun-Earth Explorer-3, to intercept a comet as it made its way

through the inner solar system in the mid-1980s. The initial impetus for this suggestion was the lack

of a U.S. mission to Halley’s Comet during its 1986 encounter, but additional study showed that

Comet Giacobini-Zinner was a better target for a comet encounter. 

Document II-11

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 

20546

[stamped] APR 27 1981

Mr. A. Thomas Young 

Director 

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, MD 20771 

202 SPACE PHYSICS
Dear Tom:

I have been made aware of the possibility of deflecting the ISEE spacecraft to

intercept comet Halley. Since we are continually assessing what our total involvement

should be with respect to the apparition of Halley’s comet, it behooves us to understand

all of the options available to us. While I am, in no way, endorsing or supporting the

potential of an ISEE intercept with comet Halley, I would like to have the information as

to whether the mission is even physically realizable. On this basis, I would support a small

study at GSFC, to be led by Dr. Farquhar, to evaluate the feasibility of the mission he

proposed. Dr. Farquhar should understand that our desire is solely to gain information,

and he should not represent the authority to conduct the study as an endorsement of this

mission by the Office of Space Science.

This study will be funded and managed by the Advanced Programs area of the Solar System

Exploration Division, and would, therefore, be under the direct cognizance of Mr. Diaz.

Sincerely,

[signature]

Andrew J. Stofan

Acting Associate Administrator 

for Space Science

Document II-12

[no pagination]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland

20771

TO: NASA Headquarters

Attention: Office of Space Science Applications

Dr. Franklin D. Martin/EZ-7

FROM: Director of Sciences

SUBJECT: International Sun-Earth Explorer-3 (ISEE-3) 

A small but significant orbit maneuver for ISEE-3 is planned for June 10, 1982. The

ISEE-3 is, as you know, in a halo-type orbit in the vicinity of the sunward libration point,

L1, of the Sun-Earth system. The spacecraft has periodically required station keeping

maneuvers to keep its orbit properly aligned with the Sun and Earth to allow the gathering

of scientific data. For this particular maneuver I have authorized the maneuvering of the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 203
spacecraft in such a way as to keep open several extended mission options which are

presently being actively investigated.

The forthcoming maneuver which consists of adding a velocity increment propulsion

of 4.6 meter per second will, if not rescinded, cause the spacecraft to start a trajectory

which will carry it toward and subsequently into the geomagnetic tail. The enclosed sketch

(Figure 1)[no figures included] shows the orbital path.

It is important that this maneuver be done at this time because it keeps open the

opportunities for the following extended mission options:

a. geomagnetic tail excursion followed by return to halo orbit,

b. geomagnetic tail excursion and remain in the tail,

c. geomagnetic tail excursion followed by an encounter with the comet GiacobiniZinner, and 

d. remain in halo orbit.

The key features of the timing of the maneuver are subsequent necessary lunar flybys

and perigees when the spacecraft can use the Earth and Moon for trajectory modification

for either a return to the halo orbit at L1 or the start of a trajectory which would lead to

the cometary encounter (options a. and c. above).

The cost, in onboard propellant, of rescinding the planned mid-course maneuver

increases with time to the beginning of August after which it would be too costly to stop

the spacecraft from going on a trajectory to the geomagnetic tail. Figure 2 shows the

velocity increment required to rescind the planned maneuver increases from 4.6 meters

per second to about 130 meters per second by mid-August. The present total maneuver

capability of ISEE-3 is about 330 meters per second. The cost per year of remaining in the

geomagnetic tail orbit is between 10 and 100 meters per second depending on the kinds

of orbit selected. The risk associated with going to the geomagnetic tail is about the same

as leaving the spacecraft in its present orbit. In either case, the propulsion system will have

to be used. There are no significant ground system requirements for the geomagnetic

excursion. Everything would be about the same except that the spacecraft would be in an

interesting and unexplored region of space.

From a physical point of view, the decision concerning the comet encounter does not

need to be made until April 1983. Budgetary planning will force it to be made this

summer, I believe.

Unless you advise me to the contrary, the June 10, 1982 orbit maneuver will be carried out.

[signature]

George F. Pieper

Document II-13

[handwritten note, “1”]

ISEE-3

AUGUST 6, 1982

204 SPACE PHYSICS
PURPOSE

OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR IN-SITU

EXPLORATION OF COMET GIACOBINI-ZINNER

[handwritten note, “2”]

MEETING AGENDA

(RM. 226 A, 4:00-5:30 AUGUST 6, 1982)

• OVERVIEW C. PELLERIN

- PURPOSE

- BACKGROUND

- MISSION PROFILE

- SCIENCE

- DSN

- RISK ASSESSMENT

- PROGRAMMATIC SUMMARY

- SUMMARY

• ADDITIONAL DETAILS AS REQUIRED

- COMET SCIENCE E. SMITH

- HALO SCIENCE T. VON ROSENVINGE

- SPACECRAFT TECHNICAL S. PADDACK

- DSN TECHNICAL W. MARTIN

- FLIGHT ASSURANCE A. JONES

- TRAJECTORIES B. FARQUHAR

[handwritten note, “3”]

ISEE-3 BACKGROUND

• EXPLORER-CLASS SPACECRAFT

• LAUNCH VEHICLE: DELTA-2914

• LAUNCH DATE: AUGUST 12, 1978

• LOCATION: HALO ORBIT AROUND SUNWARD LIBRATION POINT

• NETWORK: STDN

• MISSION OBJECTIVES

• SUPPORT ISEE-1 AND –2 SPACECRAFT

• MEASURE ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION OF SOLAR AND GALACTIC COSMIC

RAYS

• STUDY DIVERSE INTERPLANETARY AND SOLAR PHENOMENA

• PROVIDE BASELINE DATA FOR DEEP-SPACE PROBES (E.G., PIONEER,

VOYAGER)

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 205
• PRIMARY MISSION COMPLETED: AUGUST 1981

[handwritten note, “4”]

206 SPACE PHYSICS
[handwritten note, “5”]

[handwritten note, “6”]

BACKGROUND

• AUGUST 1981 – BOB FARQUHAR PROPOSED COMET RENDEZVOUS AS PART

OF ISEE-3 EXTENDED MISSION

• DECEMBER 21, 1981: LETTER FROM DIRECTOR, ASTROPHYSICS DIVISION,

NASA HQ, TO GSFC, REQUESTS FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR EXTENDED

MISSION OPTIONS FOR ISEE-3

- GEOMAGNETIC TAIL AND BACK TO HALO ORBIT

- GEOMAGNETIC TAIL FOLLOWED BY INTERCEPTION OF COMET

GIACOBINI-ZINNER

• MARCH 24, 1982: FEASIBILITY STUDY RESULTS REPORTED TO NASA

HEADQUARTERS

• JUNE 10, 1982: SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT ORBIT MANEUVER TO CAUSE

TRAJECTORY TO GEOMAGNETIC TAIL

• JUNE 14, 1982: OSSA, OSTDS, AND USAF REPRESENTATIVES REVIEWED ISEE-3

MISSION OPTIONS

• JUNE 15, 1982: PRESENTATION TO NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

• JUNE 29, 1982: AA/OSSA BRIEFED ON ISEE-3, GEOTAIL EXCURSION

APPROVED

• AUGUST 3, 1982: FLIGHT ASSURANCE OFFICE REVIEWED COMET MISSION

PROPOSAL

• AUGUST 6, 1982: OSSA DECISION MEETING AT NASA HQ

[handwritten note, “7”]

ISEE-3 EXTENDED MISSION STUDY TEAM

CHARLES PELLERIN HQ, ASTROPHYSICS DIVISION

ERWIN SCHMERLING HQ, PROGRAM SCIENTIST

STEVE PADDACK GSFC, STUDY MANAGER

BOB FARQUHAR GSFC, PRIME MOTIVATOR

TYCHO VON ROSENVIGNE GSFC, PROJECT SCIENTIST

JIM TRAINOR GSFC, SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

ED SMITH JPL, COMET SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 207
FRED SCARF TRW, GEOTAIL SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE

KEITH OGILVIE GSFC, HALO SCIENCE

BILL WOOD HQ, NETWORKS DIVISION

CHARLES FORCE HQ, MANAGER, DSN

ROMO CORTEZ JPL, MANAGER, REAL TIME SUPPORT

WARREN MARTIN JPL, DSN PLANNING

VERN MALAHY USAF

GEOFF BRIGGS HQ, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION DIVISION

SHELBY TILFORD HQ, ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATION DIVISION

AL JONES GSFC, FLIGHT ASSURANCE

[handwritten note, “8”]

MISSION PROFILE

• SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORIES

• MILESTONES

[handwritten note, “9”]

208 SPACE PHYSICS
[handwritten note, “10”]

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 209
[handwritten note, “11”]

[handwritten note, “12”]

ORBIT PROFILE

• DEPART HALO JUNE 10, 1982

• GEOTAIL EXPLORATION DURING 1983

• DEPART FOR COMET (BEGIN "CRUISE PHASE") DECEMBER 1983

• DSN SUPPORT BEGINS MARCH 1984

• COMET GZ ENCOUNTER SEPTEMBER 1985

• MEASURE SOLAR WIND INPUT TO HALLEY MARCH 1986

[handwritten note, “13”]

ISEE-3 SCIENCE

• COMET

- SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES

- ANTICIPATED RESULTS

- NAS REVIEW RESULTS

• HALO

- SCIENCE

• INVESTIGATOR’S VIEWPOINT

• USAF VIEWPOINT

[handwritten note, “14”]

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES OF COMET EXPLORATION

1. TO DETERMINE THE COMPOSITION AND PHYSICAL STATE OF THE NUCLEUS

2. TO DETERMINE THE PROCESSES THAT GOVERN THE COMPOSITION AND

DISTRIBUTION OF NEUTRAL AND IONIZED SPECIES IN THE COMETARY

ATMOSPHERE; AND

3. TO INVESTIGATE THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE SOLAR WIND AND THE

COMETARY ATMOSPHERE.

210 SPACE PHYSICS
[handwritten note, “15”]

ANTICIPATED SCIENTIFIC RESULTS

• EXISTENCE, LOCATION, PROPERTIES OF REGIONS AND SURFACES:

BOW SHOCK

SUPERSONIC FLOW

CONTACT SURFACE

PLASMA TAIL

• IDENTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES:

IONIZATION OF COMETARY IONS BY COLLISIONS

PICK-UP OF HEAVY IONS BY SOLAR WIND ("MASS LOADING")

PARTICLE ACCELERATION

PLASMA INSTABILITIES AND THE GENERATION OF WAVES

• QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION:

MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH AND DIRECTION

PLASMA FLOW SPEEDS

PLASMA DENSITIES, COMPOSITION

ELECTRON, HEAVY ION TEMPERATURES

BASIC PLASMA PARAMETERS:

BETA

WAVE SPEED

MACH NUMBER

[handwritten note, “16”]

AD HOC SPACE SCIENCE BOARD ISEE PANEL

A.G.W. CAMERON, CHAIRMAN, HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY

W. BOYNTON, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

G. CARIGNAN, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

C.F. KENNEL, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

L. J. LANZEROTTI, BELL LABORATORIES

M. NEUGEBAUER, JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

A.B.C. WALKER, JR., STANFORD UNIVERSITY

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 211
S.E. WOOSLEY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ

[handwritten note, “17”]

SPACE SCIENCE BOARD

"THUS, IN SUMMARY, WE CONCLUDE:

1. USE OF ISEE-3 TO EXPLORE THE EARTH’S MAGNETOTAIL IS OF HIGH

SCIENTIFIC IMPORTANCE.

2. BOTH OF THE SUBSEQUENT OPTIONS, RETURN TO THE HALO ORBIT AND

A MISSION TO COMET GIACOBINI-ZINNER, ADDRESS SCIENTIFIC GOALS OF

THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE IN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES.

3. IN ADDITION TO ADDRESSING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC

IMPORTANCE, SPACE MISSIONS OFTEN SERVE BROADER GOALS. ONE SUCH

GOAL, IN THIS CASE, IS EXPLORATION--TO INVESTIGATE NEW REGIMES OR

NEW PHENOMENA FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE EXPLORATION OF A

COMETARY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME IS A SCIENTIFIC GOAL OF

THE HIGHEST PRIORITY."

[handwritten note, “18”]

SPACE SCIENCE BOARD

"FINALLY, WE RECOMMEND:

1. ISEE-3 SHOULD CONTINUE ON ITS PRESENT TRAJECTORY TO EXPLORE THE

MAGNETOTAIL.

2. SUBSEQUENTLY, ISEE-3 SHOULD BE SENT TO EXPLORE THE TAIL REGION

OF THE COMET GIACOBINI-ZINNER.

3. NASA SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO REPLACE THE MONITORING FUNCTIONS OF

ISEE-3 IN A HALO ORBIT."

[handwritten note, “19”]

HALO EXTENDED MISSION SCIENCE

• SIGNIFICANT SCIENCE

- SOLAR WIND

- SOLAR TERRESTRIAL

- GAMMA RAY BURSTS

212 SPACE PHYSICS
• HIGHLY DESIRABLE SUPPORT FOR OTHER MISSIONS

- ISEE 1 AND 2 (TO MID 1987)

- DE-1

- AMPTE (JUNE 1984 - JUNE 1985)

- SIS/ISPM (JUNE 1987-1990)

- VOYAGER/PIONEER 10

- GRO

• USAF WEATHER SERVICE

- 30 MINUTE LEAD TIME ON SUBSTORMS

- RADIATION HAZARDS (STS)

(MISSION FROM DEC. 1983 TO ?)

[handwritten note, “20”]

[handwritten note, “21”]

ISEE-3 INVESTIGATORS RE COMET

ISSUES

- GAIN/LOSS FOR EACH EXPERIMENT

- PROBABILITY OF CONTINUED MO&DA

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 213
- COVERAGE (CRUISE PHASE VS. HALO)

- PROBABILITY OF REPLACEMENT

- POLITICS (GIOTTO, SIS, OPEN)

- EXPLORATORY SCIENCE VS. ANALYTICAL SCIENCE

(CURRENT?) VIEWPOINT

- SCARF, SMITH, BAME - VERY STRONG SUPPORT

- STONE, HOVESTADT, HECKMAN - CONDITIONAL

- OGLIVIE, HYNDS, STEINBERG, ANDERSON, VON ROSENVINGE, MEYER,

TEEGARDEN, WILCOX - OPPOSE

[handwritten note, “22”]

ISEE-3 INVESTIGATIONS

PRINCIPAL EXPERIMENT

TITLE INVESTIGATOR AFFILIATION STATUS

SOLAR WIND PLASMA BAME LOS ALAMOS ELECTRONS ONLY

NATIONAL LAB (ION PORTION FAILED)

PLASMA COMPOSITION OGILVIE GSFC OPERATIONAL

MAGNETOMETER SMITH JPL OPERATIONAL

PLASMA WAVES SCARF TRW SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL

ENERGETIC PROTONS HYNDS IMPERIAL OPERATIONAL

COLLEGE, LONDON

RADIO WAVES STEINBERG PARIS OPERATIONAL

OBSERVATORY,

MEUDON

X-RAYS, LOW ANDERSON UCB X-RAYS AND EE > 200 KEV

ENERGY ELECTRONS 

(LOW ENERGY ELECTRON

PORTION FAILED)

LOW ENERGY HOVESTADT MPI PARTIAL FAILURE

COSMIC RAYS (ULEZEQ)

MED IUM ENERGY VON ROSENVINGE GSFC OPERATIONAL

COSMIC RAYS

HIGH ENERGY STONE CIT PARTIAL FAILURE

COSMIC RAYS (ISOTOPE PORTION)

HIGH ENERGY HECKMAN UCB/LBL PARTIAL FAILURE

COSMIC RAYS (DRIFT CHAMBER)

COSMIC RAY MEYER UNIVERSITY OPERATIONAL

ELECTRONS OF CHICAGO

GAMMA RAY TEEGARDEN GSFC PARTIAL FAILURE

BURSTS (PHA MEMORY)

214 SPACE PHYSICS
[handwritten note, “23”]

USAF VIEWPOINT

• USAF PREFERS ISEE-3 REMAIN IN HALO ORBIT

• AVAILABILITY OF USEFUL DATA WILL CEASE IN SEPT. 1982

- WILL RESUME IF RETURNED TO HALO

- WILL CEASE TOTALLY IF SENT TO COMET

• CONTACT HAS BEEN COL. VERN MALAHY; CHAIRMAN, JOINT

ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE COORDINATING GROUP, OFFICE OF THE

UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE

• USAF APPROACH

- USAF DESIRES SHOULD BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED

- NO PLANS TO INTERPOSE

[handwritten note, “24”]

DSN IMPLICATIONS

• REQUIREMENTS

• IMPACTS/CAPABILITIES

[handwritten note, “25”]

ISEE-3 REQUIREMENTS

(SIRD)

• FROM NOW UNTIL DEC, 1983 - 2KBPS - GOAL 90% COVERAGE

• CRUISE PHASE - 2KBPS AS LONG AS POSSIBLE - GOAL 60% COVERAGE

• GOLDSTONE AND MADRID SUPPORT FOR ENTIRE VIEWING PERIOD ON DAY

OF ENCOUNTER (512 BPS EXCEPT 1KBPS FOR 2 1/2 HOURS)

ADDITIONAL DESIRES

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 215
• ADDITION OF OTHER STATIONS (E.G. JAPANESE, GERMAN) TO ALLOW

CONTINUOUS COVERAGE NEAR ENCOUNTER

• ADDITION OF ARECIBO TO ALLOW 2KBPS OPERATIONS

[handwritten note, “26”]

216 SPACE PHYSICS
[handwritten note, “27”]

ISEE-3 GIACOBINI-ZINNER DSN SUPPORT

REQUIRED GROUND STATION IMPLEMENTATION

• DSN 64-MEER STATIONS .

• 512 B/S, 2270.4 MHz

• ADDITION OF AN LS 4815 SEQUENTIAL DECODER

• 1024 B/S, 2270.4 AND 2217.5 MHz

• ADDITION OF AN LS 4815 SEQUENTIAL DECODER

• CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF A 2217 MHz MASER

• RELOCATION OF SECOND MASER INTO THE CONE

• 2217 MHz RECEIVER .

• BASEBAND COMBINER (MARK IVA DSN BBA OR A RESISTOR)

• ARECIBO

• 2048 B/S, 2270.4 MHz LISTEN ONLY

• 2270 MHz LINE FEED AND POLARIZER

• 2270 MHz MASER OR COOLED FET AMPLIFIER

• DSN RECEIVER, DEMODULATOR, LS 4815 DECODER

• DATA HANDLING EQUIPMENT

• LINK TO PROJECT OPERATIONS AND CONTROL CENTER

[6483-2242 WLM-6 3-24-82]

[handwritten note, “28”]

ISEE-3 GIACOBINI-ZINNER DSN SUPPORT

GROUND STATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

• DSN GOLDSTONE COMPLEX

• 64-METER (DSS 14)

• 2217 MHz AND 2270 MHz DOWNLINKS ARRAYED

• 34-METER (DSS 12) - POSSIBLE

• 2270 MHz DOWNLINK ONLY

• DSN SPANISH COMPLEX

• 64-METER (DSS 63)

• 2217 MHz AND 2270 MHz DOWNLINKS ARRAYED

• 34-METER (DSS 61) - POSSIBLE

• 2270 MHz DOWNLINK ONLY

• ARECIBO - POSSIBLE

• NEEDED FOR 2048 B/S DATA

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 217
• EFFELSBERG - POSSIBLE

• 100-METER

• POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO ARECIBO

• JAPAN - POSSIBLE

• 64-METER

• ENABLES CONTINUOUS COVERAGE

[6483-2242 WLM-6 3-24-82]

[handwritten note, “29”]

RISK ASSESSMENT

• EXTENDED MISSION REVIEW TEAM CONVENED (GSFC)

ALTON E. JONES, CHAIRMAN FLIGHT ASSURANCE

JAMES A. FINDLAY, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN FLIGHT ASSURANCE

ROBERT L. SEGAL FLIGHT ASSURANCE

JAMES TRAINOR SCIENCES

EDWARD POWERS ENGINEERING

HENRY PRICE ENGINEERING

ALBERT YETMAN ENGINEERING

• REVIEW AREAS

- MISSION PROFILE

- SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS

- TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION

- MISSION AND DATA REQUIREMENTS

[handwritten note, “30”]

FINDINGS

• NO CURRENT PROBLEMS WITH S/C SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED

• SLIGHT INCREASE IN RISK TO S/C DUE TO 3O-MINUTE ECLIPSE

• DATA ACQUISITION AREA IS AREA OF BIGGEST QUESTION

- 512 BPS AND 1024 BPS NOT USED SINCE LAUNCH

- SIGNAL MARGINS ARE CLOSE (GSFC PERSPECTIVE)

218 SPACE PHYSICS
- WITHOUT ADDITIONAL STATIONS (ARECIBO, JAPAN, GERMANY),

COVERAGE GAP MAY RESULT IN LOSS OF BOW SHOCK DATA.

• ADDITIONAL CONCERNS TO NOTE

- CRITICAL MANEUVERS DURING 1983 MAY CONFLICT WITH STS

(COORDINATION SHOULD RESOLVE)

- RESULTS OF THESE STUDIES SHOULD BE CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED

[handwritten note, “31”]

RISK SUMMARY

“ALL-IN-ALL, THE UNCERTAINTIES/RISKS CITED ABOVE

APPEAR TO ME TO BE LESS THAN THOSE THAT GENERALLY

EXIST WHEN WE START A PROJECT. THE DIFFERENCE IS,

IN THIS CASE, WE CAN ONLY FIX GROUND SYSTEM.”

NOTE: TWO MAJOR RISKS HAVE BEEN OVERCOME:

- LAUNCH VEHICLE FAILURE

- INFANT MORTALITY

[handwritten note, “32”]

COMET PROGRAMMATIC SUMMARY

(THOUSANDS OF FY 83 DOLLARS)

83 84 85 86 87 88 89

OSSA-DELTAS

SCIENCE/OPERATIONS +135 +135 +290 +525 -1000 -1700 -2300

OSTDS-DELTAS

DSN +1700 +1000

OPERATIONS +195 +95 +70 -225 -450 -450 -450

OSSA LEVEL FOR HALO = 2300/YEAR

OSTS LEVEL FOR HALO = 450/YEAR

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 219
[handwritten note, “33”]

SUMMARY

• RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ISEE-3 MISSION TO EXPLORE TAIL OF COMET

GIACOBINI-ZINNER

- FIRST IN-SITU MEASUREMENT OF A COMET

- UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR IN-SITU MEASUREMENT OF COMET/SOLARWIND INTERACTION

- EXCELLENT TIMING FOR. CORRELATIVE REMOTE OBSERVATIONS

(HALLEY WATCH, IUE, ST, OSS-3)

- SCIENCE COMPLEMENTS THE HALLEY PROBES (ESA, JAPAN, USSR)

- RETURN JUSTIFIES THE RISK--NASA SHOULD DO IT

- A MOTIVATED, ENTHUSIASTIC TEAM SUGGESTS HIGH SUCCESS

PROBABILITY

[FIGURE 2, HANDWRITTEN PAGE 5]

220 SPACE PHYSICS
Document II-14

[no page number]

[stamped AUG 30 1982]

[handwritten note – “Boss – Advance copy of approval letter. This has not been sent as of

9/8/82.” signed “JW”]

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

20546

Reply to the Attn. of: EZ-7

TO:Goddard Space Flight Center

Attn: 100/Director

FROM: E/Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications

SUBJECT: ISEE-3

The mission of ISEE-3 to explore the comet Giacobini-Zinner is approved. This

approval is based on the presentation and discussion of August 6, 1982, and the draft

Project Plan provided by GSFC. If there are major changes in the technical risk, or in the

funding requirements for either OSSA or OSTDS, please assure that I am promptly

informed.

[Original signed by Samuel W. Keller for B.I. Edelson]

B. I. Edelson

Document II-15

Document Title: Letter from Burton I. Edelson, Associate Administrator for Space Science

and Applications, to Dr. Herbert Friedman, National Research Council, 4 May 1984.

Source: James Green

By the mid-1980s, NASA realized that it needed a fresh look at how it archived and made available

data from space science missions, particularly those involving solar-terrestrial physics. NASA asked

the National Academy of Sciences to review NASA data activity. This letter to space science pioneer

Herbert Friedman of the Naval Research Laboratory communicated NASA’s appreciation of the review

and indicated how its findings and recommendations would help NASA.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 221
[no page number]

[stamped] May 4, 1984

Dr. Herbert Friedman

Chairman

Commission on Physical Sciences,

Mathematics and Resources

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

Dear Dr. Friedman:

Congratulations to the Joint Data Panel of the Committee on Solar and Space Physics

and the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research for producing such a thorough and

useful report—Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, Distribution, and Archiving. I thank you for

transmitting this report to us.

Receipt of this report at NASA is very timely since we are undertaking several activities

which could benefit from its recommendations:

• Redefining the role and the scope of the National Space Science Data Center

(NSSDC).

• Recognizing the benefits of the Space Plasma Computer Analysis Network

(SCAN) and providing baseline support.

• Evaluating the methods for handling data processing and dissemination of data

from Spacelab and other Shuttle science missions.

• Establishing a Central Data Handling Facility for the Upper Atmosphere

Research Satellite (UARS) and planning a similar facility for the proposed

International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program (ISTPP).

• Discussing means for highly coordinated data access, distribution, and archiving

with the Japanese ISAS and the European Space Agency as part of the ISTPP plan.

Obviously, with these current activities and those planned for the future, the whole

question of data access, distribution, and archiving is important to our science

community. We intend to pay particular attention to the issues cited in your report over

the next few years.

[2] I would be pleased to discuss these topics with you, with the Committee on Solar and

Space Physics, and with the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research.

Sincerely,

[signature]

B. I. Edelson

Associate Administrator for

Space Science and Applications

222 SPACE PHYSICS
Document II-16

Document Title: Stanley Shawhan, Director, Space Physics, Office of Space Science,

NASA, to Professor Minoru Oda, Director General, Institute of Space and Astronautical

Science, 1 November 1984.

Source: Personal Files of Stanley Shawhan

Even though NASA’s own planning for solar-terrestrial physics missions was somewhat in disarray in

1984, maintaining the international character of the program was very important to NASA’s Director

of Space Physics, Stanley Shawhan, and his boss, Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications Burton Edelson. This letter to the Director General of Japan’s space science agency was

intended to assure that organization that NASA was committed to supporting its portion of the joint

Japanese-U.S. Geotail mission.

[November 1, 1984]

Prof. Minoru Oda

Director-General

Institute of Space and

Astronautical Science

Tokyo, Japan

Dear Prof. Oda,

Thank you very much for the meeting we had on Monday, October 29, 1984 to discuss

a number of topics related to collaboration between ISAS and NASA in the SolarTerrestrial Physics discipline.

This note is to clarify the position and the action being taken by my office toward the

joint ISAS/NASA Geotail mission. In looking at options for the NASA contributions to the

International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program, we have carefully considered the scientific

merits and the programmatic implications of each mission. The NASA ISTP Program and

Project Office conclude that the joint ISAS/NASA Geotail mission would provide a very

significant enhancement to our knowledge of the configuration and dynamics of the

geomagnetic tail region and that NASA should proceed as speedily as possible to

implement its portion of the joint Geotail mission plans.

During the NASA fiscal years 1985 and 1986, Advanced Technology and Development

(ATD) funds have been set aside for further design and mission analysis of the NASA ISTP

Program. Because of the proposed ISAS Geotail Program schedule, the NASA ISTP

Program and Project Offices carry as their highest priority the further definition, design,

and analysis of the planned NASA contributions to the Geotail Program. The work that

we plan to carry out through ISAS/NASA joint planning meetings, through advanced

instrument design and through analysis of launch, tracking and data analysis

requirements will parallel much of the work you propose to carry out next year.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 223
Sincerely,

[signature]

S. D. Shawhan

Document II-17

Document Title: Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., Director, Astrophysics Division, to Dr. James L.

Matteson, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, San

Diego, 30 September 1986.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document II-18

Document Title: Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., Director, Astrophysics Division, to Dr. Laurence E.

Peterson, Assistant Director for Science, “Explorer Program Fact Sheet,” 23 October 1986.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The Space Shuttle Challenger accident in January 1986, and the delays that it would cause in

NASA’s space science program, aggravated an already difficult situation with respect to the

continuing series of smaller Explorer-class missions. That situation was the slow pace in launching

approved missions and thus the long time between approval and launch, often eight to ten years. This

led the head of NASA’s Astrophysics Division, Charles Pellerin, in 1986 to decide to hold off on any

new large Explorer missions, to have a competition for Small Explorer missions (SMEX), to launch

the backlog, and to use the time gained to decide on how to restructure the Explorer program. This

letter to James Matteson is an early indication of the thinking behind Pellerin’s decision. The October

fact sheet sets out the reasoning in more detail.

Document II-17

[no page number]

[stamped SEP 30 1986]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 

20546

224 SPACE PHYSICS
Reply to Attn of: EZ (LE P )

Dr. James L. Matteson 

Research Physicist 

Center for Astrophysics 

and Space Sciences (CASS) 

C-011

University of California, San Diego 

La Jolla, CA 92093

Dear Jim:

This is in response to your letter of September 13, 1986, regarding evaluation of the

proposals submitted for the Explorer Concept Study Program. As you indicated, we have

discussed not evaluating the proposals received last month. We have had considerable

internal discussion on this matter and have consulted several of our advisory groups. No

firm decision has been made, and we are also considering various alternatives between a

complete selection and a complete return.

While I am sympathetic to many of the points you raised and have a feel for the effort

the community has expended on these proposals, you must be cognizant of the impact of

the STS 51-L disaster on the NASA science programs. If we were fully aware of this impact

at the time of the "Dear Colleague Letter" in March, we would undoubtedly have delayed

its issuance. In the Explorer Project alone, there is an impact of some $100M caused by

having to convert the COBE to a Delta launch, the likelihood the SMM will not be

retrieved, and the stretchout in the EUVE and XTE. This is a 2-year delay for any new

major mission, at the present funding level of approximately $50M per year. I believe you

are aware that the Explorer Program has been under considerable criticism from the

scientific community because of the long time between selection and flight. While I

appreciate your noting that 8-10 years is, in fact, the recent norm, and the scientific

community may be adjusted to this, it is not healthy for the vitality of science.

Commitment to future Explorer missions now would only continue the present situation.

As you indicated, there is much enthusiam [sic] for the Explorer Program; however, with

a 6-year backlog, I do not perceive it having much momentum. It is the restoration of the

momentum that is our goal.

[2] I agree that many of the investigations proposed are likely to be "timeless," in that the

objectives remain first rate and are unlikely to be accomplished by other means. However,

selecting a mission for conceptual study does imply a priority and a commitment to an

implementation mode. Such commitments and priorities are usually made in the context

of today’s fiscal, political, and managerial environment; this may not be the same

environment some 6 years in the future when the first significant funding for a major new

Explorer start becomes available.

I have here indicated some of my thoughts on the Explorer selection dilemma; as I have

said, no firm decision has been made, and we are looking into various methods of keeping

a viable scientific establishment intact until the real opportunity for a flight series reopens.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 225
Best regards,

[originally signed by Charles J. Pellerin, Jr.]

Charles J. Pellerin, Jr.

Director

Astrophysics Division

cc.:

Harvard Observatory Center 

for Astrophysics/Dr. Grindlay

Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Dr. Jacobson

Document II-18

[no page number]

[originally stamped OCT 23 unreadable]

EXPLORER PROGRAM FACT SHEET

• When were Explorer missions last competitively selected?

The last time Explorer missions were selected was in the 1974-1975 time frame.

These were from a pair of Announcements of Opportunity (AO’s) ("AO 6 & 7")

which solicited Scout and Delta-class missions.

• Which missions were these?

The missions were a mix across several disciplines. They include: the Dynamics

Explorer (DE), the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS), the Dynamics

Explorer (DE) [sic], the Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Experiment

(AMPTE), the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), and (although delayed a

bit) the X-Ray Timing Experiment (XTE). [handwritten note “+ SME”]

• What has been the approach since then?

We have assumed that these proposals were of higher priority than new,

noncompetitively selected missions, and tried to complete them first.

• What new things have been added since AO 6 and 7, and why?

Five efforts have been added since that time. They are:

226 SPACE PHYSICS
- Roentgensatellit (ROSAT) - A focal plane instrument for the German ROSAT

mission was added to the Explorer Program in 1982.

- Cosmic Ray Isotope Experiment (CRIE) - The Cosmic Ray Isotope

Experiment of John Simpson’s was added in 1983 and intends to fly on the

USAF CRRES mission. This experiment was removed from the ISEE program

for nonscientific reasons.

- San Marco - A joint Italian/U.S. activity in which U.S. instruments are flown

on an Italian satellite launched by Italy to conduct atmospheric research.

- Combined Radiation Release and Effects Satellite (CRRES) - This effort is not

managed as an Explorer, but because of the unique opportunity with the

USAF, the Explorer Program provided funds to the Earth Sciences Division.

- [2] High Energy Solar Platform (HESP) - A "Soft X-ray" Telescope is being added

to the Japanese High Energy Solar Platform (now renamed SOLAR-A mission).

• Were these additions reviewed and supported by the NASA Advisory apparatus?

Yes.

• What advice has been given for future Explorer strategies by the Space Science

Board (SSB)?

Both the SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (CSAA) and the

Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) have reviewed and made specific

reports on the role of the Explorer Program. Besides listing accomplishments,

reaffirming the validity of the present program, and indicating important

scientific efforts for the future, these committees:

a. Recommended a two step competitive selection process.

b. Recommended an augmentation to achieve, as a goal, one new

Explorer/year in each area.

c. Recommended a management approach be found to ensure timely

implementation of the selected missions.

d. Recognized an augmentation was needed to achieve the above objectives.

• What was the plan for new Explorers?

Over the past year, we began to implement a plan to select new Explorers. The

first step, a "Dear Colleague Letter" which solicited short mission concept

proposals for "Phase A" studies, was released last spring.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 227
• Was this consistent with the advice of the scientific community?

Yes.

• [3] What has been the response?

About 43 proposals have been received to date. The greatest number have been

in Astrophysics, with significant, but lesser numbers in Space Plasma Physics,

Solar Physics, and thermospheric and mesospheric physics.

• What is the situation with regard to starting any new Explorer missions?

At the time that we began the "Dear Colleague Letter" process, we expected that

new missions could be started in the near future. However, several events have

conspired to impact the Explorer Program in a negative way as follows:

- Gramm-Rudman - $7M

- Challenger - Loss of opportunity to recover SMM and refurbishment for

EUVE - $60M

- USAF - Vandenberg activation delays - impact to COBE - $40M

- Improved cost estimate of U.S. telescope system on the Japanese HESP

mission - $8M

- Schedule delays in remainder of Explorer ongoing, efforts - $l0M

- Overall, the Explorer Program has suffered about $140M of cost impacts

in the last year.

Our current budgetary estimates indicate that there will be no significant new

funds for missions following EUVE and XTE until approximately 1993.

• Have you reviewed the scientific merit and timeliness of EUVE and XTE in the

context of the passage of time and in the context of the new proposals?

In addition to the original scientific peer reviews both EUVE and XTE have been

recommended to NASA in the Report of the Astronomy Survey Committee (Field

Committee) of the National Academy of Sciences. Internal scientific reviews have

been conducted which examined the scientific importance of EUVE and XTE in

the current context. The reviews found that the scientific problems addressed by

these missions have only grown in importance over time, [4] and none of the

proposals received offered missions that could meet the objectives of EUVE or

XTE. Accordingly, our recent efforts have stressed completing these missions in a

timely way and at lowest cost.

228 SPACE PHYSICS
• What implementation options have been examined?

We have examined three spacecraft alternatives--the use of "throw-away"

spacecraft; the use of spacecraft reuse and on-orbit servicing; and the capability

for dual (i.e., Delta and STS) compatibililty [sic].

• What has been selected for the program baseline?

We have decided to procure a "clone" of the Solar Maximum spacecraft. The plan

is to launch EUVE using either a Delta or the STS and to conduct the EUVE

mission for 2 years. Then, we plan to rendezvous with the spacecraft (just like the

SMM repair mission) and replace the EUVE instruments with the XTE

instruments.

• Would it be less costly in the near term to launch EUVE on a "throw-away"

spacecraft and worry about XTE later?

No! We have surveyed all known applicable spacecraft and estimated the cost of a

new build. The SMM/MMS option is cheapest even in the near term because we

are able to buy the spacecraft modules as part of a USAF block buy and get

advantageous prices.

• What is the cost of this spacecraft?

The cost is $64M in FY-86 dollars for a dual launch capability spacecraft to

perform either the EUVE or XTE mission. If we were to limit the spacecraft

capability for EUVE only, we could reduce the cost by about $5M.

This latter action would necessitate ground refurbishment for XTE use or

another spacecraft development. There are several additional costs to be added

to the spacecraft development cost of $64M, including inflation, center IMS, and

reserves, which bring the total cost of the dual-compatible, dual-use spacecraft

cost to $100M. This cost also includes about $l0M of program stretchout cost

which is caused by funding limitations. We are working to reduce the costs of

other ongoing Explorer elements to allow an optimum funding profile and

reduce or eliminate this extra cost.

• [5] Under this approach, what is the total cost of EUVE and XTE?

The cost to complete EUVE and XTE using the "Explorer Platform" approach is

as follows:

EUVE instrument/mission $ 60M

XTE instrument/mission $ 75M

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 229
Explorer Platform $ 100M

In addition, there is the capability of implementing two additional missions

through the Explorer Platform after XTE.

• How does this compare with the "rule of thumb" that Explorer missions should

not often exceed 2 years of the Explorer budget?

The Explorer budget in this time frame is $65-$70M/year.

The EUVE program alone slightly exceeds the 2 year rule of thumb; the EUVE

and XTE programs are significantly below this level if we amortize the spacecraft

development cost between the two missions.

• How does this program concept depend on launch capability?

Both missions utilize the easiest orbit inclinations (28.50) to obtain with U.S.

launch facilities, and neither mission requires upper stages or additional

propulsion systems. The spacecraft is compatible with Delta or STS launch with

the EUVE payload. The XTE payload geometry is incompatible with a Delta

shroud and is planned for STS launch.

• What are the technical risks and how have they been analyzed?

Risk 1 - Loss of payload during launch phase. This is an approach independent risk

for the most part. If we were to lose the EUVE mission in a launch failure, the only

additional cost incurred in order to ensure mission flexibility is the approximately

$5M expended to make the spacecraft capable of supporting XTE also.

Risk 2 - Loss of instrument or spacecraft systems on orbit. This risk is mitigated

because of the large experience base with MMS spacecraft and the fully

redundant and safe hold system. Should mission [6] threatening failures occur,

there are three alternatives to continue the mission: (1) on-orbit MMS servicing;

(2) on-orbit instrument exchange; or (3) recovery and return for ground

refurbishment.

• The Explorer Program seems preoccupied with astronomy missions. Why?

As indicated earlier, a mix of missions was selected from AO 6 and 7. Because of

community pressure, lower technical complexity, and international

considerations, the nonastronomy missions were flown early (i.e., DE, SME, and

AMPTE). Also, the three recent additions (i.e., CRRES, San Marco, and HESP)

are both in the areas of Solar and Space Plasma Physics.

• What are your plans for the new proposals?

230 SPACE PHYSICS
As mentioned earlier, the Explorer Program has suffered many setbacks in the past

year. We have halted the evaluation process until we can develop a new program

baseline which accommodates the already approved and ongoing efforts. We hope

to complete this effort this fall and will return our attention to the new proposals

as soon as we can estimate when new resources will become available.

• Wouldn’t it be a good signal to the scientific community to start some new

Explorer projects?

Yes, it would if such projects could be initiated without deferring the launch dates

or increasing the costs of the ongoing efforts. Our current analysis shows that we

are now overcommitted to the point that runout costs are being driven upwards

because of schedule delays caused. by inadequate resources. We are not in favor

of further cost increases or delays to EUVE and XTE for the sake of new

additional Explorers at this time. These missions are already about 10 years

delayed in their initiation from the period of AO 6 and 7. We note that these

missions remain scientifically compelling; also, the PI’s from both missions have

offered one of their instruments to the general community via "General

Investigator" programs similar to IUE in recognition of the sparsity of new flight

data to the space science community.

• [7] What does the scientific community think about additional delays in selecting

new Explorer missions from the new proposals now at NASA?

- This is a complicated question with many facets.

- The scientists who have been involved in proposal submissions are urging a

selection at this time and initiation of study activities.

- We are inclined to be more cautious in view of the concerns voiced by the

community over the past decade. These include:

"Quick is beautiful" - The time span from selection until flight needs to be

shortened. Also, missions are executed more efficiently when schedules are

not perturbed by delays injected by considerations external to the program.

A selection now would not allow the first of the new missions to begin

development until 1993 with launch 4-5 years later. Further, there is every

possibility that political forces may result in as many as five missions being

selected and possibly closing the Explorer opportunity until the next century.

We hope for and are pressing for an Explorer augmentation which would

alleviate our financial problems and allow an expansion of near term Explorer

opportunities. However, a realistic assessment suggests that there is probably

an equal chance that resources may be diminished. The launch schedule for

ongoing efforts like COBE and ROSAT may be extended beyond our current

assessments, and the recent history of Congressional budget cuts may recur.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 231
• Aren’t you concerned about sending a discouraging signal to the scientific

community?

Yes, but we feel that the community deserves an honest and truthful signal. We are

also concerned about the Agency’s recent history of raising false expectations and

are trying to more closely align the expectations we raise with our ability to carry

the programs to completion. We think that NASA should place more stress on

credibility in the wake of such events as the cancellation of the U.S. spacecraft on

ISPM, the [8] selection of 40 Spacelab instruments in 1978 of which only a few

have entered development, the recent tragedy in the Spartan program, as well as

the extended delays in launching the Hubble Space Telescope and the starts of

the OPEN, AXAF, and SIRTF programs.

Finally, we are in the midst of a rapidly evolving environment with regard to

launch opportunities, launch vehicles, and Space Station opportunities.

Selections made now might look very different in the context of the NASA

program in the mid to late 90’s.

Also, the invitation of a new round of mission studies would represent an

additional drain of the very limited Explorer resources.

• But, what about an augmentation?

Since the NASA budget for FY-88 has already been submitted to OMB, the earliest

Explorer augmentation in the context of the usual budget process would be in FY-89.

• Ok, what are the arguments for proceeding with the evaluation at this time?

First, it would please those who have worked hard to submit their proposals. Thus,

those involved in future extensive predevelopment work would have more than

ample time to plan.

• What plans do you have for consultation with the scientific community before a

decision is taken?

We plan to discuss these issues in detail with the CSAA and CSSP within the [sic]

several weeks. Both committees have recently published reports on the Explorer

Program, and the program interest focusses [sic] well there.

Document II-19

Document Title: Michael A. Calabrese, ISTP Flight Program Manager, “An Introduction

to Science Investigation Cost Control,” 22 January 1990.

232 SPACE PHYSICS
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

In 1987, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Lennard Fisk challenged

his program managers to develop an approach to containing cost growth in space science missions.

The response was a Cost Control Plan (CCP) for each proposed mission which contained a series of

de-scoping options. The CCP became a requirement for mission approval and was to be created at the

onset of the development phase for every new mission and implemented when the investigation was

confirmed. The de-scoping options in the plan were identified on an instrument-by-instrument basis,

with the key options delineated in the confirmation letters to the investigators for each instrument. If

unforeseen costs occurred during the development phase of an instrument, CCP procedures would be

implemented. Decreasing instrument performance or reducing redundancy were the typical

compromises outlined in the CCP. By January 1990, the CCP for NASA’s ISTP program was

completed. This document was also NASA’s first CCP. 

[no page number]

[stamped JAN 24 1990]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 

20546

Reply to Attn of: E S

To: Distribution

From: ES/ISTP Flight Program Manager

Subject: Science Investigation Cost Control Procedures

In response to Dr. Fisk’s request to institute science investigation cost control

procedures within the Space Flight Programs of NASA’s Office of Space Science and

Applications (OSSA), the Space Physics Division has prepared a [sic] investigation cost

control methodology for the International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) Program. The

attached report, which is intended to be a management aid, describes this methodology

and provides directions for implementing a cost control plan at the onset of the

investigation development phase. The actual plans developed for ISTP, which includes

[sic] the Global Geospace Science Program and the Solar Terrestrial Science Program, are

provided in Enclosures 1 and 2 of the report. A typical Investigator confirmation

describing these plans is also provided in Enclosure 3.

[originally signed by M. A. Calabrese]

M. A. Calabrese

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 233
Distribution:

E/A. Diaz

J. Alexander

EB/A. Nicogossian

EC/R. Arnold

EE/S. Tilford

EL/G. Briggs

EM/R. Benson

EN/R. Schmitz

EP/K. Schmoll

EZ/C. Pellerin

[no page number]

An Introduction to

Science Investigation Cost Control

As Practiced by

The National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA)

Office of Space

Science and Applications (OSSA)

Space Physics Division

January 22, 1990

[no page number]

Table of Contents

Page

I. PURPOSE 1

II. BACKGROUND 1

III. IMPLEMENTATION 1

IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING COST CONTROL 3

V. ENCLOSURES 4

1. GGS Cost Control Plan 5

2. STSP (Cluster/SOHO) Cost Control Plan 11

3. Typical Confirmation Letter (SOHO/Brueckner/LASCO) 17

234 SPACE PHYSICS
I. [1] PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to describe the method used by the Space Physics

Division (SPD) to control the science investigation development costs of the International

Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) Program.

II. BACKGROUND

The SPD developed a Global Geospace Science (GGS) cost control plan for the

investigations being flown on the Wind and Polar spacecraft. A similar plan was also

developed for the U.S.-supplied investigations to the Solar Terrestrial Science Program

(STSP). The STSP investigations will be on the Cluster and Solar and Heliospheric

Observatory (SOHO) missions. These cost control plans were prepared in response to Dr.

Fisk’s request to institute cost control procedures for investigations at the onset of the

development phase. The goal of these procedures is to avoid the need for budget

augmentations to resolve cost problems during the development of an investigation. This

assumes the establishment of adequate reserves in the program baseline.

Cost control procedures are used to identify cost increases at an early stage so that

corrective action can be taken while minimizing serious impact to the investigation or

program. The strategy begins with monthly reporting of cost performance, as well as

regular cost reviews conducted during the usual design reviews. At any sign of significant

cost growth, appropriate actions (e.g. use of available reserves and/or predetermined

descoping options) are taken to eliminate rising costs or to mediate cost impacts.

III. IMPLEMENTATION

Cost control plans are usually developed during the investigation definition phase,

and are implemented when the investigation is confirmed. During the definition phase,

each Principal Investigator (PI) is informed in writing of their funding cap, which is based

on their selected proposal, and agreed to by NASA and the PI. Each PI is asked to prepare

a scientific and engineering descoping plan detailing how internal cost changes will be

accommodated during the development phase while remaining within the funding cap.

This plan, which establishes and documents the priorities and impacts for descoping

science investigations, is submitted as part of the [2] Instrument Development Plan (IDP)

for NASA approval. The IDP is a definition phase deliverable to NASA.

Investigations are confirmed for flight only after a NASA cost-risk assessment has

demonstrated that sufficient reserves exist to accommodate the risks and that the

development cost is within the funding cap. The approved descope plan then becomes

part of NASA’s contract with the PI and is included in the PI’s letter of flight confirmation.

The mission investigation cost control plan also becomes part of the Project

Implementation Plan, the Field Center’s commitment to Headquarters for the

development phase.

During the development phase, the progress of each investigation is assessed monthly

by the usual program/project management tools at the Field Center and Headquarters,

taking into account monthly reports on cost, labor, and schedule progress. If unforeseen

events occur which cause an investigation’s internal costs to rise (i.e., design changes,

parts procurement delays, or a change in subcontractor), the PI is expected to make every

attempt to resolve them. The fixes, which may include performance, redundancy, or

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 235
reliability trades, should be implemented within available resources, using the

predetermined internal descoping plan. Some internal problems which are beyond the

control of the PI may be fixed using project office contingency reserves, as appropriate

and available. Changes in program scope imposed by external circumstances (i.e.,

changes in launch date or launch vehicle) are corrected with the Headquarters program

office Allowance for Program Adjustment (APA), as appropriate and available. When

project reserves or Headquarters APA are not available, the PI should be prepared to

descope the investigation, as required in accordance with the descope plan.

Periodically, at key decision points such as the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and

the Critical Design Review (CDR), the project office reassesses the run-out cost for the

entire project. If problems are identified which result in unresolvable cost increases in the

current fiscal year or out-years, the project office can then either descope the element

responsible for the increase (i.e., the science investigation, spacecraft, or ground data

system), or reapportion the resources between the project elements with appropriate

descopes. For cases where descoping is insufficient to resolve the cost problem, the option

of dropping an investigation must be considered. If a cost problem can be isolated to a

particular investigation, its removal may be recommended. If a problem develops at the

mission level (e.g., spacecraft [3] subsystems), then individual investigations can be

recommended for removal according to a predetermined priority list established by NASA

Headquarters. Usually, the investigations are ranked in order of the priority of the science

to be addressed in meeting prime mission science objectives.

IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING COST CONTROL

A significant part of science investigation cost growth can be attributed to the use of

an excessive number of Co-Is whose teams must be supported. A technique for control is

to group the Co-Is into three categories:

• Category A: Hardware suppliers

• Category B: Non-hardware design support

• Category C: Post-launch data analysis only 

This technique forces the PI to justify the unique contribution of each supporting CoI and allows NASA better control of C0-I [sic] Funding by category, particularly in the prelaunch phase.

There are other important points that are critical to a cost control plan’s success. First,

the PIs must be convinced as early as possible (preferably in the AO) and reminded

throughout the development phase that cost control will be enforced. Timely and

accurate reporting of investigation progress along with good communications are also

crucial. Finally, timing is very important in any cost control scenario as it is much more

difficult to reduce costs using descoping after the CDR. As the ISTP program progresses

through the development phase and more cost control experience is gained the Program

Office will report on and recommend areas where improvement can be made.

236 SPACE PHYSICS
[4]

• V. ENCLOSURES

1. GGS Cost Control Plan

2. STSP (Cluster/SOHO) Cost Control Plan

3. Typical Confirmation Letter (SOHO/Brueckner/LASCO)

[5] 

1. GGS Cost Control Plan

[6]

[stamped FEB 24 1989]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 

20546

Reply to Attn of: ES

TO: E/Deputy Associate Administrator for Space

Science and Applications

FROM: ES/Program Manager

SUBJECT: Global Geospace Science (GGS) Cost Control Plan (Final)

We have developed the enclosed GGS Cost Control Plan in response to Dr. Fisk’s

request to provide an agreed and understood methodology for cost control of

investigations at the onset of the GGS program. Our objective is to identify problems at

an early stage such that corrective action can be taken without serious impact to the

investigation or the program. We are prepared, however, to make the hard decisions

described in the plan if required after suitable discussion with your office.

The Cost Control Plan will be incorporated in the GGS Project Plan. Also, we will

describe the plan to the GGS Investigators at the next Science Working Team meeting on

March 8-10, 1989 at GSFC.

[originally signed by M. A. Calabrese]

M.A. Calabrese

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 237
cc: 

E/Mr. Alexander

ES/Dr. Shawhan 

GSFC/407/Mr. Sizemore(w/o Encl. 2)

[7] GLOBAL GEOSPACE SCIENCE (GGS) COST CONTROL PLAN

The following steps and priorities are to be implemented to keep the Global

Geospace Science (GGS) Program, consisting of the Wind and Polar spacecraft [in

coordination with Geotail and the Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite

(CRRES)] within the runout budget envelope.

HQ Program Office Allowance for Program Adjustment (APA) is to be utilized for

changes in program scope imposed by external circumstances, such as change in launch

date or launch vehicle

GSFC Project Office Contingency Reserves is to be utilized to fix usual internal

problems for the PI’s or spacecraft contractor, such as design changes, parts procurement,

alternate approaches, and change of subcontractors.

Progress of the GGS Program is to be assessed monthly by the usual program/project

management tools at GSFC and at HQ taking into account monthly reports on cost,

manpower and progress.

In addition to the usual project controls, the following plan is to be instituted:

STEP 1. Implement Plan

• Develop plan concept with the HQ Office of Space Science and Applications and with

the GSFC International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) Project Office

• Establish and document the priorities for descoping of science investigations and

other elements of the program

• Inform Principal Investigators of cost control plan via the development phase

confirmation letters (signed 12/27/88)

[8] STEP 2. Review Science Investigations and Institute PI Fixes

• PI’s provide monthly Reports on controlled items, such as mass, power, manpower,

schedule milestones and cost, for Project review to forecast problems, above and

beyond the monthly and quarterly financial reports

• If problem develops that would lead to unacceptable cost increase

238 SPACE PHYSICS
(1) Each PI attempts to fix problem within available resources with internal descoping

that may mean tradeoffs in performance, redundancy or reliability, etc. If the particular

troublesome investigation had an improved enhancement (see Enclosure 1 [not

included]), consider descoping the enhancement

(2) Project uses Contingency Reserves or GSFC manpower, as appropriate

STEP 3. Review Project Status and Institute Descope Measures

• Periodically and at key review times (Requirements Review, Preliminary Design

Review, Critical Design Review, Flight Readiness Review, etc, see enclosed Milestone

Schedule) the Project reassesses the runout cost for the entire project

• If problem develops that may lead to unresolvable fiscal year or total cost increase

then identify the element (science investigations, spacecraft, ground data systems) of

the Project that is causing the problem and descope or reapportion the resources

between the project elements with appropriate descopes

• If problem develops with science investigations or science element must otherwise be

descoped

(1) First, descope the approved performance enhancements listed in Enclosure 1

[not included], if feasible (#1 is first to be considered for descoping). If a particular

investigation is causing the problem, it is descoped. If the problem develops on the Wind

or [9] Polar mission, then use the entries, Wind or Polar, on the priority list, in priority

order, to bring cost into limits. If problem is generic, then proceed down the priority list

(2) Second, for the case that descoping of enhancements is insufficient to resolve the

cost problem, consider dropping entire investigations from the mission according to the

priority lists in Enclosure 2 [not included]. If a particular investigation is causing the

problem, it is dropped. If the problem develops on the Wind or Polar mission, then use

the priority list for that mission (#1 is first to be considered for descoping) to bring cost

into limits. If problem is generic, then proceed down both the Wind and Polar priority

lists in priority order 

[10] WIND and POLAR Investigation Drop Orders, not included]

[11] 2. STSP (Cluster/SOHO) Cost Control Plan

[12]

[stamped JAN 19 1990]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 239
Washington, D.C. 

20546

Reply to Attn of: ES(MAC)

TO: E/Deputy Associate Administrator for Space

Science and Applications

FROM: ES/ISTP Program Manager

SUBJECT: Solar Terrestrial Science Program (STSP) Cost Control Plan

We have developed the enclosed STSP Cost Control Plan for the U.S. supplied

payload elements on the Cluster and SOHO missions. This plan was prepared in response

to Dr. Fisk’s request to provide an agreed and understood methodology for cost control

of investigations at the onset of development. Our objective is to identify problems at an

early stage such that corrective action can be taken without serious impact to the

investigation or the program. We are prepared, however, to make the hard decisions

described in the plan if required after suitable discussion with your office.

The Cost Control Plan has been incorporated in the ISTP Project Plan and a

description of the plan has been enclosed in the confirmation letter for the U.S.

investigators.

[originally signed by M. A. Calabrese]

M.A. Calabrese

Enclosure .

[13]

CC:

E/Mr. Alexander

ES/Dr. Shawhan

ES/Dr. Bohlin

GSFC/407/Mr. Sizemore(w/o Priority List)

[14] SOLAR TERRESTRIAL SCIENCE PROGRAMME (STSP) COST CONTROL PLAN

The following steps and priorities are to be implemented to keep the STSP investigations

on the Cluster and on the SOHO missions within the runout budget envelope.

HQ Program Office Allowance for Program Adjustment (APA) is to be utilized for

changes in program scope imposed by external circumstances, such as change in launch

date or launch vehicle

GSFC Project Office Contingency Reserves is to be utilized to fix usual internal

problems for the PI’s or spacecraft contractor, such as design changes, parts procurement,

alternate approaches, and change of subcontractors

240 SPACE PHYSICS
Progress of the STSP Program is to be assessed monthly by the usual program/ project

management tools at GSFC and at HQ taking into account monthly reports on costs,

manpower and progress

In addition to the usual project controls, the following plan is to be instituted:

STEP 1 Implement Plan

• Develop plan concept with the HQ Office of Space Science and Applications and with

the GSFC International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) Project Office

• Establish and document the priorities for descoping of science investigations and

other elements of the program

• Inform Principal Investigators of cost control plan via the development phase

confirmation letters

[15] STEP 2 Review Science Investigations and Institute PI Fixes

• PI’s provide monthly Reports on controlled items, such as mass, power, manpower,

schedule milestones and cost, for Project review to forecast problems, directly to the

project office above and beyond the monthly and quarterly financial reports

submitted through the contracts office

• If problem develops that would lead to unacceptable cost increase-

(1) Each PI attempts to fix problem within available resources with internal descoping

that may mean tradeoffs in performance, redundancy or reliability, etc.

(2) Project uses Contingency Reserves and/or GSFC manpower, as appropriate

STEP 3 Review Project Status and Institute Descope Measures

• Periodically and at key review times (Requirements Review, Preliminary Design

Review, etc, see enclosed Milestone Schedule) the Project reassesses the runout cost

for the entire project

• If problem develops that may lead to unresolvable fiscal year or total cost increase

then identify the element (science investigations, spacecraft, ground data systems) of

the Project that is causing the problem and descope or reapportion the resources

between the project elements with appropriate descopes

• If problem develops with science investigations or science element must otherwise be

descoped

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 241
(1) Descope Phase—If a particular investigation is causing the problem, it is

descoped. If the problem develops on the Cluster or SOHO mission, then use the entries,

on Enclosure 1 [not included] priority list, in priority order, to bring cost into limits.

(2) Removal Phase—For the case that descoping of investigations is insufficient to

resolve the cost problem, consider dropping entire investigations from the mission

according to the priority lists in Enclosure 1. If a particular investigation is causing the

problem, it is dropped. If the problem develops on the Cluster or SOHO mission, then

use the priority list for that mission (#1 is first to be considered for descoping) to bring

cost into limits. If problem is generic, then proceed down both the Cluster and SOHO

priority lists in priority order

[16] SOHO and CLUSTER Investigation Drop Orders, not included]

[17] 3. Typical Confirmation Letter (SOHO/Brueckner/LASCO)

[18] 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 

20546

Reply to Attn of: ES

Dr. Guenter E. Brueckner

Code 4173

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington, DC 20375

Dear Dr. Brueckner,

NASA has completed the definition phase activities in support of the Solar Terrestrial

Science Program (STSP) for the Cluster and Solar and Heliospheric Observatory

(SOHO) Missions, jointly sponsored with the European Space Agency (ESA). It is my

pleasure to inform you that your investigation "Wide Field White Light Spectrometric

Coronagraph, for SOHO (LASCO)" originally proposed in response to the

Announcement of Opportunity OSSA-1-87 and modified by your definition phase study,

has been confirmed for the development, mission operations, and data analysis phases of

the STSP SOHO mission. The confirmed Co-Investigators (Co-I’s) on your investigation

team, along with confirmation assumptions and descope elements, are identified in

Enclosure 1. This confirmation is contingent on our ability to conclude a satisfactory

agreement with the European funding agencies for their support of your European Co-I’s.

The confirmation of your investigation is being made as a result of the careful

assessment of the scientific, technical, and financial requirements developed during the

242 SPACE PHYSICS
definition phase. We feel that your investigation can be performed within the resources

agreed upon with the NASA Project Office at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

during the definition phase, the engineering and conceptual design review, and the cost

confirmation meeting held in the summer of 1989. Your investigation request for

additional spacecraft resources will be negotiated during the ESA spacecraft prime

contractor definition phase.

The NASA Project Office will work closely with you to ensure that your investigation

is implemented within the agreed resources. However, because the NASA budget is fixed,

problems may arise which may cause NASA to request descope of your investigation,

beginning with the descope elements contained in Enclosure 1 and detailed in your

Development Phase Plan submitted to the NASA Project Office. If these measures are

unsuccessful, we may be forced to remove your investigation from this program.

Therefore, I urge you to work closely with the Project Office to control your costs and

schedules during the implementation of your investigation. Enclosure 2 describes the

Cost Control Plan that I have approved for this mission to be implemented through the

NASA Project Office.

I must stress that no PI is empowered to either enlarge the scope of his accepted

investigation or commit to any increase in NASA funds beyond that in the revised

proposal, as amended by the definition phase and the confirmation assumptions

contained in Enclosure 1, without prior consultation with and approval by the NASA

Program Office at Headquarters and the Project Office at GSFC.

[19] Enclosure 1 defines, by three broad categories of participation, the roles of each of

your U.S. Co-I’s, as based upon our understanding of your revised proposal:

(A) U.S. Co-I’s with responsibility for prelaunch development of flight hardware and

postlaunch data analysis;

(B) U.S. Co-I’s with responsibility for prelaunch preparation for mission operations

and/or data management critical to the execution of the investigation during the

operational phase of the mission, and postlaunch data analysis; and

(C) U.S. Co-I’s with responsibility for prelaunch science definition and postlaunch

data analysis only

Owing to the restrictions on NASA’s budgets, we wish to inform you and your U.S. CoI’s, by way of copy of this letter, that our policy regarding support for the U.S. Co-I’s, as

based on these three categories, will be as follows.

Prelaunch: With regard to categories (A) and (B), NASA is prepared to provide you

with funds for U.S. Co-I costs that are directly related to the production of flight hardware

and/or activities that are necessary to prepare for the mission operations and/or data

management, not to exceed that defined in the revised version of your proposal as

amended by the definition phase. With regard to category (C), we are prepared to provide

you with the funds for U.S. Co-I’s, as agreed to, only for participation in your science team

meetings.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 243
Postlaunch: With regard to all three categories, NASA will negotiate with you

regarding the support of your U.S. Co-I’s for their participation in mission operations,

data management and/or reduction, and data analysis activities consistent with their

defined role in your revised proposal as amended during the definition phase and, most

importantly, the extent allowed by NASA’s budget for this phase of the mission.

Consistent with our policies for non-U.S. Co-I’s on U.S. investigations, a letter of

agreement will eventually be executed between their national funding agency and NASA’s

International Relations Division confirming our mutual commitments.

You are reminded that NASA Management Instruction (NMI) 8030.3A, "Guidelines

for Acquisition of Investigations," which was enclosed in my letter of April 25, 1988,

continues to govern data use and data rights for your investigation.

The overall program management for the STSP/SOHO mission has been assigned to

the Space Physics Division of the Office of Space Science and Applications at NASA

Headquarters. Mr. M. Calabrese is the International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP)

Program Manager and Dr. J. D. Bohlin is the Program Scientist for the SOHO mission.

Project management responsibilities have been assigned to GSFC, where Mr. K. Sizemore

is the STSP Project Manager, Dr. M. Acuna is the Project Scientist, and Dr. A. Poland is the

Deputy Project Scientist for the SOHO mission. The GSFC/STSP Project Office will

provide you with more details about the development phase as part of the contract

negotiation process.

[20] NASA joins ESA in congratulating you and your team for submitting an

outstanding investigation for the STSP. We look forward to working closely with you for its

successful completion.

Sincerely,

L. A. Fisk

Associate Administrator for

Space Science and Applications

Enclosures

[21] cc:

J. Bohlin/HQ/ES

M. Calabrese/HQ/ES

M. Gaskins/HQ/EPS

L. Cline/HQ/XI

K. Sizemore/GSFC/407

M. Acuna/GSFC/695

M. Goldstein/GSFC/692 (Cluster) or A. Poland/GSFC/682(SOHO)

G. Cavallo/ESA HQ

P. LoGalbo/ESTEC

[22]

[p. 1 of 2]

244 SPACE PHYSICS
ENCLOSURE 1

• INVESTIGATION: LASCO

• PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: G. E. Brueckner/NRL

• U. S. CO-INVESTIGATORS:

(A) Design, Development, Hardware Provision and Data Analysis

J. D. Bartoe/NRL

D. J. Michels/NRL

G. A. Doschek/NRL

R. A. Howard/NRL

M. J. Koomen/Sachs-Freeman

D.G.Socker/NRL

(B) Design, Support without Hardware Provision, Pre-Launch Preparation for

Mission Operations and/or Data Management, and Data Analysis

K. P. Dere/NRL

F. Giovane/UFL, Gainesville

W. J. Wagner/NOAA SEL

(C) Data Analysis Only

S. K. Antiochos/NRL

C. C. Cheng/NRL

S. W. Kahler/Emmanuel College

J. T. Mariska/NRL

E. N. Parker/U. Chicago

N. R. Sheeley/NRL

R N. Smartt/NSO

• EUROPEAN CO-INVESTIGATORS:

J. L. Bougeret/Observatoire de Paris, Meudon

P. Daly/Max-Planck-Institut

R Giese/Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum

B. Inhester/Max-Planck-Institut

H. Keller/Max-Planck-Institut

S. Koutchmy/Rastitut d’Astrophysique

J. Kramm/Max-Planck-Institut 

P. Lamy/Lab d’Astronomie Spatiale

A. Llebaria/Lab d’Astronomie Spatiale

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 245
A. Maucherat/Lab d’Astronomie Spatiale

J.-C. Noens/Observatoire du Pic du Midi

[23]

[Brueckner p. 2 of 2]

• EUROPEAN CO-INVESTIGATORS - CONTINUED:

M. Pick/Observatoire de Paris, Meudon

H. Rosenbauer/Max-Planck-Institut

R. Schwenn/MPAE

• CONFIRMATION ASSUMPTIONS:

• Allowance for critical additional spacecraft resources by ESTEC

• Reduced data analysis support

• UK provision of structure & adjustable mounting legs

• German provision of C1 and aperture door mechanism for C1, C2 & C3

• French provision of C2 and filter/polarizer wheel mechanism for C1, C2 & C3

• NRL supplied electronics box common with EIT

• NRL provision of C3 instrument System, I & T, F-P for C1, all CCD cameras & shutters

• DESCOPE ELEMENTS:

• Selected performance reductions

• Reduced electronic effort/redundancy

• Reduced number of Fabry-Perot models

• Relaxed criteria for CCD selection

• Reduced instrument calibration/testing

[24] ENCLOSURE 2

SOLAR TERRESTRIAL SCIENCE PROGRAMME (STSP)

U. S. INVESTIGATION DEVELOPMENT PHASE

COST CONTROL PLAN

OBJECTIVE

EACH U.S. PI AND U.S. CO-I TO A EUROPEAN PI COMMUNICATES AND WORKS

WITH THE NASA PROJECT OFFICE TO CONTROL COSTS AND MAINTAIN

SCHEDULE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE INVESTIGATION

IN RESPONSE TO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CHANGES

PROCEDURE

U.S. PI/CO-I PROVIDES MONTHLY REPORTS ON CONTROLLED ITEMS (MASS,

POWER, MANPOWER, COST, SCHEDULE, ETC.) AND FORECASTS PROBLEM AREAS

246 SPACE PHYSICS
IN ADDITION TO REASSESSMENT OF ALL ASPECTS INCLUDING COST/

COMPLEXITY TO COMPLETE AT MAJOR MILESTONES (PDR, CDR, ETC.)

U.S. PI/CO-I WORKS WITH NASA PROJECT OFFICE TO ACCOMMODATE

INTERNAL CHANGES WITHIN FUNDING CAP BY INVOKING DESCOPE IDENTIFIED

IN INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN

NASA WILL AUGMENT FUNDING WITH OVERALL PROJECT RESERVES TO

ACCOMMODATE EXTERNAL CHANGES, AS APPROPRIATE AND AVAILABLE,

GIVING FULL CONSIDERATION TO NATURE, SOURCE, EXTENT, AND

CRITICALITY OF PROBLEM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT INDIVIDUAL

EXPERIMENTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DOMINATE USE OF RESERVES

IF COST CONTROL IS UNSUCCESSFUL, U.S. PI INVESTIGATION OR U.S. CO-I

SUPPORT OF EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED, AFTER

CAREFUL AND THOROUGH CONSULTATION WITH ESA, FOR REMOVAL FROM

PAYLOAD PENDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY AA/OSSA

Document II-20

Document Title: Guenter Riegler, Chief, Space Science Operations Branch, NASA

Headquarters, “Charter: OSSA Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) Blue Team,” 17

June 1992.

Source: Guenter Riegler

Document II-21

Document Title: Guenter Riegler, “OSSA MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program:

Implementation Plan,” 6 August 1992.

Source: Guenter Riegler

By the early 1990s, NASA was entering a time of the highest launch rate for science missions in the

history of the space program. Cost controls and procedures for missions in the development phase were

being initiated, but a significant fraction of the space science budget was going into operating its

ongoing missions. In 1992, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Lennard

Fisk asked Guenter Riegler (Chief, Space Science Operations Branch, NASA Headquarters) to put

together a Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) Blue Team. The charter of the team,

issued on 17 June 1992, was to seek efficiencies and reduce the cost of operating missions. Fisk’s

rationale for this activity was to create a funding wedge for new initiatives. Based on the work of the

Blue Team, Riegler issued a plan for improving the efficiency of NASA’s MO&DA activities in

August 1992.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 247
Document II-20

OSSA Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA)

Blue Team

Charter

Charter: The charter for the OSSA MO&DA Blue Team is to seek efficiencies and

reduce cost, while maintaining our science productivity. To this end we must be willing to

take more risks, accept more data outages, take advantage of multi-mission operations and

multi-mission science centers, and simplify the flow of information from missions and

centers to the science community. This Blue Team is concerned with MO&DA for Solar

System Exploration, Earth Sciences, Space Physics, and Astrophysics.

The objective of the cost reduction is to create a funding wedge for new initiatives.

The Associate Administrator for Space Science and Application will hold and apportion

the resulting savings for new OSSA projects.

Cost Reduction Baseline: The baseline for MO&DA cost reductions is the President’s

Funding Plan (PFP-93), as described in the POP 92-2 guidelines to the NASA centers.

Program augmentations (which have been considered by the AA/OSSA after issuance of

the POP 92-2 guidelines for submission in the FY94 budget to the Administrator) will not

be included in the baseline, but will be considered later independent of the Blue Team

effort. Lists of PFP-93 and POP 92-2 Guidelines are included as Attachment 1.

Cost Reduction Guidelines: Reductions below the above-mentioned baseline are

guidelined at 3% in FY93, 6% in FY94, 9% in FY95, 12% in FY96, and 15% in FY97 and

thereafter. As a starting point, the science grants programs are to be kept intact, and

significant reductions in the science content are not acceptable. As a further starting

point, the reduction guidelines apply to the total MO&DA program at each center, i. e. at

GSFC and separately at JPL. 

Organization: The MO&DA Blue Team is chartered by the Associate Administrator for

Space Science and Applications. This Blue Team works with the Red Team for "Robotic

Exploration of the Solar System and the Universe," chaired by Peter Burr (GSFC).

Team Membership: Team membership will consist of NASA civil servants and JPL

employees. The core of the MO&DA Blue Team consists of three persons from NASA

Headquarters and six persons each from GSFC and JPL. A comparable number of persons

is responsible for critical support and backup functions. Membership consists of a mix of

personnel from Programs, Projects, Science, and institutional support directorates. The

full list of MO&DA Blue Team participants is shown as Attachment 2.

Process: In order to meet the stringent schedule guidelines, the MO&DA Blue Team

began on June 1 to work initially as two subteams at GSFC and JPL, under HQ guidance,

with frequent telephone coordination between HQ and the leaders of the GSFC and JPL

subteams. The separate studies concentrated on the MO&DA programs at GSFC and at

JPL, respectively. Beginning on June 10, the full team met via videoconference to review

status and plans for a joint presentation to the Red Team on June 15, and a first status

presentation to the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications on June

16. The Final Report for the first phase of this effort is due on August 1, 1992.

248 SPACE PHYSICS
Program Elements: MO&DA programs consist of three major elements:

- "operations" including the use of space and ground networks, mission control,

flight operations, and flight project support,

- "science centers", also referred to as "science analysis centers", including project

or mission data processing, data analysis, archiving, and the use of infrastructure

for computing, science communications and archives, and

- science "grants programs", including support for instrument investigators,

guaranteed-time investigators, guest observers, and guest investigators.

Implementation: The MO&DA Blue Team is chartered to

- review current program plans and implementation practices,

- determine how the programs can be executed leaner, more efficient, cheaper,

- assess the balance between the "operations", "science center" and "grants

programs" elements and between different programs,

- develop a longer-range plan for continuous improvement in order to identify

further efficiencies, and to accomplish a 15% cost reduction in FY97 and

thereafter.

Attachments:

Att. 1: PFP-93 and POP 92-2 Guidelines

Att. 2: Blue Team Participants

Document II-21

OSSMA MO&DA

EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

G. Riegler

August 6, 1992

Summary

Objective:

The objective of this program is to answer the question “Is there a better (more

efficient) way for NASA to conduct mission operations and data analysis (MO&DA)?”

Approach:

The approach for this program is to

1. Identify innovations in programmatic, organizational, technical, and motivational

aspects of MO&DA projects, which are likely to generate efficiencies that cannot be

obtained by traditional cost-cutting measures, and assess their anticipated cost benefits or

science benefits;

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 249
2. Implement all necessary programmatic, organizational, technical, and motivational

changes for a select subset of MO&DA programs, and assess their actual impact, as

compared to the anticipated benefits.

About this Implementation Plan:

The work of the “OSSA MO&DA Blue Team” during June and July 1992, as well as

previous studies, resulted in a large number of ideas for improved efficiency of MO&DA

efforts. This Implementation Plan describes a transition from idea gathering to a

controlled test.

The plan contains background information, three steps towards establishing a

continuing program and identification of innovative efficiency measures and expected

benefits, and finally the implementation of those measures.

Background

Content of MO&DA Projects

The MO&DA budget line is now responsible for roughly one-quarter of the total

OSSA budget. Most MO&DA projects can be separated into three major elements: mission

operations, science operations and data processing, and science (data analysis and

interpretation). On average, the first two elements – “operations” comprise roughly onehalf of the non-development Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) budget.

Support for “science” (funding for instrument PIs and their teams, guest observers,

archival researchers, other members of the science community) amounts to toughly onehalf of the non-development MO&DA budget.

Results from Phase 1:

• Science Loss: Budget reductions in the 3%-6% range are achievable by traditional

methods with acceptable impacts to science. Reduction off 9% or more will result in

a serious reduction in science.

• No “Fat”: No glaring inefficiencies in the current conduct of mission operations were

discovered. Some minor efficiencies will be achieved by accepting higher risk levels

and obtaining “learning curve” efficiencies.

• Pre-Launch Actions: Only modest improvements seem achievable by missions

currently in their operational phase. The areas offering the greatest potential for

improvement require pro-launch actions.

Details of the Phase 1 results, including efficiency concepts and mission-by-mission

impacts, can be found in the OSSA MO&DA BLUE TEAM Phase 1 Final Report.

The OSSA MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program

Blue Team Recommendation for the Next Phase:

The Blue Team believes that it is imperative to proceed with

• A more detailed assessment of the recommended innovative long-term changes and

efficiencies,

250 SPACE PHYSICS
• Estimates of benefits to be obtained, and

• Implementation of selected non-traditional changes for selected MO&DA projects,

coupled with monitoring of actual impacts versus expected improvements.

We suggest that, in order to benefit from the potential for continuous improvement

in MO&DA performance, the ad hoc Blue Team needs to evolve into a continuing, formal

MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program.

Primary and Secondary Objectives:

For “operations”, the primary goal of the formal MO&DA Efficiency Improvement

Program is to pursue efficiencies and cost reductions to (1) create new budget flexibility,

and (2) lessen the science impact of budget reductions already mandated. As a secondary

objective, the MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program will also assess the productivity

and efficiency of the “science” part of MO&DA, and improve the connection between

science operations and “science”.

Step 1: Establish the NO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program

Program Implementation Options: How should this Program be Structured?

Members of the NO&DA Blue Team at NASA HQ, GSFC, and JPL will extract from

the results of Phase 1 the most promising set of efficiency improvement concepts and use

it as a “strawman program plan”. With this strawman plan, they will evaluate options for

implementing a continuing MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program, assess pros and

cons, and recommend a specific implementation option to AA/OSSA. Program options

to be considered will include

• Continuation of the present distributed approach (MO&DA associated with discipline

programs), with

• via the present “Blue Team” approach, or

• Coordination via an OSSA Staff function; and

• Formation of a centralized MO&DA program

Independent Review:

For the selected program structure, a detailed implementation plan will be generated.

The implementation plan will specify objectives and responsibilities, define products and

schedules, and provide a periodic independent oversight function. The Review Board will

include developers (Project and Program Managers), operators (flight operations and

science operations teams), and users (scientists). It will include personnel from NASA and

other government facilities, universities, and industry.

Schedule and Outcome:

This step should take roughly two months from initiation; the target date for completion

should be the beginning of FY93. The outcome of this step will be the establishment of

the MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program, and appointment of key persons.

Step 2: Characterize the Elements of the MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 251
Objectives:

This task builds on the work accomplished during Phase 1 of the MO&DA Blue Team

effort. Its objective is to identify the basic elements which comprise MO&DA (mission

operations, data processing and science operations, and science) and determine the

characteristics of those elements which most affect cost and science return. This will

provide the context for the Efficiency Improvement Program.

An important product of this step is the development of metrics and benchmarks for

operations and program efficiency. Recommendations and metrics will be collected from

past studies, and ideas will be solicited from a wide spectrum of sources, including working

level operations personnel, experienced operations managers, the science community,

and persons with no direct involvement in MO&DA.

Schedule:

Most of the work in this step is expected to require approximately two months from

initiation. A small part of this work will probbly [sic] be executed concurrent with the next step.

Step 3: Identify Candidate Efficiency Improvements and Assess their Impacts

Objectives:

During Phase 1 of the MO&DA Blue Team effort, a large number of ideas and

concepts for efficiency improvement were identified. They can be grouped according to

programmatic, organizational, technical, and motivational aspects.

The objectives of this step are to identify those concepts with the largest potential for

realizing efficiency improvements, and specific scenarios for test implementations. Some

of the evaluations will be in the form of side-by-side assessments, e. g. for life-cycle cost

caps vs. development cost caps. Analysis will include determination of potential cost

savings, cost-benefit assessments, the probability of successful implementation, the impact

on science output, and the required changes for their implementation (for example:

organizational realignments, up-front funding needs, construction of facility

requirements).

Four Categories of Efficiency Improvement Approaches:

We group the efficiency improvement concepts from Phase 1 into four categories. All

four appear inter-related – none can improve efficiency without the others.

• Programmatic: Remove development programs from MO&DA program budget line;

life cycle cost caps; changes in NASA risk policies and risk acceptance; requirement

for detailed review of operations concept at the time of the non-advocacy review

(NAR); charge back and full cost accounting (inter-office “purchases”, purchases

from multimission facilities, or purchases from outside sources); continuity (rather

than transfer) of Project management responsibility for the development and

operations phase.

• Organizational: Modifications of NASA and/or institutional organizations which

reduce cost. Issues include: centralized or distributed mission operations centers;

centralized or distributed science operations centers; multimission or mission-specific

252 SPACE PHYSICS
operations support; centralized (OSSA) or distributed (Divisions) NASA

management of MO&DA; efficiency of multi-layer management structures for science

facilities (e.g. Space Telescope Science Institute); and contracting philosophy (e.g. for

mission-unique vs. multi-mission flight operations team contracts).

• Technical: Operability; adoption of standards; use of expert systems and other

emerging technologies, partnering with industry and DoD, and sharing techniques

and expertise across NASA and the Flight Centers.

• Motivational: Policies which provide natural incentives for projects to improve cost

efficiency; incentives for the use of multimission standards and capabilities; postlaunch multi-year budget cap (science incentive to stretch observing phase by lowered

annual operation cost); incentives in individual and project performance plans.

Results of this Step: Selection of Projects and Efficiency Improvement Approaches

The result of this part of the program should be a set of recommendations to

AA/OSSA for specific efficiency improvement approaches, to be applied to specific

missions/projects. At the present time we expect to focus on a small subset of OSSA’s

programs, selected according to:

• Mission size: small (SMEX- or UNEX-type), medium (Explorer, Discoverer) and large

(observatory-class) ;

• Type of mission (earth-orbiting, deep-space, surveying, observatory-style mission); and 

• Mission phases: in early definition phase; during development; in primary mission

phase or extended mission phase.

The rationale for the recommendations, pros and cons, and expected results, as well

as success criteria, will be presented to AA/OSSA for selection.

Schedule:

This step is expected to require approximately six months from initiation. Some of

the recommendations might emerge earlier, and could be implemented earlier.

Implementation Phase

Implementation of the MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program will be compatible

with the principles of TQM. Specifically, within the context of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle

of Continuous Improvement, our Management Approach stresses planning and doing,

while the Reporting and Reviewing function stresses checking and acting.

Management Approach:

The form of management, and the roles of Headquarters and the Centers, depend on

the scope of the approved selections. We envision that – in order to avoid creating another

level of management – the most promising ideas will be assigned to specific individuals for

detailed “planning” and “doing”. These individuals may be located at NASA HQ, within a

flight project, or elsewhere at a Flight Center. These individuals must already have, or

must be specifically given, all necessary authority to turn into realities the efficiency

improvement ideas they have been assigned.

Reporting and Reviews

Monthly reports will be presented at the Flight Program and OSSA Monthly reviews.

All programs will report on the efficiency and performance metrics developed in Step 2.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 253
These metrics will be widely reported to stimulate discussion and encourage the adoption

of beneficial results. Periodic reviews of MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program results

will be held quarterly. These reviews will compare metrics from all programs and evaluate

the success of specific ideas. Success must be reinforced and failure acted upon.

Participation:

Ideally, individuals “from the trenches” of MO&DA should participate in the process.

Given the size of the OSSA MO&DA program, this participation must necessarily be limited

to keep the size of the MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Team at a reasonable level. Two

actions are planned to offset the relative lack of participation by individuals “from the

trenches”: 1) The MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Team should obtain at least 10% of its

members from the “hands-on” operators of flight and science operations centers, 2) local

arrangements should be made to provide a forum for all who want to contribute ideas to

the MO&DA Efficiency Improvement Program. These could be intensive “quality circles”

or more ad-hoc “open mike” events. Thousands of civil service and contractor personnel

support OSSA MO&DA – it is important that all of their ideas be brought forward.

Outcome

The outcome of this MO&DA efficiency improvement program should be conclusions

regarding those MO&DA approaches (programmatic, organizational, technical,

motivational) which did produce improvements versus those which did not. In either case,

the investments and results must be clearly understood and documented, and

disseminated for potential adoption in other projects.

Document II-22

Document Title: Memorandum from Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, to John

Dailey, Acting Deputy Administrator, “Program Management,” 15 June 1993.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Daniel S. Goldin became the NASA Administrator on 1 April 1992 with a mandate to reform the way

in which the Agency carried out its activities. Goldin mandated a “faster, better, cheaper” approach to

space science missions. In addition, he wanted to ensure that once a mission was approved, it would

be managed according to an agreed schedule and budget. His instrument for achieving that objective

was a top-level Program Management Council, which was established by this directive.

[no pagination]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Office of the Administrator 

Washington, DC 20546-0001

254 SPACE PHYSICS
June 15, 1993

TO: AD/Acting Deputy Administrator

FROM: A/Administrator

SUBJECT: Program Management

As the Agency’s Acquisition Executive, you are hereby directed to institute a NASA

Program Management Council. This council should function in accordance with the

enclosed charter and will be the chief governing body responsible for ensuring excellence

in program management throughout NASA. I will entertain proposed revisions to this

charter following a pilot implementation period.

In addition, you are assigned responsibility to direct the development of specific

implementing instructions for program management within the Agency. These

instructions should draw upon the efforts of the Program Excellence Team led by Dr.

Howard Robins. You are delegated authority to approve these instructions.

[signature]

Daniel S. Goldin 

Enclosure

cc: Officials-in-Charge of Headquarters Offices 

Director, NASA Field Installations 

Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Officials-in-Charge of Headquarters Offices: 

AC/Gen. Dailey 

AF/Gen. Dailey 

AK/Dr. Fisk 

AG/Dr. Griffin 

B/Mr. Peterson 

C/Mr. Rack 

D/Mr. Aldrich 

E/Dr. Freeman 

F/Gen. Armstrong 

G/Mr. Frankle 

H/Ms. Lee

I/Ms. Finarelli

J/Ms. Cooper 

K/Mr. Thomas 

L/Mr. Lawrence

M/Gen. Pearson 

O/Mr. Force 

P/Mr. Vincent 

Q/Mr. Hertz 

R/Dr. Harris 

S/Dr. Huntress 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 255
T/Dr. Broedling 

U/Dr. Holloway 

W/Mr. Colvin 

Y/Dr. Tilford

Directors NASA Field Installations: 

ARC/Dr. Compton 

GSFC/Dr. Klineberg 

JSC/Mr. Cohen 

KSC/Mr. Crippen 

LaRC/Mr. Holloway 

LeRC/Mr. Ross 

MSFC/Mr. Lee 

SSC/Mr. Estes

Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

Dr. Stone

[enclosure]

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CHARTER

Background

NASA requires a well-defined system of integrated planning, approval and

implementation for Agency programs to assure that the Agency initiates programs

Consistent with its strategic plain and available resources and conducts them in

accordance with the commitments made for each program it initiates. The Agency also

requires a forum to involve the highest level of program officials in efforts to address

issues pertaining to program/project management policy and implementation.

Objective

The objective of the PMC is to provide an Agency-level forum for addressing strategic

planning, implementation, and management of all major Agency programs. It shall

support the Deputy Administrator in:

(1) Assuring that the Agency functions as an integrated system in planning,

approving, and implementing its mission to meet its commitments within

available resources; and

(2) Meeting his/her functional management responsibilities for program/project

management policy development, maintenance and oversight. 

Functions

a. Major System Program/Project Formulation and Implementation - the PMC will

accomplish integrated:

(1) Planning, approval, and prioritization recommendation to the Administrator for

all candidate major system programs and projects: and

(2) Review and assessment of those subsequently approved programs and projects (at

256 SPACE PHYSICS
key decision points requiring Administrator approval) from their initiation

through completion of mission operations.

In accomplishing these functions, the Council will address the following

Program/Project Formulation and Implementation related matters:

(1) Compatibility of Phase 8 candidates with the NASA Strategic Plan and with

projected resources availability (funding and institutional).

(2) Adequacy of proposed:

(a) Program and project organizational structure (including assignments and

interfaces); and

(b) Program control policies and systems.

(3) Priority and readiness for initiation of Phase B (mission need established, initial

specification of performance requirements).

(4) Readiness of programs and projects to submit new start request for Phase C/D

(maturity of requirements and corresponding adequacy of technical and

management definition; validation of technology readiness, cost estimates, and

resources availability).

(5) Conformance of programs/projects to their PCA’s [Program Commitment

Agreements].

(6) Recommended cancellation or continuation of programs and projects, as

required (including whenever the PAA or CFO/Comptroller projects an EAC

that exceeds the PCC or DCC component of the PCC by more than 15%) .

(7) Special issues arising in the planning and execution of the agency major system

program.

b. Technology and Advanced Development Program Review and Assessment - the

Council will review, assess, and make recommendations regarding major technology

and advanced development programs after considering future mission need, the

potential for multi-mission or multi-program use, the potential return on investment

(in terms of both cost and performance) for both agency and commercial use,

readiness to begin the proposed phase of RAT development, and the realism of the

funding profile and identified Agency benefits.

c. Program/Project Functional Management Support – the Council will serve as the

agency’s highest level forum for addressing issues related to program/project

management (including acquisition) policies, systems and processes. For this

purpose, the Council’s programmatic functions will include providing oversight to

insure conformance with these agency policies, systems and procedures. The Council

will identify needed revisions resulting from this oversight and will review and assess

proposed revisions from all sources.

Membership & Operation

The Program Management council will consist of the following:

• Deputy Administrator, Chairperson

• Associate Administrator for Advanced Concepts and Technology

• Associate Administrator for Space Systems Development

• Associate Administrator for Space Flight

• Associate Administrator for Space Communications

• Associate Administrator for Aeronautics

• Associate Administrator for Space Science

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 257
• Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

• Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth

• Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Quality

• Comptroller

• Associate Administrator for Procurement

• General Counsel

As Chairperson of the Council, the Deputy Administrator is authorized to convene

the Council, as necessary, to discharge the responsibilities and perform the functions of

the Council. Attendance and participation by others will be as determined by the

Chairperson. The results of the Council’s assessments will be presented to the

Administrator in the form of findings and recommendations.

Document II-23

Document Title: J. R. Dailey, Acting Deputy Administrator and Chairman, Program

Management Council, to Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, “Special Review of Global

Geospace Science (GGS) Program,” 20 April 1994.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The first program to be reviewed for possible cancellation by the Program Management Council

established in 1993 by NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was the Global Geospace Science Program.

Rather than cancel the program, the Management Council recommended to Goldin a phased

approach to carrying out the program.

[no page number]

[stamped] APR 20 1994

TO: A/Administrator

FROM: AD/Chairman, Program Management Council

SUBJECT: Special Review of Global Geospace Science (GGS) Program

On April 5, 1994, the Program Management Council (PMC) conducted a special

review of GGS program options. An attendance list is enclosed.

Problems associated with the GGS program were first noted by the PMC in the first

Quarterly Program Status Review of March 10, 1994. Concerns were reaffirmed in the

Independent Annual Review (IAR) report presented to the PMC on March 24, 1994. It is

noted, that during the FY 1995 budget formulation process, Code S, in coordination with

Code B, has been reporting concerns which might lead to serious GGS program problems

during the first and second quarters of FY 1994. Congressional notification was included

in the first FY 1994 Operating Plan letter.

258 SPACE PHYSICS
The program office presented a comprehensive briefing of the program’s history and

science objectives. Particular attention was given to the essential role of the Wind and

Polar spacecraft in the International Solar Terrestrial Program (ISTP). It was pointed out

that there are 37 international agreements for GGS alone with an aggregate partner

investment of approximately $140 million. This does not include the substantial

contribution of ESA in Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and Cluster, in which

the United States participates through the Collaborative Solar Terrestrial Research

(COSTR) Program (another part of ISTP).

The GGS Project Manager presented an overview and status of the Wind and Polar

spacecraft, including their instrument complement. He highlighted the problems

associated with the Martin Marietta East Windsor facility where the two spacecraft are

being built. A Launch-1-year independent review, conducted in the summer of 1993,

identified a number of concerns. The project accepted and addressed the review

recommendations while acknowledging a threat to the launch readiness dates. Then, in

August and September 1993, three spacecraft, built at the East Windsor facility (Mars

Observer, NOAA-13, and Landsat 6), failed following launch. These failures have resulted

in a series of focused efforts to assure mission success on the Wind and Polar spacecraft.

[2] A Wind Laboratory (spacecraft) Independent Readiness Review (IRR), chaired by

Code Q, was chartered by the Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Science.

This technical review was conducted concurrent with the IAR. These reviews were limited

to the Wind spacecraft. The IRR team assessed both the thoroughness of the

development, integration, and verification process and the ability of laboratory hardware,

software, and ground systems. The IRR team reported seven significant findings and

provided associated recommendations. The Wind Laboratory IRR team’s conclusion,

“assuming no further major technical issues are uncovered either in current on-going

reviews or in the proposed testing program: risk associated with the Wind mission meeting

the mission success criteria is acceptable.”

Examples of confidence were cited in four areas:

(1) The problem-plagued power supply of NOAA-13 shares little direct heritage with Wind.

(2) The orbit of Wind is relatively benign compared to the NOAA-13 orbit.

(3) The stable-spinner spacecraft design has proven reliability.

(4) The flight software is modest in scope and criticality (updatable from the ground).

In addition to the Wind Laboratory IRR conducted by Code Q, a mission-success

review team from Martin Marietta and Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is examining

the spacecraft design.

The project office presented three options which were considered for continuing the program:

Option A - Continuation of the full program (unmodified) – launch both spacecraft

as soon as possible.

Option B - Launch Wind as soon as possible; store Polar.

Option C - Continuation of full program (modified) – launch Wind as soon as

possible; delay Polar, pending results from Wind.

Option C was the recommendation selected by the GGS Program Associate

Administrator for the following reasons:

(1) It permits single-string processing, Wind then Polar, removing pressure of

simultaneous development;

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 259
[3] (2) It allows Martin Marietta more time to implement organizational changes to

benefit Polar;

(3) It allows a full year of flight experience on Wind before Polar is launched;

(4) It retains a full commitment to the science community; and

(5) It reduces FY 1994 need for additional funds.

The additional forecasted funding does not violate the program’s 15-percent

development cost threshold. The baselined launch schedule, however, is broken. The new

proposed launch readiness dates are November 4, 1994, for Wind, and November 21,

1995, for Polar.

The PMC members proffered a number of challenging and penetrating questions

and comments. Responses often elicited further questions. The remarks were directed to

the reasons for the current situation in an effort to avoid repetition.

In response to one question, the PMC was told that NASA’s portion of the East

Windsor Facility’s business was relatively small. NASA, therefore, had been unable to affect

needed infrastructure changes. It was only after the three failures that management

recognized the threat to the total business complement.

It was commented that, although we have fixed or are fixing problems and will verify

all known problem resolutions, there is no guarantee we have identified all problems.

There is still risk.

In executive session, the PMC members agreed to endorse a plan to proceed with

Option C. The following actions and assumptions are added to the endorsement:

(1) The Comptroller will review and verify the cost to complete funding requirements

by April 15, 1994.

(2) OSS will absorb the cost differential within the OSS budget. The specific

recommended actions to absorb the cost differentials will be identified by July 1,

1994.

(3) OSS will alert the science community that continuing GGS will reduce the funds

available for new starts by June 1, 1994.

(4) GSFC will rework the fee structure to focus on on-orbit performance by August 1,

1994.

(5) GSFC/Code B/Code G/Code H/Code S will develop a contract strategy for

Polar, e.g., capping cost, by August 1, 1994.

(6) Code G/Code H to review NASA procurement policy to place additional

emphasis on the evaluation of cost realism (underbidding by 50 percent in this

case) in the mission suitability evaluation of contract proposals by August 1, 1994.

(7) The Wind Laboratory IRR team will be available to the GGS program for special

tasks such as a Polar review.

In addition to the above actions, the Option C plan is modified to specifically include:

(a) The Wind Laboratory IRR team will conduct a delta IRR as part of the System

Acceptance review.

(b) The Wind Laboratory IRR team will conduct an IRR of Polar.

(c) After the successful launch and initial operation of Wind, the Polar budget and

schedule will be verified by Code B.

(d) The verified Polar plan will be reviewed with the science community specifically

delineating the impact of continuing Polar on other existing or planned

programs.

(e) The coordinated Polar plan will be presented to the PMC for recommendation to

the administrator.

260 SPACE PHYSICS
In conclusion, the PMC recognized the Agency’s risk in continuing GGS. Option C

offers NASA the best opportunity for success. The PMC recommends that the GGS

Program be permitted to proceed with Option C, modified by the aforementioned

applicable actions and assumptions.

The PMC will continue to monitor the GGS progress through the Quarterly Program

Status Reviews.

[signature]

J. R. Dailey

Enclosure

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Global Geospace Science (GGS) Special Review

April 5, 1994

ATTENDEES

AD/Gen. Dailey

AT/Mr. Mott

AS/Dr. Cordova

ABA/Mr. Lee

B/Mr. Peterson

CF/Mr. Levine

D/Mr. Aldrich

G/Mr. Frankle

HS/Mr. Fournier

J/Ms. Cooper

M/Mr. Mann

O/Mr. Force

Q/Mr. Gregory

S/Dr. Huntress

U/Dr. Nicogossian

Y/Mr. Townsend

Document II-24

Document Title: George Withbroe, NASA, “Living With a Star: The Sun-Earth

Connection,” 3 August 1999.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 261
Associate Administrator for Space Science Edward Weiler in 1999 encouraged George Withbroe, who

was in charge of NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection space science theme, to continue to push a new

concept he had developed, in which space physics missions would perform the scientific research

necessary to support a variety of practical applications with respect to space weather and its effect on

our society and life. (Space weather is the term describing the conditions in space, including the

behavior of the Sun and its interactions with Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere, that influence

Earth and its technological systems.) Weiler wanted to pitch this concept to NASA Administrator

Daniel Goldin; Withbroe prepared a presentation for this new concept, named “Living With a Star”

(LWS). The first opportunity Withbroe had to present the LWS program to Goldin was at a 3 August

1999 Science Council Meeting. Goldin enthusiastically supported the concept, and it became part of

NASA’s space science program.

[slide]

Living With a Star

The Sun-Earth Connection

August 3, 1999

George Withbroe

NASA Headquarters

[slide]

The Sun-Earth Connected System

Variable Star Planet

Varying

• Radiation

• Solar Wind

The Sun • Energetic Particles Earth’s Magnetosphere

Interacting

• Solar Wind

• Energetic Particles

Interacting

• Magnetic Fields

• Plasmas

• Energetic Particles

Questions:

• How and why does the Sun vary?

262 SPACE PHYSICS

Interacting

• Magnetic Fields

• Atmosphere

• Plasmas

• Energetic Particles
• How do the Earth and planets respond?

• What are the impacts on humanity?

[slide]

Sun-Earth System -- Driven by 11 Year Solar Cycle

Solar Maximum:

• Increased flares, solar mass ejections, radiation belt enhancements.

• 100 Times Brighter X-ray Emissions 0.1% Brighter in Visible

• Increased heating of Earth’s upper atmosphere; solar event induced ionospheric effects.

Declining Phase, Solar Mnimum [sic]:

• High speed solar wind streams, solar mass ejections cause geomagnetic storms.

[slide]

Why Do We Care?

• Solar Variability Affects Human Technology, Humans in Space, and Terrestrial

Climate.

• The Sphere of the Human Environment Continues to Expand Above and Beyond Our

Planet.

- Increasing dependence on space-based systems

- Permanent presence of humans in Earth orbit and beyond

[slide]

Solar Variability Can Affect Human Space Flight

• Radiation Protection operations for future human missions both to the ISS and to Mars, as

would be provided by SOHO and STEREO; exposure applies to high latitude airline flight.

• Space Station Orbit is Exposed to High Energy Solar Particles

Issue: Requires focused research effort to improve knowledge about risk levels and

possible risk mitigation techniques.

[slide]

What can we do about it? Goals of the Living With a Star Initiative

1. Quantify physics and dynamics of the Sun-Earth connected system due to the 11 year

solar cycle.

- Obtain improved and continuous measurements of system disturbances.

- Understand the solar cycle. For long-range forecasting & assessing solar role in

climate change.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 263
2. Develop predictive models for the system that:

- Demonstrate understanding of physics.

- Have utility for prediction of space weather.

3. Minimize impact of space weather on technology and human space and aero flight.

- Determine space environmental conditions.

Needed for design of systems to minimize sensitivity to space weather.

- Develop improved techniques for predicting space weather events and their

access to ISS and to human explorers in deep space.

Apply a systems approach.

[slide]

I. Accelerate: Solar Terrestrial Probes

Why?

• Studying Sun-Earth connected system requires simultaneous observation of

interacting regions

• FY00 budget: Missions have 2 yr design life and are launched at 2.5 yr intervals.

- Limits synergism between missions studying different regions of Sun-Earth

system.

• Goal: 1.5 year interval between missions.

[slide]

What is Still Missing?

1. Missing: Detailed information on dynamics of solar interior and the dynamo that

generate and control solar variability, especially long term cycle irradiance.

Solution: A Solar Dynamics Observatory (Next Generation SOHO) providing high

time & spatial resolution data to probe:

- Solar interior & the subsurface structures underlying regions generating solar

disturbances.

- Dynamics of magnetic structures in solar atmosphere where these

disturbances occur.

2. Missing: Continuous observations of solar regions generating solar disturbances

("solar weather patterns"); measurements of solar interior from other side of Sun.

 Solution: Solar Sentinels:

- To observe the entire solar surface, including far side from Earth.

264 SPACE PHYSICS
- To observe globally & in stereo solar wind disturbances from Sun into

interplanetary space.

- To obtain "missing" seismology data from solar far side.

3. Missing: Detailed information on the dynamics of the terrestrial space environment

during geospace disturbances from short space weather to climactic time scales.

Solution: A Geospace Dynamics Network:

- Network of spacecraft to provide data with sufficient spatial and temporal

coverage to specify the dynamics of disturbances affecting geospace and the

neutral atmosphere.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 265

Chapter Three

Life Sciences in Space

by Joan Vernikos

Introduction

Pursuing research in the life sciences in an engineering agency like NASA is unlike

pursuing any other science in both its breadth and culture. Life sciences encompass every

aspect of research and technology involving living organisms that has an impact on, is

affected by, or requires the ability to leave Earth and go into space. Space provides the

only milieu to study how environmental variables characteristic of Earth, such as gravity,

have shaped life on Earth. Such knowledge could be applied to developing treatments for

diseases on Earth or to preparing astronauts for a healthy return to Earth after flight. The

eventual ability to study how life may evolve in the absence of gravity by following multiple

generations of life forms in Earth orbit would direct biologists more precisely to what

evidence of life forms they may seek on other planets. Going into space is ultimately

needed to answer the question of whether we are alone in the universe.

Operating in the alien environment of space requires systems developed to support

life forms in this environment, whether they are cells, plants, animals, or humans.

Technologies and research methods must be miniaturized and improved, and, where

possible, automated, because of weight and power constraints. Although NASA is the

primary customer for these technologies, instrumentation and life-support systems

developed for space research purposes find significant technological, scientific, and

engineering applications in many non-NASA domains. The development of reliable,

closed ecological life-support systems has provided a small test bed of that larger life

support system, Earth. 

To understand life sciences in space, one must appreciate their significant cultural

differences with other sciences carried out by NASA missions. The diversity of life sciences

ranges from the search of how life forms to understanding how the human body changes

away from Earth, and how best to help astronauts readjust to Earth after spaceflight.

Biologists see these apparently diverse questions as a logical continuum in the development

of a knowledge base, requiring similar expertise and approaches. Nonbiologists, organized

around their facilities, whether telescope or spacecraft missions, tend to separate their

research questions according to the facility needed to answer the question. 

The dispersion through repeated reorganizations over the past forty years of life

sciences among NASA Headquarters functions and offices has its roots in the conflict of

these cultures. On the one hand, space missions and other sciences require support from

life sciences. On the other hand, the science community, through its many reviews and

consistent recommendations, sees frequent access to space as what life sciences most need

to advance understanding and knowledge of life on Earth and the universe. A persistent

267
issue also has been the relationship between NASA Headquarters and various NASA Field

Centers, and the rivalry between these Centers. Centers with lead roles in life sciences

have usually reported institutionally to other Headquarters programs. Life sciences have

never had complete authority over the space missions they needed.

This essay chronicles the fluctuating fortunes of life sciences caught between these

two views. Medical care of the crew and other operational issues relating to astronaut

health will be dealt with in later volumes in this series. After discussing the origins of space

life sciences research and of the NASA life sciences program, the essay traces the longrunning debate over the best way to organize for life sciences within NASA. It then reviews

various life sciences research efforts, first those conducted on robotic spacecraft, and then

those involving human presence in orbit. The essay concludes with a discussion of various

other elements of the space life sciences effort and brief reflections on the future of this

area of space research. 

Before Sputnik

Almost as soon as humans learned how to propel bodies upward into the atmosphere,

a fly, worm, or other living thing was attached to whatever payload was being launched “to

see what happens.” At the end of World War II, balloons rising to 97,000 feet were used to

study the effects of radiation on living organisms. Air Force scientists at the Holloman and

Wright-Patterson Air Force Bases used such balloons to provide up to twenty-eight-day

exposures in “space,” flying fruit flies, fungus spores, mice, and even monkeys.1 In

addition to the effects of radiation, they studied changes in respiration and blood

pressure. Later they used rockets equipped with a camera to observe animals in

microgravity freefall at altitudes up to 236,000 feet. At the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in

Huntsville, Alabama, Wernher von Braun and the other Germans who came to the United

States after the war were working with recoverable nose cones. Von Braun’s deputy for

research was Ernst Stuhlinger. Although a physicist, he had an undergraduate degree in

biology and was interested in biological studies in space. The following poem he wrote for

von Braun in 1959 exemplifies Stuhlinger’s enthusiasm and vision of space biology:

I doubt that you remember me,

I am an urchin from the sea

Where once my unlaid eggs did swell

Is nothing but an empty shell.

These eggs though, and God bless your heart,

In Jupiter they had a part,

Where in their own peculiar ways

They registered some cosmic rays

268 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

1. A complete survey of this research at Holloman during this period is in David Bushnell’s, History of

Research in Space Biology and Biodynamics, 1948–1958 (Holloman AFB, NM, Air Force Missile Development Center,

1958) and J. H. Hanrahan and David Bushnell, Space Biology: The Human Factor in Space Flight, pp.139–149 (New

York: Basic Books, 1960).
And had, while on a weightless ride,

Their tiny little cells divide.

They cut, though modest still and frail,

For living man an open trail

To Space. 

Their trail, we hope, will grow

And help man’s daring goal: to go

Perhaps in ten years or eleven

Directly to the Gates of Heaven!2

In December 1957, soon after the Soviet Union launched Sputniks 1 and 2, the

Rocket and Satellite Research Panel, a group of scientists who were among the first to plan

experiments in space, called a meeting in Washington to discuss how to best organize for

an expanded U.S. space program. (See Volume V, Document I-11.) The panel, chaired by

James Van Allen, included scientists from universities, industry, government agencies, and

the Huntsville group. There Stuhlinger met Richard S. Young, who was working with sea

urchins at Woods Hole. He asked him to come to Huntsville to develop biological flight

experiments. The Army’s Redstone rockets gave about 30 seconds of microgravity, useless

for biological experiments. Nevertheless, they provided a learning opportunity to build

hardware and environmental control systems for temperature, atmosphere, pressure, and

fluid handling necessary to maintain living systems in the hostile environment of space.

Recovery ships would sail from San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Young would set up a

rudimentary laboratory on the ship. This was truly a new frontier. No one had ever had

the ability to study the effects of less than one gravity on living systems before.

The advent of the orbiting spacecraft made such research possible, but getting the

gravitational field in the spacecraft down closer to zero was (and remains) a serious

challenge. There were always things going on in a spacecraft that impart gravity-producing

accelerations to the vehicle, such as motors starting and stopping, firing of positioning

rockets to keep the vehicle stable and prevent it from tumbling, valves opening and closing,

not to mention the far greater disturbances when a human is also in the spacecraft. 

Questions asked in those early experiments were fundamental and important to biology.

(See Document III-1.) What was the threshold of sensitivity of living plant and animal cells

to gravity? While scientists knew that both plants and animals had gravity sensors and

respond to gravity, what were those sensors, how sensitive were they to the amount and

duration of gravity input, and how important were those inputs to the functioning and

evolution of organisms? Suppose an egg was fertilized in 0.001 or 0.0001 of Earth’s gravity

and allowed to develop, what would happen? Some predicted the answer would be nothing.

Others thought otherwise. More than forty years later, there is still not a complete answer to

these questions, in large part because of limited experimental flight opportunities. 

Meanwhile, the race for putting humans in space was on. Beginning in 1951, the

Soviets were flying a variety of living specimens and animals such as mice, rats, and dogs

to determine what was needed for survival. Most experiments were not designed to

allow recovery of the experimental animal. The dog Laika was launched on Sputnik 2

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 269

2. Autobiography of Richard S. Young, Cape Canaveral, May 1996, unpublished manuscript, p. 38.
on 3 November 1957. No recovery was attempted, but the animal survived one week in

space. The U.S. Air Force also successfully flew rhesus monkeys on sounding rockets,

but did recover them after flight. First to fly was Albert in 1948, later Ham and Able, and

then Baker, who returned to live a long life at the Primate Center at Holloman Air Force

Base.3 Much was learned about space not being life threatening as long as a reliable lifesupport system was provided. Prediction that eyes would pop out or of an inability to

swallow were refuted by these first biological flights and paved the way for the first

humans venturing into space.

After Sputnik—The Creation of NASA

The successful launch of the first two Sputniks and the disappointing failure of the

first Vanguard provided the impetus in the United States to create an organized space

program. As with other events that are seen as hurting American pride and its standing in

the world, congressional hearings were held and expert advice sought as to how best to

rally the country and organize for space.4 President Eisenhower proposed that the

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) serve as the core of a new space

agency. He signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act on 29 July 1958, creating

NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Even before the President signed the Space Act, the National Academy of Science

(NAS) moved quickly to take a leading role in shaping the new Agency’s space science

program. On 4 June 1958, Detlev Bronk, President of the Academy, established the Space

Science Board (SSB, renamed the Space Studies Board in 1986), chaired by Lloyd V.

Berkner; on 27 June, the Board held its first meeting. It was quick to begin identifying

scientific areas and experiments to be carried out in space and formed twelve ad hoc

committees. The ad hoc Committee on Psychological and Biological Research was chaired

by H. K. Hartline, with S. S. Stevens as Vice Chair. This was the first attempt at a space life

sciences planning and advisory function of the NAS. The Board was charged by Bronk to

address “payload composition, relative importance of experiments, expectancy, timing,

environmental effects, orbital requirements, and so forth, in relation to the effort and cost

involved.” Harold C. Urey, who had a strong interest in the origins of life, emphasized the

need for the committee to develop expertise in the area through symposia, publications,

and appropriate membership. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term plans were developed,

and experiments in the growth of living tissue and psychology were put forth as areas to

pursue. Hartline and Stevens identified Orr Reynolds at the Office of Naval Research

(ONR) and W. R. Lovelace as being excellent sources of information. Lovelace was highly

respected for his work in aerospace physiology and medicine. 

The SSB went beyond Bronk’s charge, and, by 3 July 1958, he sent out a telegram

solicitation asking for experiment ideas intended to broaden the base of interested

270 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

3. Hanrahan and Bushnell, Space Biology, pp. 139–149.

4. The essays and documents in John M. Logsdon, et al., Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the

History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Vol. I, “Organizing for Exploration,” NASA SP-4407, 1995, provide

background information on the formation of NASA.
scientists. Furthermore, it was prepared to review and select proposals—the first attempt

at setting up a peer-review system for space science. However, this was not to be. The new

NASA leadership quickly took charge, making sure the SSB understood its role was to

recommend program “guiding principles” both in content and in policy, whereas NASA’s

responsibility was the formulation and management of the program. (See Volume V,

Chapter 1, and Documents I-13 through I-17 for a discussion of NASA-SSB interactions

at that time.) The SSB and its Subcommittee on Biology and Medicine had served as the

independent voice of the scientific community and made continuing recommendations

as to what life sciences should emphasize and what its role within NASA and its

relationship to other NASA functions should be. NASA, unfortunately, only partly

heeded its advice.

Birth of NASA’s Space Life Sciences Program

When T. Keith Glennan became the first NASA Administrator in October 1958, there

were no life sciences programs at any of the research centers that formed the core of the

new Agency. He had the option of turning this research area over to other agencies such

as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or

to the military, in particular the U.S. Air Force (USAF), which had an active biomedical

program in anticipation of sending humans into space.

Glennan did not wish to enlarge his staff, but he saw the need to ensure coordination

with the military when presenting life sciences requirements and activities to Congress

and the President, and to have a single point of contact in NASA for scientists from the

external community. He formed a Special Advisory Committee for Life Sciences (SACLS)

using external consultants. Lovelace was asked to chair it. He and his committee foresaw

the continuing need for life sciences input into the space program and recommended a

high-level life sciences office and a centralized life sciences research facility. A review by

W. L. Hjornevik, staff assistant to Glennan, reached the same conclusion—NASA was

underestimating the importance of biomedicine to the effective management of

spacecraft projects. In November 1958, Glennan hired Douglas L. Worf as Chief of

Biology and Life Support Systems. He reported to Abe Silverstein, the Director of the

Office of Space Flight Development. Worf was a biophysicist from the Atomic Energy

Commission and had previously been at the ONR, where he worked with Orr Reynolds.

However, his efforts to develop a biology program compatible with NASA engineering

goals were soon thwarted.5

By early 1959, it was apparent to Glennan that NASA was in danger of becoming

totally dependent on the military for life sciences research and development (R&D). A

tug-of-war began with the Air Force, which was maneuvering to gain control of any postMercury human spaceflight program. In March 1959, Glennan appointed to his staff

Special Assistant in Life Sciences Clark T. Randt, a respected neurophysiologist and

clinical researcher from Case Western Reserve University Medical School. He gave him

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 271

5. For an extensive early history of life sciences in NASA, see John Pitts, The Human Factor, NASA SP-4213,

1985.
the charge of developing NASA’s long-range requirements in life sciences. Glennan also

formed the Bioscience Advisory Committee (BAC), composed of consultants with basic

research backgrounds. Its purpose was to recommend to NASA appropriate roles and

responsibilities for life sciences, and to suggest organizational changes that would improve

the disciplines.

Randt claimed NASA needed to give high priority to basic biomedical research and to

integrate all life sciences research and development. Noting that the life sciences

comprised a continuum from basic research in biology to clinical practice, he suggested

that the organization and management of NASA’s programs should reflect this. In

practical terms, this meant that the four primary activities—space biology, human

research, biotechnology, and space medicine—should be administered within a single life

sciences program office. He also urged the creation of a life sciences research program at

a NASA Field Center. An active program of grants and contracts to life scientists would fall

under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Life Sciences Program Office. (See

Document III-2.)

In February 1960, Randt produced what could be considered as the first Strategic Plan

for life sciences. He proposed a progressive and integrated approach of ground and flight

research, including flight missions ranging from short (two to seven days), to intermediate

(ten to thirty days), to long duration (beyond six months). These missions would include

both subhuman and human organisms. He further identified a program of biological

research focused on the origin and evolution of life, and the search for extraterrestrial life

forms. The wisdom and logic of this plan stood the test of time. It has been followed,

perhaps unknowingly, yet at least in principle, by the successive life sciences management

organizations. However, it could not be followed in toto because access to flight for life

sciences research had not provided the appropriate mission duration nor the needed

research capabilities. 

The BAC was chaired by psychiatrist and basic researcher Seymour Kety. Kety’s

committee produced the first external report on how best to organize life sciences within

NASA. (See Document III-4.) Of all the external reviews of NASA’s life sciences efforts,

this is perhaps the most significant report historically, not only because it is

comprehensive, but also because subsequent committees consistently produced similar

recommendations. However, only Glennan came close to implementing them. In March

1960, Glennan established the Office of Life Sciences Programs (OLSP), with Randt as its

Director, placing the OSLP on the same level as the other program offices at NASA

Headquarters. This changed the initial NASA Headquarters organization from three

program offices to four, with OLSP on par with the Office of Launch Vehicle Programs,

the Office of Space Flight Programs, and the Office of Advanced Research Programs.

Randt moved ahead on the recommendations of the Kety report, dividing the Office

of Life Sciences Programs into the following three divisions: Space Biology, which

included ground and flight research investigations; Space Medical and Behavioral

Science, a program in ground and flight research in human physiology and behavior; and

Flight Medicine, the operational research in support of human flight. He then developed

a ten-year plan, strongly justifying a NASA life sciences research program. Randt also

lobbied for jurisdiction over the biomedical aspects of the Mercury Project, but this

initiative was rejected by Abe Silverstein, the Associate Administrator for Space Flight

272 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Programs. Thus began a constant argument between engineers and physical scientists on

the one hand and life scientists on the other that has caused tensions ever since. Randt

feared that Silverstein’s haste to put a human in orbit would result in losing a man in space

and set back human spaceflight indefinitely. Silverstein and his engineers feared that

Randt would interpose research flights with animals to verify a human’s ability to live in

microgravity, thereby delaying Mercury and giving the Soviets an opportunity to orbit the

first human. (See Document III-3.) Physical scientists joined with the engineers in this

attack, since animal research flights would spend funds which they believed they could use

to better advantage. Glennan began to waver in his commitment to the life sciences

program and, by the end of 1960, slowed down Randt’s proposed schedule.

Nevertheless, Glennan encouraged Randt to move ahead on the development of a life

sciences program at a NASA Center. By late June 1960, Randt had identified the Ames

Research Center in California and the newly constructed Goddard Space Flight Center in

Maryland as candidate locations. Glennan indicated he would select Ames as the site, but

he made no firm commitment.6 Both Centers were surrounded by strong academic and

research institutions, but Ames had research expertise in human factors and

biotechnology from its NACA days. To encourage regular interaction with the human

spaceflight program, Glennan had first considered moving all aspects of life sciences

research to be near the main human spaceflight activity, then based in the Space Task

Group (STG) at the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. When he suggested

moving it all to California, he met political resistance. 

Opposition to NASA’s life sciences plans also came from congressional concern about

possible duplication of effort between the Air Force and NASA.7 The Air Force was

continuing to question the scope of NASA’s life sciences program, and the military

recruited congressional support in the persons of Rep. Emilio Daddario (D-Connecticut)

and Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-Minnesota). The scope and quality of NASA’s life sciences

research also came under attack by critics in the scientific community, who saw little hope

of getting funded by the Agency. The Space Science Board reviewed NASA’s life sciences

planning and gave notice of what would be a long-standing concern with both the risks

associated with contaminating other bodies in the solar system with microbes from Earth

and bringing microbes from other celestial bodies back to Earth. (See Document III-5.)

The commitment to the gigantic effort to land man on the Moon forced competition

between traditional space science missions and the human spaceflight budgets. Life

sciences programs, needing higher budgets to assure credibility, were caught between

these many conflicting forces.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 273

6. Memorandum from T. Keith Glennan to Smith J. DeFrance, Director, Ames Research Center, 15 March

1960. (ARC Director Files)

7. The most extensive study of U.S. capabilities in space biology and medicine at this time is included in

the U.S. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Science, “Space Research in the Life Sciences,” 86th

Congress, 15 July 1960.
What To Do with the Life Sciences? 

A Recurrent Theme

Throughout the existence of NASA, how to organize the Agency’s life science efforts has

been problematic. While life scientists, both internal and external to NASA, have preferred to

concentrate the efforts in a single organization under high-level leadership, most NASA

managers have seen elements of life sciences activities primarily as support for other NASA

functions, and thus have spread those activities in various offices throughout NASA. 

Change in Fortunes

With the end of the Eisenhower administration, Administrator Glennan resigned in

January 1961. President John F. Kennedy appointed James Webb to be the second NASA

Administrator. Hugh L. Dryden continued as Deputy Administrator and Robert C.

Seamans, Jr. as Associate Administrator. Randt submitted a plan to Seamans, proposing

once again to consolidate the total NASA life sciences program. When nothing happened,

Randt resigned. Charles Roadman was selected by Seamans as the next Director of the

OLSP. He was an Air Force general, skilled bureaucrat, and experienced aerospace

physician, but he was not the research-oriented person Randt had been. Roadman was

mission-oriented and saw little need for research on animals prior to human spaceflight.

He thus recommended the separation of life sciences into a human-oriented program

under the Office of Space Flight Programs and a nonhuman program, which he called

space biology, to join other nonhuman programs in space science. The major Soviet

success in the space race with Yuri Gagarin’s orbital flight on 12 April 1961, and the two

successful suborbital U.S. launches on 5 May and 21 July 1961 added fuel to Roadman’s

argument that animals need not be flown before humans. What Roadman may not have

known or acknowledged was the very extensive series of animal flights the Soviet program

had carried out before Gagarin’s successful mission. 

Thus began the long-running saga of separating various components of the life

sciences in different organizations, demonstrating the lack of understanding between

engineers and medical practitioners on the one hand and of space scientists on the other,

that has haunted life sciences in NASA to this day. Not least of the problems was the

resulting inability to consolidate life sciences efforts long enough to grow and maintain

an adequate life sciences program budget. It was not in the interest of other factions

within NASA, who had been trying to get a foothold for their own efforts, to see this new

entity get established, grow, and prosper, competing for program dollars. Space life

sciences also received no help from the broader life sciences community. For the space

science community, NASA was their primary source of funding, and going into space

provided the opportunity to leap into a new era of discovery. However, the broader life

sciences community was skeptical of the value of going into space to advance knowledge

or develop new health applications. Funding, predominantly from the NIH and NSF, was

plentiful or, at least, adequate, whereas the paucity and instability of its budget resulted in

the deserved image that NASA was unreliable as a source of life sciences research funding. 

274 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
In August 1961, Webb disbanded the Office of Life Sciences Programs, in accordance

with Roadman’s views. By the end of 1961, he reorganized NASA, creating five program

offices: Space Science (OSS) to direct basic investigations in space; Advanced Research

and Technology (OART) to support advanced aeronautical and human spaceflight

programs; Manned Space Flight (OMSF) to manage approved manned space programs;

Tracking and Data Acquisition (OTDA); and Applications (OA). This last office was

combined in 1963 with OSS to form the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA).

Webb’s intention was to improve communications between NASA Headquarters and Field

Centers, and to promote coordination between Program Directors at Headquarters and

Center Directors, where the projects were carried out. He intended to reduce Center

autonomy with respect to research programs, especially those inherited by the NACA 

R&D centers, and relate research efforts to future flight programs.8

The War of the Centers 

Glennan’s decision to establish a space life sciences research program at Ames in

California, separate from the STG, the principal human spaceflight activity, was

reinforced by the splitting off of Space Medicine from the other life sciences activities at

NASA Headquarters. Life sciences no longer reported directly to the Administrator and

lost its status as one program, leaving the external community confused. Smith “Smitty”

DeFrance, Director of Ames, wanted a Headquarters commitment to support his fledgling

life sciences program. 

Since 1958, Robert Gilruth had been the Director of the STG, which included

military biomedical personnel on assignment supporting Project Mercury. In 1959, they

became a permanent operational component of the STG, absorbing a life-support

capability from Langley Research Center. When the human spaceflight operations were

moved to Houston in 1962, the STG evolved into the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC),

and Gilruth became its first Director. Gilruth, echoing Roadman’s position at NASA

Headquarters, insisted he should retain authority over biomedical research for human

spaceflight programs. Seamans convened a Life Sciences Working Group (LSWG), under

the chairmanship of Bernard Maggin, to resolve this inter-Center dispute. Its report

identified three life sciences program categories: 1) space biology, including effects of

space on biological systems and the search for extraterrestrial life; 2) human research

and life-support needs of man in space; and 3) operational needs to support man in

space, including life-support and medical operations. The LSWG report emphasized the

need for a high level of coordination among these three elements. In 1962, Seamans

distributed the components of the space life sciences program across three offices:

bioscience in OSS, human research and support in OART, and operational medicine in

support of approved human spaceflight programs in OMSF. With minor changes, this

split prevailed through 1970. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 275

8. This reorganization further separated the human from the robotic programs, causing much frustration

over the years. See R. C. Hall, “NASA: Thirty Years of Space Flight,” Aerospace America, December 1988, 

pp. 6–9.9.
OART was chosen to provide coordination across these components, but the scope

and authority recommended by the LSWG were never given by Seamans to the new

Biotechnology and Research Directorate in OART. Orr Reynolds, who had come from the

ONR to be Bioscience Director in OSS, was not convinced that OART, an applied research

and engineering development office, could coordinate basic biological research.

Roadman, in OMSF, was concerned that OART would retard the biomedical aspects of the

approved human spaceflight programs. The belief by NASA management that through

collocation this reorganization would boost support for life sciences in each of the major

programs while at the same time advancing Agency-wide objectives did not materialize. 

In November 1961, Ames Director DeFrance brought in Webb E. Haymaker, a highly

respected neuropathologist from the Army Institute of Pathology, to direct the new life

sciences organization at Ames. Haymaker hired young and enthusiastic scientists who

brought with them their research culture, independence, academic customs, unusual

work habits, need for a library, and, worst of all from the perspective of conservative

NASA engineers, biological specimens. The culture shock for traditional engineers at

Ames was immense. 

Whereas Ames in its NACA days had always organized itself around facilities, it had

begun, by 1963, to organize around scientific disciplines. In December 1965, Ames

inaugurated its life sciences research laboratory. A range of intricate centrifuges to carry

everything from small organisms to humans was built, as were state-of-the-art laboratories.

A well-constructed animal shelter housed a variety of animals, including a pigtail macaque

primate colony, for use in ground-based control experiments prior to the planned

Biosatellite missions.

While MSC near Houston screened and trained individual astronauts, Ames

developed the fundamental science underlying Houston’s work. Funded by OART, the

Ames Biotechnology Division studied the psychological and physiological performance of

pilots and human volunteers in conditions simulating the effects of spaceflight. OART

also supported research with plants, rats, bacteria, and other organisms in different

gravitational loads, as well as potential radiation damage from exposure in space to highenergy solar rays, usually filtered by Earth’s atmosphere. The Ames instrumentation group

applied its expertise in building sensors for aircraft to building sophisticated biological

sensors and clever telemetry devices. These were later used in flight experiments to record

physical and physiological data in unrestrained animals. The Bioscience Office in OSS

supported exobiology, the research on life in outer space and other planets. Harold P.

Klein arrived from Brandeis University in 1963 to head the Ames Exobiology Branch and

was instrumental in guiding the construction of specialized laboratories and quarantine

facilities for analyzing lunar or other samples. In 1964, Klein replaced Haymaker as

Director of Life Sciences at Ames. 

Compared to other space science programs, life sciences were always underfunded.

From 1962 to 1964, they received about 1.6 percent of the Agency’s R&D budget. The

situation was particularly bad in 1964. While NASA management attempted to obtain

larger sums for life sciences, Congress cut the total life sciences request by 31 percent. No

other R&D area in NASA had a budget request reduced by more than 18 percent.

Congress justified these cuts on the recurring theme of comparable capabilities in space

medicine and human factors existing in other government agencies. 

276 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Whenever budgets decreased, bickering among internal factions increased. Conflict

between OSS and OART developed over the management of Biosatellite, the first life

sciences flight project. Attempts at cooperation failed, and OSS, the originator of the

concept, prevailed even though Ames, an OART Center, was responsible for the project.

OART, on the other hand, was pressuring Ames to devote more of its facilities to

biotechnology and human factors research. Tensions developed between Ames and MSC as

the latter increased its human research capabilities over the objections of OART. NASA

management had not specified roles and missions for biomedical research. No one in

authority had precluded MSC from following this independent course. Those who did

collaborate across Centers were viewed with suspicion. Memoranda of Agreement had to be

countersigned by the respective Center Directors to allow such collaborations to proceed. 

No Agreement on the Best Organization

Culminating with the drastic life sciences budget cuts of 1964 and increasing criticism

from Congress and the scientific community, NASA’s top management came to realize

that all was not well. From 1962 to 1964, three external reviews of NASA’s life sciences

efforts were conducted.9 All reviews yielded the same conclusions and recommendations.

The life sciences programs were disorganized due to a lack of decisive leadership at top

management levels. A common recommendation was that NASA should appoint a

prominent life scientist to a high-level position (preferably as a Deputy Associate

Administrator) with authority to plan and direct overall life sciences programs and act as

the single point of contact with the external science community. 

Webb and his associates could not see how they could live with this recommendation.

Seamans’ assessment of the situation was that it was unlikely an individual competent in

fields ranging from fundamental biology to life-support technology could be found.

However, the main issue appeared to be the discrepancy between the consistent request

from the outside community for a high-level administrative position and the management

view of life sciences as a support function to all NASA activities. Top NASA managers

continued to believe the latter would be better served by distributing life sciences

throughout the Agency. Webb, Seamans, and Dryden felt that a concentrated life sciences

focus was inconsistent with NASA’s broader programs and that the distributed program

had “not proven an obstacle and made life sciences more responsive to the needs of

program directors.” (See Documents III-7 through III-10.)

Seamans compromised by forming a Life Sciences Directors Group (LSDG), chaired

by W. R. Lovelace, the Director of Space Medicine, thus deftly finessing the issue of a new

high-level scientist appointment. It was only because of Lovelace’s good sense and

charisma that the LSDG succeeded where other similar attempts had failed. Lovelace also

instituted a Manned Flight Experiments Board as a subelement of the LSDG to select and

coordinate the planning of proposed experiments. The value of this Board concept across

program offices has withstood the test of time.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 277

9. In addition to a Space Science Board review, the life sciences program was examined by the President’s

Science Advisory Committee and by Nello Pace, a consultant hired by Administrator James Webb.
NASA’s leaders felt the life sciences management problem had been resolved, but

after Lovelace’s death in 1965, Orr Reynolds succeeded him, and the bickering resumed.

Col. Jack Bollerud, acting Director of Space Medicine on assignment from the Air Force,

yet again repeated to Webb the recommendations of previous panels that NASA establish

a Life Sciences Associate Administrator.10 Once more, no action was taken.

Organizing Life Sciences in the 1970s

Public interest in space waned after the Apollo successes. Budgetary support for NASA

was greatly reduced, especially for the human flight programs. President Nixon and his

administration favored a science-oriented program over a new major human flight goal.

NASA had to reconsider its priorities. Plans for the construction of permanent lunar bases

after 1975 and a permanent space station to serve as a research laboratory and transfer

platform to the Moon and Mars had to be set aside. Humans in space were limited to the

completion of the three Skylab Earth-orbiting research missions in 1973, and the space

station was deferred in favor of a recoverable reusable Space Transportation System

(STS), the Space Shuttle. 

As the Apollo program neared its initial lunar-landing missions, NASA began to

prepare a comprehensive plan for its post-Apollo activities; life sciences activities were part

of this planning effort. (See Document III-11.) After the Apollo successes in 1969, the

Space Sciences Board once again examined the NASA life sciences effort. H. Bentley

Glass, a biologist at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, chaired the review

committee. The Glass Committee report was released at the end of 1970. (See Document

III-13.) Yet again the advice was for the creation of an Office of Space Biology and

Medicine that would consolidate all the life sciences programs under the authority of a

director at an Associate Administrator level or as a Deputy in the office of the overall

NASA Associate Administrator. The report also recommended the creation of a

permanent life sciences advisory board composed of members of the scientific community

“with no ties to NASA.”

In response to the Glass report, NASA top management consolidated most, but not

all, of its life sciences activities in OMSF. (See Documents III-14 and III-15.) Although

space biology was moved into the new Life Sciences Division (LSD), exobiology remained

in OSSA, and OART retained human factors, life support, and biotechnology

responsibilities. The Director of the LSD reported to the Associate Administrator for

Manned Space Flight. He also was subordinate to other program Associate Administrators

who had components of life sciences activities under their control. The charge to the new

Director of the LSD to coordinate life sciences activities throughout NASA was

unworkable. NASA did, however, create a Life Sciences Advisory Committee (LSAC),

reporting to the NASA Associate Administrator. NASA management continued the

practice of not giving the Director of its new life sciences organization the authority to

execute his responsibilities. General J. W. Humphreys served as the first LSD Director

from 1970 to 1972, followed from 1972 to 1974 by Charles A. Berry, who came from MSC.

278 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

10. Col. Jack Bollerud, “Staff Study of the Structuring of Life Sciences Activities within NASA,” 1966. 
Neither had any experience or interest in research. The LSAC complained to Associate

Administrator Newell that the coordination of life sciences programs was unworkable

because other program offices were taking actions in their life sciences program elements

without the LSD Director’s knowledge. 

New NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher became concerned in 1973 with this

impasse and asked William Barry to conduct yet another review of the program. In

February 1974, Barry presented to Fletcher his report outlining the same fundamental

flaws raised by all previous reviews—responsibility without authority and fragmentation of

programs. He also identified as a problem “bureaucratic inertia” from those seeking to

maintain 1960s relationships while the program was trying to change to new priorities of

the 1970s. (See Document III-19.)

Barry’s report proposed again the formation of a directorship independent from

OMSF, with independent budget authority and reporting to top management. He insisted

that all NASA Headquarters life sciences components, not just programs, including

occupational medicine and environmental health, be placed under the control of one

director. He went further by proposing that NASA should reorganize the life sciences

activities at the Field Centers, thereby supporting earlier findings of the LSAC. In mid1974, Fletcher began realigning Headquarters responsibilities to meet NASA’s needs for

the Space Shuttle operations era. He replaced the old program offices with two Associate

Administrators, one for Headquarters who would oversee the five program offices, and

the other for Center management. This radical move abolished the alignment of the old

Headquarters program offices with specific Field Centers. The eight-year absence of

human flights between Skylab and the Shuttle saw a large increase in ground research

activities at MSC, renamed the Johnson Space Center (JSC). Life sciences activities also

sprouted at many other Centers.

Following another of Barry’s suggestions, Fletcher appointed David L. Winter as the

Director of the new Life Sciences Division in September 1974. Winter had come from Walter

Reed Army Medical Center, where he performed basic and applied research in

neurophysiology relevant to military operations. Before coming to NASA, he was Deputy

Director of Space Life Sciences at Ames. In September 1975, in an attempt to further

integrate all activities of life sciences into one office, the LSD was moved from OMSF to OSS.

(A separate Office of Applications had been created.) Among the new responsibilities of the

division were planning research activities to be conducted on the Shuttle and developing

Shuttle life-support systems and EVA suits. Even though some bits of life sciences, like the

test beds for advanced life-support systems and EVA glove research, still remained in OMSF,

Fletcher had essentially pulled the management of biological and medical research and life

sciences experiment flight payload definition into one place at Headquarters.

Occupational and aeronautical medicine were also added to the division, since the

Space Shuttle was expected to carry passengers in addition to flight crews. But by late

1976, Winter ran head on into the different scientific culture of OSS in the form of John

Naugle, then NASA Chief Scientist, and Noel Hinners, the Associate Administrator for

OSS. Winter saw his function as that of designing a balanced program for high-caliber

ground research in life sciences that would enjoy the respect and support of the external

community and that would lead to flight experiments. He understood the need for

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 279
fundamental research in human and nonhuman organisms as the foundation for the

operational needs of medical support on future human spaceflights.

In contrast, Naugle and Hinners considered that Apollo and Skylab had demonstrated

human ability to operate for six months in orbit and that no further research was needed.

They saw the development of the ground research program as distinct and unrelated to

flight or applied research questions. They did not see the need for a continuum of research

and the integrating significance of ground and flight research required for life sciences.

They essentially ignored recommendations of all earlier expert reviews. Furthermore, the

cultural difference between an “event” science, such as astronomy and astrophysics, and an

experimental science, like most life sciences that require continuing research, became an

obstacle to program design. The reliance of life sciences on confirming results of research

that depends on probabilities and statistics, and therefore requires relatively large numbers

of experimental subjects, was (and is to this day) alien to the “event science” way of

thinking. In a 1977 memorandum to the Administrator, Winter outlined his frustration

with this situation. (See Documents III-20 and III-21.)

On 17 November 1978, Winter was moved to Hinners’ staff; he resigned three

months later. After a lengthy search by a committee chaired by Gerald Soffen, Hinners

appointed Soffen on 31 March 1979 as the next Director of the LSD. Soffen was a

biophysicist and had been a project scientist for Viking. Soffen oriented the program

toward the impact of the space environment on basic biological processes, an area

somewhat neglected in the past.

Organizing Life Sciences: 1981-–1992

In 1981, Administrator Beggs appointed Andrew J. Stofan as Associate Administrator

for OSSA (once again, applications work had been combined with space science). Soffen

continued as Life Sciences Division Director. Stofan identified LSD responsibilities as the

“direction and management of a national life sciences research program which includes

the medical aspects of manned spaceflight operations, biomedical and bioscience

research, advanced bioinstrumentation, and space biology. The responsibility also

includes the development of an integrated program for all of NASA’s medical efforts

other than occupational medicine.” Soffen transferred physico/chemical life-support and

spacesuit research programs to the Office of Advanced Science and Technology (OAST),

arguing that these programs were more technology-oriented than research-oriented, and

so once more split off components of the life sciences program.

In mid-1982, Stofan was replaced by an engineer, Burton Edelson. In November 1983,

Soffen was replaced by Arnauld E. Nicogossian as Director of Life Sciences. Nicogossian

was a flight surgeon from JSC and had been Chief of Operational Medicine under Soffen.

The pendulum had swung again. True to OSSA goals, Edelson favored robotic programs,

but Nicogossian shifted emphasis back to medical support of Space Shuttle operations. So

Edelson constrained the life sciences program budgets. In 1987, a physical scientist named

Lennard A. Fisk replaced Edelson. Overall, he was supportive of life sciences and effective

in increasing its budget during his tenure.

280 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
The years 1976–1993 provided relative stability and some growth for the life sciences.

In particular, the long-proven policy and procedural practices OSS/OSSA had established

and used for managing its science programs became part of the way the life sciences did

business. The LSD was part of strategic planning. It regularized the process for research

solicitation, peer review, and selection; adopted OSSA rules for planning, developing,

advocating, and prioritizing new missions; and generally improved NASA’s relationship

with the external scientific community. 

A New Regime: Dan Goldin and “Reinventing” NASA

In April 1992, Daniel S. Goldin was appointed by President George H. W. Bush as the

new NASA Administrator. In October 1992, Goldin began a series of radical steps in his

desire to “reinvent” NASA. He split up OSSA into three components—one focusing on

traditional space science, one on Earth science, and one on life and microgravity sciences.

The new Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) was headed

by psychiatrist Harry C. Holloway from the Uniformed Services University of Health

Science. With the creation of OLMSA at the program office level, an individual

representing life sciences was reporting directly to the Administrator for the first time

since the early 1960s. (The author of this essay came to Headquarters from Ames on 10

April 1993 as Director of the Life Sciences Division (LSD), reporting to Holloway.) 

Things were looking promising for life sciences. Here was the opportunity to

consolidate life sciences activities. Since the previous consolidation of 1975, elements had

been transferred to other parts of NASA; by 1992, when Goldin took office, they were

spread across OSSA, the new Office of Exploration, OAST, and the International Space

Station program. Advanced life support, with partial funding, and human factors

research, with no funding, were transferred from OAST to OLMSA. However, the

exobiology program that had been part of the LSD since 1972 was transferred out of the

LSD into OSS in January 1993. Thus, life sciences remained fragmented. Despite its

program office status, OLMSA had no institutional authority over a Field Center and no

coordinating authority over the life sciences programs elsewhere in NASA. 

In 1993, Goldin initiated a strategic planning activity that divided NASA’s programs

into various Enterprises. Life and microgravity sciences were not given separate Enterprise

status; rather, they were subsumed into the Human Exploration and Development of

Space Enterprise, which was led by the Office of Space Flight. Finally, OLMSA in 2000 was

renamed the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) and given separate

Enterprise status. Unlike other Enterprises, however, it still had no jurisdiction over flight

platforms or over any Center.

Life Sciences Research on Robotic Platforms

Even in the face of continuing organizational turmoil, the NASA life sciences program has

carried out a continuing program of research on both robotic and crewed missions. While flight

opportunities have been too scarce, there have been some impressive research achievements.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 281
Biosatellite

Despite the fragmentation and disorganization of the overall life sciences program,

the bioscience program was sheltered within OSSA. It developed a reputable research

program and generally enjoyed a period of relative stability. Orr Reynolds took advantage

of flight opportunities for simple biological experiments on whatever platform was

available, including the two-astronaut Gemini missions and the frog egg development and

sea urchin experiments that were flown on Gemini IV, VI, and XII. Technical

complications were ever present, but learning how to fly biological payloads was a big part

of these missions. Although several biology flight experiments were planned for the

Apollo program, most were canceled in restructuring the program following the January

1967 Apollo fire. A pocket mouse requiring little water flew successfully on Apollo 17. It

was implanted with dosimeters to study radiation exposure outside Earth’s atmosphere.

The postflight analysis showed radiation damage only to the olfactory system, with little

damage to the brain. Scout free-flyers launched from Wallops carried more sophisticated

experiments with frogs implanted with electrodes in their inner ears.

By far the most ambitious set of experiments, however, were those proposed for the

Biosatellite project. Biosatellite started when Headquarters asked Ames what science

might come from launching leftover Mercury capsules. Conceived by OSS in 1962,

Biosatellite was the first purely life sciences flight research project and was strongly

supported by academic life scientists.11 It was planned as a long-term project of three to six

flights to begin in 1966, with experiments on single-cell organisms progressing to primate

flights of fifteen to thirty days. In October 1962, Ames was assigned management

responsibility for the Biosatellite project. OART, which had failed to get approval for a

flight program, argued it should be involved in managing Biosatellite, especially the

primate flights. To resolve the issue, a joint OSSA/OART working group began meeting

in January 1963.12 It divided responsibilities so that OSS would manage the development

of the basic spacecraft and nonprimate experiments, and OART would develop lifesupport systems and later flights with primates. But this effort at cooperation failed due to

a lack of communication. OSS retained overall responsibility. Biosatellite 1, launched on

15 February 1967, orbited for three days, but its retrorockets did not fire, and thus the

capsule containing biological specimens eventually crashed to Earth in Australia.

Biosatellite 2, launched on 7 September 1967, carried a variety of biological specimens,

including frog eggs, amoeba, bacteria, plants, and mice; the mission lasted three days.

Each experiment was self-contained, some with photographic capability. Biosatellite 3

included a highly instrumented pigtail monkey (Bonny) that was due to fly for thirty days.

The mission was terminated on 6 July 1969, just nine days after launch, after telemetered

data indicated significant physical deterioration of the animal. By that time, 80 percent of

the anticipated data from the mission had been gathered. Bonny died approximately

eight hours after recovery, apparently from dehydration.

282 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

11. Space Science Board, “Report on the Organization of the Life Sciences in NASA,” 7 August 1962.

12. Memorandum from Benny B. Hall to Robert Seamans, “Minutes of the First Meeting of the Joint OSS/

OART Biosatellite Working Group,” 24 January 1963.
A variety of programmatic and physiological reasons led to the failure of this mission. Cost

overruns, funding problems, and mission failures plagued the Biosatellite project from the

outset. Brain and behavior experiments designed for one mission were combined with

cardiovascular and metabolic experiments planned for another primate on a later mission. The

experiment ended up being overloaded and over-instrumented. This was an overwhelming

physiological stress burden on the animal, which was smaller than required in order to fill the

capsule and thus prevent unwanted motion. The extent of space motion sickness, reduced

blood volume, and dehydration experienced by this animal were not appreciated at the time

and presaged what was later documented in humans in longer-duration flight. The loss of

Bonny was a great disappointment to the life sciences community. NASA’s decision to terminate

Biosatellite flights after this mission was seen as further evidence of the lack of recognition of

the scientific nature of the program and of NASA’s desire to subordinate biological science

issues to engineering and operational considerations. Opposition to the use of animals in NASA

research by animal activists also was beginning to rear its head.

In 1969, Hans Mark, a physicist from the University of California, took over as Center

Director at Ames. A major internal review of the Biosatellite program produced a thorough and

excellent report.13 Congress also held hearings. Rep. Joseph Karth’s (D-Minnesota)

Subcommittee on Space and Applications recommended the Biosatellite Project be reinstated,

that the “role of science be uprated as a mission objective,” that NASA “conduct a new and

higher level of biomedical experiments on the astronauts,” and that it implement “to fullest

practicable extent” recommendations of the President’s Science Advisory Committee report.14

Although the Biosatellite project was not reinstated, practical issues of managing an

animal flight experiment identified during the project resulted in a new way of developing

and managing space biology flight programs. The Space Life Sciences Payloads Office

developed at Ames in the mid-1970s was in many ways an implementation of this new way

of developing biological payloads and supporting flight research.

The Cosmos/Bion Program

Biosatellite 1, 2, and 3, and the advanced preparations for the Mars lander Viking

(discussed below) were valuable learning experiences. They taught life scientists that

improved telescience, robotic, recoverable space platforms provided many advantages for

space biology research using nonhuman organisms. No value was added by having

humans with no life sciences expertise present, since there was either no interaction

between the astronaut and the experiment, or, when there was, it was of limited or

sometimes negative value. U.S. life scientists looked with envy at their Soviet and Eastern

European colleagues, who in 1973 were beginning a steady program of regular Cosmos

Biosatellite missions. Every flight used a Vostok spacecraft—8 feet in diameter, with a

volume of 140 cubic feet, and with excellent environmental control able to accommodate

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 283

13. J. W. Dyer, Manager, Project Biosatellite, “Historical Summary Report,” 1969 (Biosatellite Project Files,

NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters).

14. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, “The

Future of the Bioscience Program,” Hearings, 12–18 November 1969, p. 39.
2,000 pounds of payload. The Eastern European scientists’ involvement was arranged by

Intercosmos, an umbrella organization of the Soviet Academy of Science. The program

offered a reliable fleet of spacecraft and regularly scheduled spaceflights solely for

research, with the ability to repeat experiments.

The Soviets had already flown two successful biosatellite missions, Cosmos 605 (Bion

1) in 1973 and Cosmos 690 (Bion 2) in 1974, when Intercosmos, surprisingly, invited U.S.

and French scientists to propose experiments for Cosmos 782 (Bion 3). The U.S./Soviet

space relationship in the 1960s had been characterized by fierce competition and high

levels of secrecy, although there also had been ongoing discussions of potential

cooperation. (See Volume II, Documents I-38 through I-43.) But by 1971, space research

representatives hammered out significant civil space agreements. One of these between

NASA and the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science covered Space Biology and Medicine; it paved

the way for closer cooperation in this field.15

The first biological payload on the Shuttle was not due to fly until 1983. The Soviet

invitation was too good to refuse. On 4 November 1974, David Winter, NASA’s Director of

the Life Sciences Division, and Dr. N. N. Gurovsky, Head of the Space Biology and

Medicine Office of the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Health, signed the agreement to participate in

this joint research.16 There was no budget for such a commitment nor, because of the poor

communications between Washington and Tashkent in central Asia, where the meeting

was held, was Winter able to communicate with NASA Headquarters to obtain its approval

prior to signing. But the Soviets were paying all spacecraft and launch costs, and thus

Winter judged the risks involved acceptable. The cooperation extended from sharing

biospecimens on experiments conducted by Soviet scientists to the United States

eventually designing and building experiment payloads. Participation of the seven Ames

scientists on Cosmos 936, which landed in Central Asia 19.5 days after launch, cost

nothing except for travel. During the rest of the 1970s, the cost to NASA of this

cooperation never exceeded $1 million per mission.

Although, in the beginning, U.S. scientists did not know what experiments the

Soviet scientists were conducting, this partnership evolved into a true and seamless

collaboration. The results of the Cosmos/Bion series allowed U.S. scientists to

transition from earlier observations of what happened to humans in space to an

understanding of why these changes occurred. With the ability to study a range of

284 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

15. The 1971 U.S.-U.S.S.R. and Applications Agreement led to the creation of five Joint Working Groups

(JWGs), including Space Biology and Medicine, Meteorological Satellites, Meteorological Soundings, the

Natural Environment, and the Exploration of Near-Earth Space, the Moon, and the Planets. Most of these JWGs

ceased to exist in 1979 in the aftermath of the Carter administration’s disapproval of the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan. The umbrella U.S.-Soviet Space Cooperation agreement, signed in 1972 and renewed in 1977, was

allowed to expire in 1982; a new agreement was reached only in 1987. During this period of cool U.S.-Soviet

relations, only the JWG on Space Biology and Medicine continued to meet on an annual basis. 

16. Protocol, Fifth Meeting of the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Working Group on Space Biology and Medicine,

Tashkent, USSR, 26 October–4 November 1974. (Joint Working Group Meeting Protocols folder, Cosmos

Biosatellite files, ARC History Project archive, ARC.) Paragraph seven of the Protocol reads “The Joint Working

Group considered possible areas of joint space biological investigations on available flights and agreed that such

investigations are very important for the solution of fundamental biological problems and practical problems of

space biology and medicine. The U.S. side accepted with satisfaction the proposal to perform joint experiments

onboard the Soviet biological satellite.”
organisms in space, life scientists began building the knowledge base for the universal

role gravity plays across the phylogenetic scale. The collaboration also paved the way

for the much more sophisticated experimentation that would later be done in the

human-tended Shuttle-Spacelab missions.

The regularity of the Cosmos/Bion flights taught life scientists to constantly improve

payload design protocols, ground controls, and data analysis. New collaborators from the

science community were added, using new types of organisms or tissue cultures. During

the 1980s, as experiments became more sophisticated and more scientists participated,

the cost to NASA for participating in these missions averaged $2 million per launch, all of

which was spent in the United States. 

Beginning with the Cosmos 1514 flight in 1983, the Soviets began to fly two primates

in addition to rats and other biological payloads. They had never flown primates before,

so this first mission in 1983 was only five days long. By 1989, Cosmos 2044 flew two

primates for fourteen days, together with rats and other specimens, studying microgravity

and radiation effects. Twenty-nine U.S. experiments were accepted. Together with the

biospecimen sharing program, over eighty investigators throughout the United States

participated. The sophistication of the instrumentation and the experiments were

continuously improving. As none of these missions overlapped with the first life sciences

payloads on the Shuttle, hardware and instrumentation concepts destined for later

Shuttle missions were first tested on the Cosmos/Bion missions.

The political upheaval that led to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not

seem to affect the course of these missions. However, by the launch of Cosmos 2299 in

December 1992, it was becoming apparent that the Russians were experiencing budgetary

constraints. This meant that spacecraft and flight costs would have to be shared by the

United States in the future. After almost twenty years and eight Cosmos/Bion missions,

the best bargain with free access to flight for life sciences had come to an end. (This essay

is not the place to summarize the immense scientific and technological value to life

sciences spaceflight research that was made possible by this collaboration.)17 Suffice it to

mention that from the very first U.S. participation in 1975, results in rats showed that less

new bone was being formed in space. This finding, later confirmed in ground and flight

studies in humans, pointed to the complexity of the action of gravity loading in

maintaining healthy bone on Earth, and provided clues to potential countermeasures for

astronauts on long missions.

During the early 1990s, the Life Sciences Division was also working on another set of

primate experiments due to fly on a Shuttle Space Life Sciences mission. This was a

collaboration with French scientists; the French Space Agency CNES was building the

containers and life-support systems that were to fly in the pressurized Spacelab, carried in

the Shuttle payload bay for seven days. In January 1994, this mission was canceled together

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 285

17. For such a summary, see J. P. Connolly, M. G. S. Kidmore, D. A. Helwig, eds., Final Reports of the U.S.

Experiments Flown on the Russian Biosatellite Cosmos 2229, NASA TM-110439, April 1997; R. C. Mains and E. W.

Gomersall, eds., Final Reports of Monkey and Rat Experiments Flown on the Soviet Satellite Cosmos 1514, NASA 

TM-88223, May 1986; J. P. Connolly, R. E. Grindeland, and R. W. Ballard, eds., Final Reports of the U.S. Experiment

Flown on the Soviet Biosatellite Cosmos 1887, NASA TM-102254, February 1990; and J. P. Connolly, R. E. Grindeland,

and R. W. Ballard, eds., Final Reports of the U.S. Experiments Flown on the Soviet Biosatellite Cosmos 2044, NASA TM108802, September 1994, Volumes 1 and 2.
with other projected life sciences missions in a sweeping deficit-reducing budget-cutting

activity. Its cancellation terminated the Rhesus project, which also was running into

technical problems with the animal life-support system and rising costs for both NASA and

CNES. NASA suggested that CNES might transfer the project’s experiments to the next

Cosmos/Bion missions, Bion 11 and Bion 12. For these two Bion missions, a contract was

negotiated for the first time between NASA and the Russian Space Agency (RSA). These

missions were planned for fourteen days with a total of four animals and would therefore

yield far greater scientific return than earlier, shorter missions. 

Bion 11 was launched on 24 December 1996 for a fourteen-day mission with its

payload of two primates, seeds, beetles, newts, and moss. It was recovered successfully on

7 January 1997. The payload was transferred back to Moscow for postflight evaluation. On

the day after landing, anesthesia was administered to the primates for routine biopsy. One

of the two animals died as it recovered from anesthesia, despite revival efforts by

experienced Russian veterinarians and NASA’s Chief Veterinarian. 

The death of this one monkey essentially signaled the end of the Cosmos/Bion

program. Stirred by the relentless campaign of the People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals (PETA), U.S. Congressmen questioned why NASA was spending money to help

the Russians send monkeys into space.18 NASA Administrator Goldin convened another

independent review panel to investigate the monkey’s death. The panel concluded that

the risk of anesthesia for surgical procedures after fourteen days of flight raised the

mortality risk of animals, but it did not recommend cancellation of the next mission, Bion

12. In life sciences research, it is not unusual to lose an experimental animal despite all

precautions, and the report pointed out the important implications this finding had to

possible postflight emergencies in humans.19 NASA became increasingly nervous at the

attention it was receiving from animal rights activists, and, on 22 April 1997, a press release

was issued “discontinuing NASA’s participation in the Bion 12 mission.” Russia was unable

to continue on its own and canceled the mission. 

LifeSat

The NASA experience with the Cosmos/Bion program was so rewarding that the Life

Sciences Division began considering a program using similar U.S. robotic spacecraft.

Hundreds of U.S. scientists and engineers had been initiated to the world of flight

experiments and eagerly sought new opportunities. Small payloads on the Shuttle became

the best substitute for dedicated life sciences missions. These were self-contained

experiments designed to fit in Shuttle middeck lockers. They mostly required no

intervention except occasionally making sure cameras were functioning or water bottles

were full. On the other hand, having a series of successive flights like the Russian Cosmos

would enable the program to provide steady access to space opportunities and increase

286 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

18. PETA is an organization “that operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat,

wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” See www.peta.online.org.

19. Letter from Ronald Merrell, M. D., Yale University, to Arnauld Nicogossian, NASA, with attached report,

21 April 1997.
both the size of the involved community and the quality of the science. Planning

workshops were organized by Ames, which had the firsthand experience with both

Biosatellite and the Cosmos/Bion programs. Out of these discussions, LifeSat was born.

The Challenger accident and grounding of the Shuttle brought about another hiatus

to spaceflight experiments. The Office of Space Science and Applications was receptive to

such robotic missions, and an Earth-orbiting, multipurpose reuseable satellite fit in with

its philosophy. It would be launched using expendable launch vehicles. The appeal was

even greater because it was proposed that half of the LifeSat flights would be devoted to

life sciences and the other half to material and Earth science research. Two or three pieces

of standard hardware would be designed to accommodate either plants or small

mammals, such as rats or mice, in interchangeable modules. The spacecraft would be

capable of long-duration flights of up to forty days and fly directly into trapped radiation

belts and in circular or eccentric polar orbits. It could provide artificial gravity, impose

fewer restrictions than the Space Shuttle on the use of hazardous materials, such as

chemical fixatives and radioisotopes, and could be used to test hardware concepts and

prototypes. Documentation requirements would therefore be less cumbersome than for

the Shuttle, and shorter proposal-to-launch intervals would be possible for researchers,

making the mission cheaper, faster, and more appealing to the science community. LifeSat

was warmly received by NASA’s Life Sciences Advisory Committee. (See Document III-22.)

The committee worked closely with the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine

(CSBM) of the Space Studies Board throughout the process of developing the LifeSat

concept. The CSBM stated in its 1987 annual report that “one of the major reasons for the

slow progress in space biology and medicine over the last decade has been the lack of

flight opportunities, especially in the U.S. space program. The lack of flight opportunities

is all the more unfortunate because biology is largely an empirical science. Replication is

needed to verify results. If significant progress is to be made by the end of the century,

then the space biology and medicine scientists will need continuous access to spaceflight

opportunities.”20 LifeSat was given the necessary priority and was included in the 1988

OSSA Strategic Plan as a future mission. 

LifeSat also received congressional support. The House Committee on Space Science

and Applications in the NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 1989 stated “a major and

essential component of a balanced science program must be a provision for frequent and

sustained flight opportunities for each major discipline. In addition to the Explorer and

Observer mission, the Committee has directed the establishment of an Earth Probes

program for Earth Science and a LifeSat program for Life Sciences.”

Thus everything looked promising, but the project was short-lived. Construction

responsibility for LifeSat was assigned to JSC. More and more requirements were added.

The price soon escalated to over $100 million per mission, an amount judged too high by

NASA management, and LifeSat was terminated in 1991. There have been no subsequent

proposals for robotic spacecraft dedicated to life sciences research; that research was

planned as a primary activity aboard the International Space Station.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 287

20. Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, Space Studies Board, National Research Council, A

Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1987), p. 196.
Exobiology: Early Activities 

Another aspect of the space life sciences, the bioscience program in OSS, dealt with

the origins of life and the search for life elsewhere in the universe. In 1962, the Space

Science Board had identified the search for extraterrestrial life, particularly on other

planets in the solar system, as the highest scientific priority in the space biology program.

(See Document III-6.) These were and are some of the most compelling scientific, moral,

and political questions that can be posed, and only can be answered by exploring other

life-supporting planetary candidates. Orr Reynolds argued in a presentation to NASA

upper management in 1966 that “if life is unique to this planet and does not exist

anywhere else in our universe, then the improbability of its occurrence is something like

1023 ‘chances’ for life to have developed on the Earth and nowhere else. If, on the other

hand, life is encountered on some other planet in our solar system, it would appear to be

a very probable event, and must have occurred many, many times in the history of our

universe. As . . . Pittendrigh said, ‘this question is what makes the search for life outside

this Earth so fascinating. It amounts to no less a question than the fundamental one of

man’s place in nature.”21

Interest in the exobiology field was remarkable and international. Programs sprang

up in France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S.S.R.

The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) served as a major forum for discussing this

work. Perhaps the most important meetings of the U.S. academic community related to

exobiology were convened by the SSB at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, during the summers

of 1964 and 1965 to discuss the scientific aspects of Mars exploration. One product of the

Woods Hole meetings was the formulation of a strong case for sending spacecraft to Mars

for biological investigations on the planet. (See Volume V, Document 1-23.)

This recommendation was warmly received by NASA, as many planetary scientists

both within and outside NASA were already developing plans and instruments for a Mars

landing mission. By early 1966, the feasibility of a mission of this type, named Voyager,

was being discussed. But the ambitious mission concept ran into trouble in the U.S.

Congress and died in August 1967. Nevertheless, interest in a Mars landing mission

continued. By 1969, NASA went back to Congress with fresh plans for a Mars mission with

a new objective—the search for life—and a new name, Viking. This mission won

congressional approval.

Viking: An Exobiology Mission

Preparations for executing the Viking missions resulted in the 1969 release by NASA

of an “Announcement of Flight Opportunity for Viking 1973.” This was the first

Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for flight experimentation in life sciences and set

the precedent for future ways of doing business. In contrast, flight experiments in human

288 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

21. Orr Reynolds, personal notes of presentation to the NASA Administrator, 13–14 December 1966.
research were selected either from unsolicited proposals or those submitted or

sponsored by scientists at NASA Centers, or from scientists at other government agencies.

By the end of 1969, NASA selected four scientists to develop the instruments for the

search for life on Mars.

The Viking program was the largest robotic program undertaken by NASA up to that

time. It ultimately cost $1 billion over a seven-year span. The missions, designated Viking 1

and 2, each included an orbiting probe and a lander. The Viking project was managed by

Langley Research Center. Richard Young, Chief of the Exobiology Program in OSSA, had

personally been very active in the scientific movement to go to Mars to search for evidence

of life. Young was appointed Program Scientist for the Viking program. Gerry Soffen of the

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) became Project Scientist. They co-chaired the Viking

Steering Committee responsible for the development of an interdisciplinary team of about

seventy scientists working on thirteen major experiments from the United States and

abroad. One of these investigators was Chuck Klein, the Director of Space Life Sciences at

Ames. Since he was a skeptic about the existence of life on Mars, he was selected to head

the Viking Biology Team. JPL built the life-detection instruments and the imaging systems.

After a two-year delay because of funding problems, Viking 1 was finally launched on

20 August 1975 and Viking 2 on 9 September. The hope was that Viking 1 would land on

Mars on 4 July 1976, the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. However,

this was not to be. When Viking 1 reached Mars and went into orbit around the planet, it

began taking pictures of the surface that showed the preselected landing site was rougher

than had been predicted. Jim Martin, the Langley Mission Director, would not take the

risk of crashing into a rocky landing site, and Viking 1 continued to orbit and take pictures

to find a better landing site. Finally, a decision was made to land at a site known as Chryse.

Viking 1 touched down at 5:12 a.m. on 20 July 1976, exactly seven years to the day after

the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon. Viking 2 landed in September.

After Earth, Mars is the most likely planet in the solar system able to support life.

Viking carried a small gas exchange laboratory built around a gas chromatograph to

measure respiration in the soil when treated with biological nutrients. An arm extended

to collect a sample, place it in a jar, mix it with chemicals, and identify the resulting gas.

The Viking program was ambitious and flawlessly executed. From the development of the

experiments, assembling the spacecraft, launch from Cape Kennedy, almost a year in

transit to Mars, the incredibly successful landing on Mars, the first pictures from Mars, the

first sample of the Mars surface, and then the three-year operation of the experiments

studying the chemistry, biology, weather, temperature, pressure, seismic activity, and

photographic documentation by the two cameras, the Viking project delivered an

incredible bounty.22 (See Volume V, Document II-26.) The Viking experiments found no

clear evidence of life, though questions about what it did find have excited planetary

scientists for years.

Planetary Protection

One of the major concerns of biologists planning planetary missions, whether fly-by or

landers, was the issue of biological contamination. The community of biologists interested

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 289
in studying the possibilities of the existence of life on the Moon, Mars, and other planets

was concerned from the start of the space program that Earth organisms carried by a

spacecraft would contaminate these destinations, destroying any chance of discovering life

forms that may have existed there. Biologist Joshua Lederburg was the first to voice these

concerns. In 1959 and 1960, the Space Science Board (see Document III-5) and the

International Council of Scientific Unions addressed this problem and urged the United

States and the Soviet Union to adopt policies and take measures to prevent contamination

of the solar system with organisms from Earth. As a result, both countries developed

procedures to ensure compliance with the recommendations of national and international

advisory bodies. The SSB revisited in a 1963 report the importance of sterilization of space

probes specifically with regard to lunar and Mars probes.23 NASA responded to these

recommendations by developing its own policy and appointing Lawrence B. Hall as the

Planetary Quarantine Officer in the Bioscience Programs Division of OSS. This policy was

updated in 1963 and at regular intervals thereafter. (See Document III-12.) It was critical

in planning the Apollo, Mariner, and Viking missions.

More recently, resurgent interest in human exploration and a series of robotic

missions to the Martian surface have raised to a higher level of awareness the issues of

spacecraft sterilization and planetary protection. The possibility of human planetary

exploration is increasingly considered as the next logical step for humans in space. Such

consideration creates an urgency on the part of NASA biologists studying the origins of

life on other planets to press forward with Mars missions before humans step on the

planet with the accompanying inherent greater difficulty of sterilization and therefore

greater risk of contamination. Currently, all solar system exploration spacecraft are

sterilized before launch. (See Document III-27.)

Exobiology and SETI

After the Viking missions, the Exobiology Program did pathbreaking work on organic

material and water in meteorites, studied the intricate lives of some of Earth’s most

primitive micro-organisms, and studied fossil markers for extinct microbial life. Scientists

turned to extreme environments on Earth, such as frozen lakes, hot springs, and the

Antarctic for developing the methods needed to search for life away from Earth. It also

took advantage of advances in computational capability at Ames and in the Silicon Valley

to start planning a concerted effort to search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). The

logic was: if you could not go there, maybe you could use technology from Earth to scan

for signals coming toward Earth.

John Billingham at Ames was a moving force behind the birth of the SETI project.

In 1971, he teamed with Bernard Oliver, an electrical engineer and former Vice

President for Research at Hewlett Packard and a technical expert in microwave signal

processing. Together with Frank Drake, the astronomer who had first developed a

290 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

22. For summaries of the scientific results of the Viking missions, see Science (193), 27 August 1976; Science

(194), 10 October 1976; and Science (194), 17 December 1976.

23. Space Science Board, “Space Probe Sterilization,” 5 August 1963.
mathematical equation containing the relevant factors involved in determining the

likelihood of communicative civilizations in our galaxy, they organized a summer study

to plan a project for accomplishing their goals. The result of their efforts, titled Project

Cyclops, “envisioned a detector consisting in its final stages of an ‘orchard’ of perhaps

100-meter antennas covering a total area some 10 km in diameter.”24 When Project

Cyclops was presented to NASA’s leadership as a possible large-scale initiative (the cost

projection for the total project was in the range of $8 billion), the concept received a

sympathetic reception on intellectual grounds, but was thought to be too politically risky

and too uncertain of success to justify significant NASA funding. (See Documents III-16

through III-18.)

In 1976, Hans Mark, the Director of Ames, set up a SETI Program Office headed by

John Billingham within the Extraterrestrial Division (previously Exobiology). The SETI

program also had the support of Bruce Murray, who in 1976 became Director of JPL.

Developing this Ames-JPL partnership became a major feature of NASA’s formal SETI

program.25 SETI was starting to appear on NASA’s screen. Billingham was developing his

concept of space life sciences encompassing all aspects of the program. He called it “Life

in the Universe.” In June 1979, he organized a major conference by that name at ARC in

which SETI’s program was laid out in detail.26 In 1980, NASA appointed a thirteenmember SETI Science Working Group (SSWG) of scientists and engineers from NASA,

JPL, ARC, and other federal agencies, universities, and private industry. The SSWG

assessed the feasibility and scope of a formal SETI program within NASA.27 NASA began

to fund SETI more seriously in 1981 at an average of $1.9 million per year projected over

the next decade. 

The scientific value of SETI was constantly challenged. Senator William Proxmire had

bestowed a Golden Fleece Award on the SETI Program in 1978 and, in 1981, successfully

proposed an amendment to the NASA appropriations bill deleting SETI’s FY82 funding.

Many scientists, including Carl Sagan, met with Proxmire to argue the merits of the

science; ultimately, Proxmire agreed to no longer oppose the program. 

This lesson in politics stimulated SETI proponents to become more politically active.

In 1984, they formed the SETI Institute near ARC, a research nonprofit organization that

could raise funds from sources in addition to NASA. Jill Tarter from the University of

California, Berkeley, joined the SETI Institute as its Chief Scientist and became active on

Capitol Hill. The SETI advocates encouraged university researchers to join in their work

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 291

24. Barney Oliver and John Billingham, Project Cyclops: A Design Study of a System for Detecting

Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life, NASA CR114445, 1972. The report has been recently reprinted by the SETI

Institute. See also Steven J. Dick, “The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the NASA HighResolution Microwave Survey (HRMS): Historical Perspectives,” Space Science Reviews, 64: 93–139

(1993). Among the conclusions of the Cyclops Report was that “signaling was vastly more efficient than

interstellar travel.”

25. NASA, Outlook for Space, report to the NASA Administrator, 1976, pp. 38, 145–149. This report was

prepared by members from all NASA Centers to guide NASA’s thinking for the next 25 years. It considered

research into the origin and existence of life, microbial or intelligent, as an important part of NASA’s space

objectives through the end of the century.

26. John Billingham, Life in the Universe, NASA CP-2156, 1981.

27. Frank Drake, et al., “SETI Science Working Group Report,” NASA Technical Paper 2244, 1983. The

report identified scientific objectives, organizational structure, system requirements, costs, schedules, and

applications.
and collaborated with Soviet scientists to obtain data from their studies. They found

applications for the technologies they had developed for the program; the National

Security Agency saw applicability in code breaking, the FAA was interested in using

frequency analyzers developed for SETI, and an algorithm developed to pick up weak

signals against a dense background was incorporated in mammography technology to

improve its sensitivity.

The most significant time in getting SETI accepted as an ongoing project was in 1989,

when NASA got approval from the Office of Management and Budget to use existing

funds for a new start to support SETI. In January 1993, the Bush Administration

requested $12 million for FY91, up from $4.2 million in FY90, to support a fully fledged

Microwave Observing Project search. Renamed the High-Resolution Microwave Survey

(HRMS), the program in exobiology was finally approved for funding to the tune of $11.5

million in FY92. It looked, at last, as if the search for intelligent life in the universe was

becoming a reality. 

Yet less than a year later, Congress terminated the SETI/HRMS program. Reasons for

termination ranged from concerns over the federal deficit to the unfounded perception

that associated the program with UFO encounters and “little green men.” In January

1993, OSSA decided to transfer the program (together with the rest of Exobiology) from

the Life Sciences Division to the Solar System Exploration Division and made it part of its

TOPS (Toward Other Planetary Systems) program. The House Authorization and

Appropriations Committees and Senate Authorization Committee tried to cancel it, but it

was saved by Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah) and was included in the NASA appropriations

bill that was sent to the Senate floor for debate. However, on 22 September 1993, Senator

Richard Bryan (R-Nevada) offered a last-minute amendment to kill SETI; the full Senate

concurred. A House-Senate conference approved only $1 million for program

termination costs. Bryan issued a press release saying “This hopefully will be the end of

Martian hunting season at the taxpayer’s expense.” Due to the foresight of its creators,

SETI has survived and prospered with private funding in the form of the SETI Institute,

while the cancellation of NASA’s SETI program significantly curtailed the scope of 

the search.28

From Exobiology to Astrobiology

In 1993, an intense strategic planning activity was initiated at Ames in parallel with a

Headquarters-organized Zero-Base Review to assess the activities, resources, and roles of

the NASA Centers. Since the reduction in force activities of 1972, the closure of one NASA

292 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

28. Stephen J. Garber, “Searching for Good Science: The Cancellation of NASA’s SETI Programs,” Journal of

the British Interplanetary Society, 52: 3–12 (1999) discusses the political battles that led to the cancellation of the

program. Garber refers to a conversation with Kevin Kelly on 2 July 1997. Kelly was then the majority clerk and staff

director for the Senate appropriations subcommittee dealing with NASA. “Kelly criticized the claim by SETI

supporters that ‘if this doesn’t get funded by Congress, it won’t get done’ as being false since the SETI Institute was

able to continue Project Phoenix with private funds. Project Phoenix, however, only continued the targeted search

portion of NASA’s SETI program; the all-sky survey was dropped for lack of money. Additionally, Kelly stated that

doing ground-based astronomy is not part of NASA’s prime mission, but even most casual observers would probably

concede that looking for ETI fit into NASA’s overall mission more appropriately than that of any other agency.”
Center, the Electronics Research Lab in Massachusetts, and the attrition of the

aeronautics activities, there had been a resurgence of human flights, and the Stennis and

Dryden organizations, which previously had reported to one of the existing Field Centers,

gained separate Center status. 

Under the intense pressure of the Zero-Base Review, Ames perceived itself as very

vulnerable to closure. The future of space science there looked bleak, as Ames was

unlikely to receive new missions to manage. NASA’s managers decided that the Agency

could only support two Centers pursuing space science missions; Goddard was strong in

space and Earth science missions and JPL in planetary missions. Ames had leadership in

information technology and its work in human factors, and air traffic control was highly

regarded. But its life sciences program had been allowed to erode. There was no longer a

Space Life Sciences Directorate at the Center, and the number of life scientists had

dwindled. Life sciences research had been amalgamated in the early 1980s into a Space

Research Directorate consisting of space, Earth, and life sciences components. The ZeroBase Review concluded that Ames should get out of Earth science, major elements of

space science, and major elements of life sciences and technology work. 

Under threat of Center closure, Ames scientists repackaged their range of interests in

all three science areas into a more cohesive vision very similar to Billingham’s “Life in the

Universe” concept.(See Document III-27.) Associate Administrator for Space Science Wes

Huntress liked the idea. He suggested “Astrobiology” as an encompassing name for the

broader concept. Intense planning activities and workshops with the science community

followed. The Astrobiology program was born, and Ames was given the lead role. The

astrobiology concept incorporated research earlier considered exobiology—the origin of

life and how life evolved within Earth’s harshest environments. It also encompassed the

distribution, evolution of life, and future of life in the universe, and how to search for

other biospheres in the solar system and beyond. The range of topics covered under the

theme of “astrobiology” thus went well beyond traditional “exobiology” and included

Earth science components as well as other life sciences areas such as gravitational and

evolutionary biology. 

Human Spaceflight and

Life Sciences Research

After the Skylab program ended in 1973, there were no more flight research

opportunities involving human presence in orbit in sight for life sciences. This meant that

for about ten years, until research could be done on Space Shuttle flights, life sciences

research, to the degree it involved humans, was essentially grounded. This was not all bad

news, because there was much ground research to be done in preparation for future flight

opportunities. 

In addition, Europe decided to contribute a major element to the post-Apollo

human spaceflight program in 1973. Europe chose to build Spacelab, which was

composed of a pressurized module that fit into the Shuttle bay and additional elements

that would allow other science that did not require a pressurized environment to be done

there. Thus Spacelab would make it possible for the Shuttle to act as a usable orbital

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 293
laboratory. It provided life scientists with a very sophisticated facility that could be used

to conduct flight experiments. By being outfitted for power, water, plumbing, and other

utilities as an integral part of the laboratory, Spacelab could accommodate

interchangeable payload hardware and more sophisticated experimentation than had

ever been carried out in space.

Although a great deal has and can be accomplished on robotic space platforms,

there were some experimental procedures that needed expert human operators. The

Spacelab series of Shuttle flights dedicated to life sciences research carried payload

specialists rather than career astronaut mission specialists. The use of academic scientists

as payload specialists, who were expected only to fly once, and who were selected to

perform a set of experiments in flight related to their academic training, provided a

crucial advantage over telescience. 

The success of the Spacelab series of Shuttle flights dedicated to space life sciences

research using payload specialists enabled a significant increase in experimental

sophistication. Dedicated life sciences missions, like SLS-1 in 1991, SLS-2 in 1993, and

Neurolab in 1998, proved to be immensely productive because the advantages of the prior

training of the payload specialist on the mission was maximized. Unfortunately, the

astronaut category of payload specialist came to an end with Neurolab and was not

planned to be employed on the International Space Station (ISS).

The other advantage of human missions was when astronauts served as test subjects

for the purpose of human biology research. From the very first Mercury flight, astronauts

have been tested for medical evaluation purposes. The 1973 Skylab series of three

missions was the first to use experimental protocols to test hypotheses derived from

observations on Gemini VII, ground research, and nonhuman flight experiments

regarding how the absence of gravity would affect calcium balance and the

neurovestibular system. The building of the life sciences community over the nine years

between Skylab and the Shuttle, through support of focused ground research and the use

of the Cosmos/Bion space platform, was an important and serendipitous step in the

development of hypotheses and methodologies to get the most out of the Spacelab

missions dedicated to life sciences research. 

The use of astronauts as research volunteers (in addition to their other duties) was

not without its problems. Ethical practices governing the use of all human research

subjects had to apply. Even though the pool of potential subjects is limited by the number

of astronauts on a mission, precautions had to be taken to ensure they were truly

volunteers and did not feel coerced in any way.29 The limited number of Spacelab life

sciences research missions and the paucity of astronaut volunteers who could be studied

concurrently constrained what could be accomplished. Despite limited opportunities to

study large numbers and repeat and confirm results, the remarkable consistency of the

data was attributed to the fundamental importance of gravity to biology. 

SLS-1, the first dedicated Life Sciences Spacelab mission, flew in June 1991. The

Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for this mission had been released in 1978, but the

flight was delayed after the 1986 Challenger accident. SLS-2 was launched on 18 October

294 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

29. For a discussion of this issue, see Laurie Zoloth, “The Ethics of Human Spaceflight,” in Stephen J.

Garber, ed., Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of U.S. Human Spaceflight, NASA SP-2002-4107.
1993; among its experiments were several that required the killing in orbit of laboratory

rats, an issue of high political sensitivity. (See Document III- 26.) The AO for Neurolab

was released in 1993; the mission flew in May 1998. (See Document III-24.) Life sciences

experiments also flew on another eight multidisciplinary Spacelab missions. Delays

between selection of experiments and flight were very costly, but more important was a

major source of frustration among better scientists, who, in response, could have turned

away from the program. It also was tragic for graduate students who hoped to get degrees

on research results from flight experiments.

Yet the history of Spacelab was impressive. NASA and ESA signed the Memorandum

of Understanding for Spacelab development in 1973. Eleven European nations came

together to develop a pressurized laboratory at the same time as the Shuttle was moving

forward in its development. The space station was decades away, and there was a pressing

need to introduce laboratory capabilities on the Shuttle. The first Spacelab mission, STS9, flew in November 1983, and the last, Neurolab, in April 1998. Elements of the Spacelab

system, including unpressurized pallets as well as the pressurized laboratory, flew thirty-six

times in the seventeen years from 1981 to 1998, with a variety of international hardware

spanning all space science disciplines and involving investigators and crew from around

the world. The Spacelab program paved the way for international space research

collaboration aboard the International Space Station (ISS). When the Shuttle-Mir

program started in 1995, Mir had no life sciences research capabilities. A Shuttle with

Spacelab aboard docked to Mir, carrying instruments and allowing some experiments to

be conducted. The scientific accomplishments of Spacelab research were recognized in

1999 in a special forum held at the National Academy of Sciences.30

Mir was later outfitted by NASA with limited life sciences research capability. Because

it provided U.S. experimenters extended duration in space for the first time, some

research was carried out. For instance, it was demonstrated that a plant could go from

seed to seed, while circadian rhythms away from Earth’s gravity were studied in beetles.

Together with a complementary ground research program, Spacelab and Mir findings

opened up a Pandora’s box of expectations in the life sciences community. The

International Space Station was to be the laboratory every space life sciences researcher

could have hoped for, with its proposed suite of state-of-the-art facilities, including an

onboard centrifuge providing an Earth-like one-gravity control with all it could reveal

about gravity thresholds and the evolution of gravity sensors.

But it was not to be. These hopes for the space station have been dampened by

mismanagement, budgetary woes, hardware cutbacks and delays, reduced crew size and

crew time available for research, missing skills, and onboard capabilities. Interim Shuttle

flights providing the occasional small payload opportunity also receded—victim to related

budget setbacks.

Yet another hiatus in flight opportunities loomed. The International Space Station

could not be justified on space life sciences research alone. Just as life sciences

research was not the only or even the primary beneficiary of Spacelab, equally it could

not rely on ISS alone to accomplish a flight research program that responded to the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 295

30. J. Edmond, ed., The Spacelab Accomplishments Forum, NASA CP-2000-210332, 2000.
enthusiasm generated by the Neurolab model in the broader, sophisticated science

community developed and nurtured during the past ten years. With the completion of

ISS receding into the future, plants and animals such as mice and rats could not be

accommodated until 2008 at the earliest. It seemed that a complementary robotic and

human-tended research capability was the only way to build on the exciting potential

of the space life sciences. 

Other Developments

The relationship of the life sciences program to the rest of NASA has always been

uneasy. Attempts to establish space life sciences as a legitimate research area with the

broader life sciences community have met with the expected resistance of investigators

having to deal with any new principle, in this instance, gravity. There have been

fundamental cultural differences between its experimental orientation and the space

scientists’ event-science approaches. Settling comfortably within an engineering agency

has been impossible. Unlike other science where the “what” and the “why” drives how

science was done and what space platforms it needed, life sciences has usually been

subordinate to engineering agency priorities. In addition, it has constantly had to justify

to engineers the need for an integrated ground and flight research program whose sole

index of success was survival of the specimen, or to the medical operations community

who could not see how research-derived knowledge helped them to do their job.

Notwithstanding this environment, or maybe because of its difficulties, life sciences

leaders have creatively sought out methods and partnerships to promote their goals.

International Collaboration

Following on David Winter’s active support in the 1970s of the U.S.-Soviet

collaboration in the Cosmos/Bion program, Arnauld Nicogossian expanded international

collaboration by forming the International Life Sciences Strategic Working Group

(ILSSWG) in 1989 to bring in non-Soviet space agencies who were collaborating on

Spacelab missions. In the 1990s, the group developed an approach to selecting jointly

solicited peer-reviewed flight experiments and established hardware-sharing mechanisms

for all available space platforms. It became crucial to the international scientific

collaboration on the ISS and ensured cost savings to the United States through facilities

provided by international partners. Most bilateral life sciences Joint Working Groups

(JWGs) were abolished to force multilateral collaboration rather than bilateral

agreements with individual space agencies. The JWG with Russia continued on a separate

basis, since the Russians stated their preference for bilateral collaboration, which in many

instances involved exchange of funds.

Interagency Collaboration

In the 1990s, partnerships with other U.S. agencies were fostered. An agreement

was signed in 1992 between Administrator Goldin and Bernadine Healy, Director of

the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the result of many years of discussion between

Life Sciences Division staff and NIH directors. This agreement led to joint funding of

296 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
NASA Specialized Centers of Research and Training (NSCORT) for research in the

Vestibular System. An agreement in 1993 with the National Science Foundation (NSF)

led to the joint funding of an NSCORT devoted to plant research. An agreement with

the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1997 supported the construction of a heavy ion

beam facility at Brookhaven National Laboratory which made possible much needed

research on the effects of space radiation in living organisms, as well as the testing of

shielding materials.

NASA’s Life Sciences Division and NIH Institutes, as well as NSF, the Office of Naval

Research, and international agencies, joined forces to fly Neurolab as NASA’s

contribution to the congressionally mandated “Decade of the Brain” in the 1990s. The

1998 Neurolab Spacelab mission was devoted to research on the nervous system.

Experiments were solicited and selected jointly. NIH managed the international

scientific review. International partners provided important equipment that made the

research possible. They also supported investigators and research from their countries.

The U.S. investigators were supported by NIH, NSF, or ONR for ground research and

NASA for flight experiment components. Experience gained on previous dedicated

Spacelab missions enabled NASA to fly a highly sophisticated set of life sciences

experiments on Neurolab. For instance, on SLS-1, the rats flown were only studied before

and after the seven-day flight. On SLS-2, rats flown for fourteen days were studied before,

during, and after the flight because of the surgical expertise of the payload and mission

specialists. The ability to evaluate the effects of microgravity during spaceflight was of

fundamental significance to biology because postflight data were confounded by

exposure of animals, humans, and other life forms to hypergravity forces during reentry.

One significant finding was that the nervous system, especially the inner ear vestibular

gravity-sensing system, was much more plastic than previously known. It showed adaptive

structural changes to both microgravity and hypergravity. For the first time on a (sixteenday) Neurolab mission, the electrical activity of sympathetic nerves in the legs of

crewmembers were recorded directly before, during, and after flight. This was done to

determine whether circulation and muscle changes were caused by reduced electrical

activity in the absence of gravity loading. Nerve electrical activity also was recorded

directly from the brains of rats and the vestibular nerves of fish. The number of brain

cells of mouse embryos was greater in space than their counterparts on the ground.

Muscles of developing rats were smaller, weaker, and less able to support body weight

after spaceflight.

This productive collaboration with NIH paved the way on 28 October 1998 for the

successful return to space of 1962 Mercury astronaut Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) on

STS-95. Glenn was 77 at the time of his launch. NASA and the National Institute on Aging

jointly selected the peer-reviewed flight experiments that would best address the effects of

spaceflight on older humans; these included sleep, muscle, cardiovascular, and balance

studies. Much criticism was levied by some in the science community that no significance

could be placed on just one test subject if he differed from his younger crewmates. In fact,

Glenn’s response to spaceflight was no different from those of younger astronauts,

suggesting that state of health and activity, rather than age, were more relevant to one’s

adaptability to space. His flight also highlighted the value of space research to

understanding age-related body changes. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 297
After years of skepticism of the need or value of space life sciences research, NIH put

out its own Program Announcement in 1999 for space-related ground research.31 From

NASA’s perspective, this announcement introduced to the 20,000 or so NIH-supported

investigators the potential research advantages that the space environment had to offer

and helped develop the research community for the ISS.

Strategies for Research—Science Policy

Over the years, excellent strategic plans and research strategies have been developed

for life sciences. They have not been fully implemented because requests for additional

research funding were always hard to defend, and the organizational instability of

program elements made it even harder to sustain a stable strategy. When Arnauld

Nicogossian was Director of the Life Sciences Division under OSSA, he asked Frederick C.

Robbins to convene a distinguished panel and review the life sciences yet again. This was

probably the most comprehensive review yet, including science, management, and Center

issues. The NASA Life Sciences Strategic Planning Committee Report in June 1988

established the basis for a strategic plan for life sciences. It recommended a significant

increase in ground-based and flight research efforts in order for Life Sciences Division to

meet its obligations to ongoing and future programs. (See Document III-23.) Nicogossian

used this report as the basis of his successful advocacy of an increase in the life sciences

budget. He saw the success OSSA had by organizing research around missions or facilities.

He proposed a series of dedicated Spacelab missions, LifeSat, and a suite of sophisticated

hardware for the then-planned Space Station Freedom, including an onboard centrifuge.

Nicogossian was successful within NASA, where so many others had failed; his interactions

with the external science community were not as productive. Then, the budget cuts of

FY94 eliminated SLS-3, 5, 6, and 7, in essence gutting Nicogossian’s plans. 

No sooner was OLMSA formed in 1993 than a memo from Senator Barbara Mikulski

(D-Maryland), then Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee that oversaw NASA’s

budget, arrived at NASA. It reflected concerns of the life sciences research community

and criticized the quality of the scientific peer-review process and management of grants

by the Life Sciences Division. So significant was the concern of the scientific community

that grants were managed at NASA Field Centers and not at NASA Headquarters. The

memo requested reports from NASA every three months on changes and progress.

In response, a thorough review and revision of policy and process was put into

effect. Grants management was returned to NASA Headquarters. An annual NASA

Research Announcement (NRA) reflecting the advice of the CSBM research strategy

reports was put into place. Policies on conflict of interest of peer reviewers were enforced,

and the segregation of intramural and extramural budgets were abolished so that

scientists from both communities could compete openly and fairly in the same arena. (See

Document III-25.)

298 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE

31. This announcement stated that “The purpose of this PA is to stimulate ground-based research on basic,

applied, and clinical biomedical and behavioral problems that are relevant to human space flight or that could

use the space environment as a laboratory. Although none of the research supported under this initiative would

be conducted in space, it is anticipated that it would form a basis for future competitively reviewed studies which

could be conducted on the International Space Station, or other space flight opportunities, by skilled on-board

specialists.” More information is available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-00-088.html
Science Institutes

In 1995, following on the Zero-Base Review, one suggested organizational change was

the transfer of scientists out of NASA by the formation of “privatized” institutes for focused

science activities. An Agencywide committee, led by Al Diaz of OSS, conducted a

benchmarking review and comprehensive analysis of a variety of existing science institutes

around the country to develop approaches to the institute form that would best suit

NASA. Recommendations and criteria were presented to France Cordova, Chief Scientist,

and Administrator Goldin. The recommendations included authorities and

responsibilities, methods of solicitation and selection, and emphasized the importance of

the quality of the Director to the success of the institute.

However, not all institutes that were actually established followed the same process.

The Lewis Research Center Institute, the first to be formed in March 1997, was the result

of an unsolicited proposal. The second institute, established in May 1997, was the National

Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), a multiuniversity “virtual” institute with its

main base at Baylor University. It was solicited, competed, and peer reviewed before

selection. Neither the NSBRI nor the Lewis Institute required the transfer of civil servants.

Others, like one for the biological science at Ames, hit a roadblock over the problem of

moving civil servants into a private institute. Congress balked at passing legislation to ease

post-employment restrictions for NASA employees or allow them to transfer their

pensions. Without these provisions, universities were reluctant to take on such a big task.

The SSB recommended caution to the space science community, and the momentum to

form institutes subsided.32

The 1996 discovery of hints of fossils in a meteorite from Mars and photos from the

Galileo orbiter showing that Jupiter’s moon Europa could have ice or liquid water led

NASA Administrator Goldin to name Ames as the Lead Center in Astrobiology. He also

asked Ames to consider forming an institute to promote collaboration with the broader

scientific community. The result was the creation in 1998 of the NASA Astrobiology

Institute. This “virtual” institute was very different from the others because it had its

institutional center within NASA, and the director was a NASA employee. It supported

collaborative science, providing an information link between scientists, mission planners,

and technologists while explaining field-related questions to the educational community

and the public. This was an ambitious experiment of managing science and seemed

particularly relevant to interdisciplinary astrobiology interests. The institute has leveraged

the participation of 700 members, including fifteen Principal Investigators and ninety

graduate students. Nobel Laureate Baruch Blumberg was its first Director. The National

Astrobiology Institute showed evidence of tremendous value added and promised to be

an interesting model for managing science within NASA. Of the three institutes, it has

been the most successful in recruiting talent and resources internationally. 

Unlike the SETI Institute, none of these three new institutes was truly private, since

they were almost wholly funded by NASA. Neither cost savings nor the transfer of

NASA personnel to the private sector have materialized as a result of the science

institute initiative.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 299

32. Space Studies Board, Managing the Space Sciences, 1995.
The Contributions of Dan Goldin 

The new emphasis on biology in NASA would not have happened were it not for

Daniel Goldin’s active and unprecedented advocacy. Goldin, a visionary, stood up for his

intellectual investment, for his constant desire to be in the forefront of knowledge, and for

his enthusiasm. He was quick to recognize the impact the revolution in biological research

worldwide was having and the leaps NASA life sciences could make in health applications

and biology-based technologies. He wanted NASA to be in the vanguard of that revolution.

In 1999, he brought NSF biologist Kathie Olsen to NASA as Chief Scientist and forged

partnerships with the National Cancer Institute. In June of 2000, he asked Olsen to become

Acting Associate Administrator of OLMSA when Nicogossian left to assume full-time Chief

Medical Officer responsibilities. A new NASA Strategic Plan was in the works, and Olsen

persuaded Goldin and NASA upper management to recognize OLMSA as a separate

Enterprise. The name was changed to Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR).

On 30 August 2000, when the author of this essay retired, the Life Sciences Division was

divided into a Fundamental Space Biology Division and a Bioastronautics Research

Division. Despite this significant upgrading in status, life sciences programs were still to be

found in many other offices in NASA. 

The Future

From the recommendations in 1958 that space life sciences should be part of NASA

rather than that of other agencies, recommendations for its organizational status and its

management have been remarkably consistent. Essentially these included consolidation of

life sciences efforts in one program office with appropriate management and budget

authority reporting directly to the Administrator. Apart from Administrator Glennan’s

actions in 1960, at no time in NASA’s history has the sum of these recommendations been

followed. Each reorganization has responded only in part, leaving the new life sciences

organizational structure incomplete or handicapped. Unlike other NASA science

organizations, it had neither authority nor responsibility for planning, developing, and

managing its assets, whether flight platforms or Centers. As a result, its flight program has

been opportunistic rather than systematic. Yet the life sciences program has led the way in

interagency and international partnerships and leveraging. Recently, with ever-improving

scientific standards, excellent external advice, and effective outreach through education,

perceptions of the life sciences community among Congress and the public have been

turned around and have become increasingly positive. (See Document III-29.)

This is a great time in the history of the world to be a biologist. It is also the best

opportunity NASA has had to capitalize on its own life sciences research potential. 

300 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Document III-1

Document Title: J. W. Joyce, Head, Office for the International Geophysical Year,

National Science Foundation, ONR Plans for a Biological Experiment in Early U.S.

Satellite Flights, 4 November 1957.

Source: National Archives and Record Administration, Washington, D.C.

[no page number]

[all pages stamped “ADMINISTRATIVE-CONFIDENTIAL”]

This is a record of a meeting in the weeks following the launch of Sputnik 1 to discuss the possibility

of flying a life sciences experiment on one of the initial Vanguard satellites that at that point were the

only approved U.S. scientific satellite efforts. The National Science Foundation was overseeing the

experiments to be flown on Vanguard satellites, which were being developed at the Office of Naval

Research. Notable here is the concern that there be no possibility of linking a simple life sciences

experiment in space with preparations for biological warfare. 

DIARY NOTE

November 4, 1957

Subject: ONR Plans for a Biological Experiment in Early U.S. Satellite Flights

On Friday, November 1, I received a call from Captain Phoebus of the Office of Naval

Research advising me of a meeting to be held the following morning, Saturday, November

2, at 10 o’clock in Room 1515 T-3 Building. The announced purpose of this meeting was

to consider possible release of information on planned biological experiments that might

be undertaken with the six-inch test satellites and later on with the 20-inch spheres.

In response to my queries, Captain Phoebus indicated that contact had already been

made with Reid and Odishaw at the USNC-IGY. I suggested also that he advise Hirsch of

the meeting, and we agreed that I would mention it to Hirsch myself.

The meeting was held as scheduled, and Sprugel, Krats, and I attended from the

National Science Foundation.

There were about 30 people present with Captain Metzger acting as the master of

ceremonies, since Admiral Bennett had been unexpectedly detained on some other work.

Metzger introduced Captain Phoebus, who proceeded to read a proposed press release

announcing the initiation by the Office of Naval Research of a step-by-step program which

would eventually lead to space flight by human beings. Stripped of the fancy language, the

proposal revealed that as a first step in this admittedly difficult undertaking small samples

of simple cellular organisms would be sent up under reasonably controlled conditions and

environment to determine their behavior.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 301
Briefly, Captain Phoebus, and later Dr. Sidney Galler, indicated that a group of top

biophysicists and biologists had met on an ad hoc basis the previous week to explore the

problem. The numbers of substances that might be utilized had been narrowed down to

a relatively few, including certain yeasts and certain bacteria. The idea was to use a small

cylinder of about two inches in length, one inch in diameter, which would contain a

sample of the organisms and which would provide as nearly as possible an environment in

which they might be able to survive and actually reproduce. This, of course, implied

reasonable temperature excursions, pressure control, and protection against ultra-violet

light and some components of X-rays. There would undoubtedly be some X-ray exposure,

to say nothing of cosmic ray exposure which cannot be controlled. On the ground at the

same that the sample was in flight a control batch of the organisms would be maintained

under carefully regulated conditions, and comparisons would then be made between the

earth-bound sample and the material in the satellite.

Variations, if they occurred, would then be traced down to see what their causes might

have been. Properties that might have been telemetered from the satellite would include

(a) rate of CO2 production, (b) resistance- [2] measured accumulation of metabolic

products, (c) changes in optical properties of the nutrient medium. This latter

measurement would tie to (b) to some extent. 

The reported advantages of using simple cells, in addition to a significant reduction

in the number of variables that would apply for a more complex organism, are that (a)

several generations can be studied during a single flight, and (b) reasonably good

statistical data can be obtained.

The total weight of the biological sample with a simple electronics modulator to

convert sensing data to electronic signals for telemetering purposes is estimated at three

and a half ounces. One of the ground rules which was clearly stated was that this

experiment would in no way interfere with or compromise the geophysical experiments

already planned for both the six-inch sphere and the 20-inch satellite. The only penalty

might be a slightly reduced battery life (perhaps a day in some three-weeks life for the sixinch ball was a quantitative figure mentioned.)

The VANGUARD contingent (Hagen, Newell, et al) have apparently reviewed the

proposal carefully and are convinced that this is a fundamental and worthwhile, and that

they are therefore quite willing to see it put into the spheres if possible.

Odishaw, Reid, and later on Porter were present from the USNC-IGY and there was

no basic disagreement as far as their reactions were concerned provided, of course, that

the geophysical work was not compromised. Odishaw asked whether there might not be

some other geophysical experiment that could be flown which would match the threeand-a-half ounce requirement of the biological experiment. Newell stated that there was

no such experiment available at this time. 

302 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Several points were raised in the ensuing discussion, including the danger

propaganda-wise of being tied in with biological warfare if it was announced that bacteria

were being flown in the sphere. While everyone recognized the untenability of such a

claim on the basis of scientific and technological considerations, it was equally clear that

propaganda-wise it can be used in spite of this to influence certain uninformed

populations. For this reason it was urged that yeast be used as the biological material since

this, of course, could be associated with such everyday concepts as food and drink (bread,

beer, etc.).

Although the meeting was supposed to be primarily for the purpose of informing the

various interested groups about the planned activities, it was decided that the proposed

press release was far too lengthy and grandiose. It was further decided that nothing should

be said until after November 7 when more is known of Soviet activities and intentions.

(The November 3rd release on Sputnik II answers this very effectively.) When any

statement is made there will be a simple unaffected announcement in a low key and it may

include all of the experiments that will be undertaken by the particular satellite involved.

Every effort will be made to use yeast instead of bacteria and an active liaison with the

USNC-IGY Satellite Panel will be started immediately. This latter step will consist of a

briefing of the [3] internal instrumentation group on Tuesday, November 5, and a further

briefing of the entire Earth Satellite Panel at its Wednesday meeting, November 6.

In an effort to circumvent adverse propaganda which may be attempted even if yeast

is the material utilized, it was suggested that arrangements be made to bring in suitable

world-renowned biologists from countries such as India who might take an active part in

the planning and certainly would be used in the inspection of the proposed experiment

in order to confirm that it is, in fact, a basic scientific effort, in no way tied to warfare,

bacteriological or otherwise.

Another item briefly considered was the cost of this experiment, and the indications

were that ONR would pick up the tab.

Following the meeting on Saturday, I gave a brief oral report to Dr. Waterman.

J. W. Joyce

cc: Director

Odishaw

Carothers [sic]

Wilson

Sprugel

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 303
Document III-2

Document Title: Objectives, Problems, Program, and Budget for the NASA Biosciences

Program, 3 March 1959. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Within six months of its opening for business, NASA had developed initial plans for a life sciences

research program. It is outlined in this document.

[no page number]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF SPACE

SCIENCES BIOSCIENCES PROGRAM

30 March 1959

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects on living terrestrial organisms of conditions in the earth’s

upper atmosphere, in space, and in other planetary atmospheres. To determine the

effects of flight through space on living organisms. To investigate the existence of life

throughout the solar system, and to study extraterrestrial life forms in detail.

PROBLEMS

The opportunity now exists to conduct fundamental life sciences research in satellites

and space probes. In such research conditions in space and conditions of flight through

space enter as new experimental variables. Principal interest lies in the components of the

space and space flight environment that are irrevocably different from the terrestrial, such

as radiation and the altered gravity state. The former is qualitatively and quantitatively

different from terrestrial radiation and looms as a far more important problem than

originally thought. The latter offers the possibility of elucidating biological processes

known to be affected by weight or apposition of one part against another, such as [2] cell

division and organogenesis. These and other areas of study could be carried out in

satellites or probes from which specimens under study could be recovered.

More specifically, fundamental experiments on living organisms (from simple cell

systems to the monkey) in the satellite environment or in other types of space vehicles and

stations should be conducted along the following general lines:

Animal navigation and orientation 

Mitosis and embryology 

Plant morphogenesis

Geotropic response of plants to altered gravitational fields

Biological rhythms and cycles

Altered gravitational effects on blood circulation in animals

304 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Vestibular physiology

Neuropharmacology--effects of tranquilizers, motion sickness drugs, etc.

Effects of cosmic radiation 

Tolerance limits for combined stresses

Physiological and psychological deterioration 

Effects of acceleration and deceleration

There has been considerable speculation about the possibility of the existence of

extraterrestrial life forms. The [3] debate ranges from whether or not life exists on Mars

and Venus, and if so in what form, to whether or not spores and similar life forms can

survive the rigors of interplanetary space. Investigations of these topics must for the most

part await observations which can be made on direct samples and studied in space

laboratories of the future. It is conceivable, however, that with proper and specialized

instrumentation and remote sampling techniques it may be possible to obtain evidence of

primitive or complex organic material without the presence of a scientist and a laboratory

in the sample area. Elaborate instrumentation and the recovery of records, or advanced

telemetering techniques could provide information about the nature of biochemicals on

the planets.

PROGRAM

The long range program in biosciences will involve the use of two satellites or space

probes per year devoted primarily to biosciences research. In addition experiments will be

conducted in other vehicles in which space may be made available for biosciences

instrumentation. In general, until manned orbiting laboratories become available,

biosciences experiments will. require the recovery of exposed specimens for further study

in the laboratory.

Immediate steps in the biosciences program will be: [4]

(a) A series of group discussions with leading bioscientists to firm up the important

initial lines of attack.

(b) The establishment of one or more Space Sciences Working Groups in the

biosciences area, to work on the preparation of satellite and space probe payloads for

biosciences experiments.

(c) The establishment of a Biosciences Branch of modest size in the Beltsville Space

Center.

Throughout the country there is a great potential of scientific capability for

biosciences space research. At the present time, however, the attention being given to the

area is very limited. The discussion groups proposed under (a) will stimulate interest in

the field, will acquaint bioscientists with the possibilities that exist for fundamental

biosciences research in space, will make known to them the existence of NASA support

for such research, and will bring their collective thinking to bear upon the many problems

in the area.

The Working Groups to be established as stated in (b) will undertake the

experimentation determined upon as a result of the discussion group meetings.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 305
Most of the space research in biosciences will be done by industrial, university, private,

and other government teams already in existence. Nevertheless, it is essential for NASA

[5] to have a comprehensive, even though modest, in-house program in biosciences. Such

an activity is necessary to attract to NASA the competent scientists whose leadership is

needed to ensure that the NASA biosciences program is sound and effective.

The Headquarters staff needed in support of the bio-sciences program will consist of

3 or 4 scientists in the Office of the Assistant Director for Space Sciences.

BUDGET

The annual budget for the biosciences program would be roughly as follows:

M$

Beltsville group (incl. sals) 1

Two satellites

(a) vehicles 5

(b) payloads 2

(c) launch, track, telemeter, reduce data 1

Supporting research and development, partici-pation in other satellites, etc. 2

TOTAL 11

Document III-3

Document Title: G. (George) M. Low, “Biological Payloads and Manned Space Flight,” 16

November 1959. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

George Low in 1959 was in charge of planning the U.S. human spaceflight effort at NASA

Headquarters. This memorandum reviews both early U.S. and Soviet plans for launching animals

and humans into space and concludes that achieving human spaceflight was primarily an

engineering challenge; there seemed to be no major life sciences obstacles to be overcome.

[no page number]

[marked “Confidential”]

G. M. Low 

16 November 1959

306 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
BIOLOGICAL PAYLOADS AND MANNED SPACE FLIGHT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. UNITED STATES PROGRAM 1

A. PAST ACHIEVEMENTS 1

B. PRESENT PROGRAMS

1. X-15 PROGRAM 2

2. PROJECT DISCOVERER 3

3. PROJECT MERCURY 4

4. DYNA-SOAR PROGRAM 5

C. FUTURE PLANS 5

II. SOVIET PROGRAM 6

A. PAST ACHIEVEMENTS 8

B. PRESENT PROGRAMS 8

III. COMPARISON OF UNITED STATES

AND SOVIET PROGRAMS 8

[no page number]

BIOLOGICAL PAYLOADS AND MANNED SPACE FLIGHT

by

G. M. Low

I. UNITED STATES PROGRAM

A. PAST ACHIEVEMENTS

Biologic research in this country dates back to the high altitude rocket experiments

performed from 1948 to 1952. In these experiments 5 V-2's and 3 Aerobee rockets were

used to send animal (monkeys and mice) payloads to altitudes approaching 100 miles.

Although recovery was attempted in all cases, only the monkeys and mice in the last two

Aerobee flights were recovered successfully. An average of 2 1/2 minutes of weightlessness

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 307
was achieved, during which arterial and venous pressures, EKG, pulse, and respiration

values were recorded.

No further biological flights were conducted, in this country, until 1958. During the

spring and summer of that year, three separate Thor-Able nosecones were launched,

containing mice as a payload. Peak altitudes in excess of 1000 miles were reached during

a flight profile that included 38 minutes of weightlessness. Recovery was not

accomplished.

In December of 1958, a South American squirrel monkey was launched along a

ballistic trajectory in the nose cone of a Jupiter missile. During the flight, heart sounds,

EKG, respiratory rate, and skin temperature were recorded. An altitude of 300 miles was

reached, with a weightless period of 13 minutes. The attempted recovery failed.

In May 1959, two monkeys, Able and Baker, were flown in another Jupiter nose cone.

Able was a rhesus monkey, while Baker was a squirrel monkey. Both were recovered safely

after having reached an altitude of 300 miles, and flown in the weightless state for about

[2] 4 1/2 minutes. (Able died later, but not as a result of the space flight.) No adverse

reactions to space flight were observed.

In June 1959, an attempt was made to launch four mice into an earth orbit, using the

Discoverer vehicle. The orbital attempt failed, but 13 minutes of data were received,

including 8 minutes of weightlessness. Heart rate, EKG, and respiration, all appeared to

be normal. No recovery was made.

The following table summarizes the results of U. S. biological space flights to date.

DATE BOOSTER ANIMAL ALTITUDE WEIGHTLESS RECOVERY

PERIOD

1948-50 V-2 (5) Monkeys 100 mi. 4-5 min. No

and mice

1950-52 Aerobee (3) Monkeys 40 mi. 2-3 min. Yes

and mice

1958 Thor-Able (3) Mice 1000 mi. 38 min. No

1958 Jupiter Monkey 300 mi. 13 min. No

1959 Jupiter Monkeys 300 mi. 4 1/2 min. Yes

1959 Discoverer Mice 140 mi. 8 min. No

B. PRESENT PROGRAMS:

1. X-15 PROGRAM - The X-15 airplane is designed to study the problems of piloted

flight at hypersonic speeds. Although the X-15 is an airplane, and not a spaceship, its

flight trajectory will leave the earth's atmosphere for short periods of time. It will have

the capability of reaching altitudes approaching 60 miles, or speeds of 6600 feet per

308 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
second. The initial phases of flight testing are now underway, and maximum

performance flights are scheduled for the fall of 1960.[3]

2. PROJECT DISCOVERER - The bioastronautics phase of the Discoverer project has

the following objectives:

(a) Recovery of living specimen from satellite flight;

(b) Study of the psychophysiologic response of animals to launch, orbit and

recovery conditions;

(c) Gain confidence and build experience in biomedical ground support and

recovery techniques.

To date, the Discoverer project has been plagued with engineering difficulties,

and none of the instrumented payloads have yet been recovered. Present plans call

for an animal flight immediately after the first successful recovery of an instrumented

payload. Assuming a successful recovery late in November 1959 (the next scheduled

flight), an animal flight could take place in December. The second, and only other

animal flight, is scheduled for one or two months after the first.

The flights will have the following characteristics:

Orbit altitude 140 mi.

Orbit period 93 min.

Time in orbit 27 hrs.

Launch azimuth 173°

The animals used in these flights will be rhesus monkeys, trained to perform tasks

during the flights; the usual biomedical data will be taken.

The following summary table includes the earliest possible flights scheduled for

Discoverer:

DATE BOOSTER ANIMAL ALTITUDE WEIGHTLESS RECOVERY

PERIOD

Dec 59 Thor-Agena Rhesus 140 mi. 27 hrs. Yes

Jan 60 Thor-Agena Rhesus 140 mi. 27 hrs. Yes

[4] 

3. PROJECT MERCURY - Project Mercury has the objectives of achieving manned

orbital flight and successful recovery at the earliest practicable date; and of studying man's

capabilities in a space environment. In order to accomplish these objectives, a step-wise

buildup of capability is employed. Thus, for example, full-scale models of the Mercury

capsule are first launched along ballistic trajectories, in order to determine heating and

stability characteristics. Later on, production capsules will be launched along ballistic

paths, before orbital flight is attempted.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 309
Some of the preliminary Mercury flights will carry live payloads - monkeys,

chimpanzees and men - in order to qualify the systems, obtain physiological data, and, in

the case of manned ballistic flights, provide pilot training.

When the Mercury program was established, it was recognized that the engineering

problems, and not the biomedical problems, would be the difficult ones. The flight

schedule, therefore, reflects a desire to obtain engineering data at an early date, but no

attempt was made to perform either animal or manned ballistic flights at the earliest

possible date. For example, an important milestone in Project Mercury was the "Big Joe"

Atlas-launched ballistic flight of a full-scale Mercury capsule model in September 1959.

This payload, which was recovered, could easily have contained a monkey or chimpanzee;

yet no animal was included because it was believed that an animal in this flight would not

have contributed to the ultimate objectives of Project Mercury.

The manned ballistic flights that are apart of Mercury were also programmed only as

a step toward orbital flight, and not as an end in itself. Manned ballistic flights using the

Redstone booster, would, we believe, have been accomplished even before now if these

flights had been programmed as an end result, and were not to be performed with

hardware capable of orbital flight and post-orbital recovery.

[5]

The present target dates for animal and manned flights of Project Mercury are as

follows:

DATE BOOSTER PAYLOAD ALTITUDE RANGE WEIGHTLESS

PERIOD

Dec 59 Little Joe Monkey 75 mi. 200 mi. 4 min.

Mar 60 Little Joe Chimpanzee 9 mi. 8 mi. 1 min.

Jul 60 Redstone Chimpanzee 125 mi. 200 mi. 5 1/2 min.

Aug 60 Redstone MAN 125 mi. 200 mi. 5 1/2 min.

Sep 60 Atlas Chimpanzee 120 mi. 4500 mi. 15 min.

Jan 61 Atlas Chimpanzee 120 mi. 3-orbit 4 1/2 hours

Mar 61 Atlas MAN 120 mi. 3-orbit 4 1/2 hours

All payloads will be recovered.

4. DYNA-SOAR PROGRAM - Although the Dyna-Soar vehicle is not an orbital vehicle,

its flight profile will encompass all the problems of a launching into orbit, and recovery

from orbit. Whereas in Mercury the pilot's functions are primarily of a backup nature, the

Dyna-Soar concept relies entirely on the pilot's ability to fly the vehicle. Maximum

performance flights are scheduled for the mid-1960's.

310 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
C. FUTURE PLANS:

It is difficult to formulate precise plans for the future at this time, when the first

manned space vehicle has not yet flown. But certain general plans regarding future

manned space missions can be specified.

In the immediate future, certain extensions of the Mercury program should be

pursued. In particular, a controllable Mercury vehicle, capable of landing within a

small preselected area, should be constructed.

The next major milestone, after Mercury, is manned circumlunar flight. Such a

mission should again follow a step-wise program, including unmanned recoverable

flights in highly elliptic orbits to develop both [6] aerodynamic and guidance

concepts; and long-term flights to develop appropriate life-support systems.

The schedule for the final accomplishment of manned circumlunar flight will be

dictated not by the payload, but by the availability of the booster vehicle. The Saturn

booster, with appropriate upper stages, should be capable of performing this mission.

An immediate and vigorous development of upper stages for Saturn is required to

perform manned flight around the moon within a reasonable period of tune.

II. SOVIET PROGRAM

A. PAST ACHIEVEMENTS:

Between 1949 and 1957 Russian scientists launched twenty high altitude rockets,

each containing two dogs. Initial flights (1949-1952) were to altitudes of 60 miles, with

correspondingly short periods of weightlessness. Later flights were launched to

increasingly higher altitudes, with three flights in 1957 reaching an altitude of 130

miles, and sustaining a weightless period of six minutes.

Apparently recovery attempts were made in all flights, but success was only

achieved in the latter flights of each series. Two different recovery methods were used.

In 11 flights, attempts were made to recover the payload intact, with the dogs

descending to earth in a sealed cabin. In the nine remaining flights (1953-1956), one

of the two dogs was ejected from the capsule at 50-55 miles altitude and descended

from there with a double parachute system; the second dog was ejected at 24 miles

altitude, fell freely to 20,000 feet, and then descended by parachute. In these

experiments the dogs wore pressure suits.

The usual biomedical measurements, including EKG, pulse, blood pressure,

respiration and body temperature were made. The general conclusion was reached

that there were no seriously adverse effects that could be attributed to the

environment.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 311
On November 3, 1957, the dog Laika was launched into orbit aboard Sputnik 2. The

life-support capsule contained, in addition to the 13.2 pound Laika, an air regeneration

system, temperature regulating system, food troughs, [7] sanitary arrangements and

medical instrumentation. Measurements taken included EKG respiration rate, arterial

pressure, and motor behavior. The basic results of the flight were that, although there

were some effects on the heart and respiration during launch, these returned to normal

during weightless flight. There has been some speculation that the oxygen generating

system was of a chemical type, not yet fully developed in this country.

During the summer of 1959, the Russians performed two more ballistic flights

with animal payloads. In one of these, two dogs were used, and in the second, two

dogs and a rabbit. The announced weight of the payload was of the order of 4000

pounds. Peak altitudes have been estimated to be between 130 and 500 miles. It was

announced that the animals were recovered alive.

The Soviet achievements are summarized in the following table:

DATE NO. of ANIMALS ALTITUDE WEIGHTLESS RECOVERY

FLIGHTS PERIOD

1949 1 Dogs 60 2-3 min. Sometimes

1950 1 Dogs 60 2-3 min. Sometimes

1951 1 Dogs 60 2-3 min. Sometimes

1952 2 Dogs 60 2-3 min. Sometimes

1953 2 Dogs 70 3-4 min. Sometimes

1954 3 Dogs 70 3-4 min. Sometimes

1955 3 Dogs 90 3-4 min. Sometimes

1956 4 Dogs 120 3-5 min. Sometimes

1957 3 Dogs 130 6 min. Sometimes

1959 2 Dogs, Rabbit 130-500? ? Yes

11/57 1 Dog Orbital Days No

[8]

B. PRESENT PROGRAM:

There is, of course, no doubt that the Russians plan to place a manned satellite into

orbit at an early date. But, aside from the fact that they, too, have selected their

astronauts, nothing has been published regarding their program.

III. COMPARISON OE UNITED STATES AND SOVIET PROGRAMS

A simple comparison of numbers indicates that the Russians have announced 22

ballistic biomedical flights, while we have had 14. They have used dogs in all their

experiments, while we employed monkeys and mice. Both countries had their share

of successful and unsuccessful recoveries, and both started the experiments at

approximately the same time.

312 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
In addition, the Russians have observed one animal, Laika, in. an earth orbit

about two years ago. As yet, we have not attempted to fly an animal payload in orbit.

All of these flights have supplied physiological data that can be applied to a manin-space program. But in general, the information has served only to indicate that one

need not be concerned about the feasibility of manned space flight; and this

information has been equally available to both the United States and the Soviet

Union.

One cannot, therefore, reach a conclusion concerning manned space flight,

based on an analysis of past accomplishments in rocket flights with biomedical

specimens. The accomplishment of manned space flight will be largely an

engineering accomplishment, depending upon the size and reliability of the booster

system, a knowledge of reentry parameters, and perhaps most important, the

development time available from the formal initiation of the project.

However, one might speculate on where the Soviets stand today, based upon an

extrapolation of their biomedical and other achievements.

[9]

An important point of departure is last summer's Soviet ballistic flights with a 4000

pound payload, containing animals. If this payload is the same one that they plan to use

in their manned satellite flight, then the flight would correspond to the Redstone flights

of the Mercury program. We will not be in a position to duplicate that achievement until

July 1960, or one year after the Russians did it. One cannot help but wonder why the

Russians have not yet made a manned ballistic flight; perhaps they do not consider such

a flight as a prerequisite to manned orbital flight, or perhaps last summer's animal

flights were not as successful as their announcements led us to believe.

In our program, the first manned orbital flight is scheduled nine months after the

first Redstone ballistic flight with an animal. Again, if we assume that last summer's

Soviet flights were the equivalent of our Redstone flights, and if their program is

similar to ours, their manned orbital flights could take place in the Spring of 1960, or

about a year before ours.

One of the most difficult conditions imposed upon our Mercury program is that

of remaining within the severe weight limitations of the Atlas booster. The Soviets

have demonstrated many times that they have no such weight limitations. On the

other side of the ledger, we have demonstrated reentry and recovery of a Mercury type

capsule with our “Big Joe” shot; the Russians have publicized no such achievement.

One might also speculate that when the Soviets accomplish manned orbital flight,

they will put two men into orbit, as opposed to our one. Their entire history of

biological flights in space is based on having two animals in each payload. They most

certainly have the weight-lifting capacity for a two-man capsule. And the propaganda

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 313
value of flying two men, with the knowledge that we cannot do this for many years to

come, would be a great one.

Document III-4

Document Title: NASA Bioscience Advisory Committee Report, 25 January 1960.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

This is the first in what over the subsequent decades would be a series of reports on how best to organize

the NASA life sciences effort. It is notable because its recommendations were echoed by most subsequent

reviews, but only the first NASA Administrator, T. Keith Glennan, implemented them in their totality.

[no page number]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

1520 H Street Northwest

Washington 25 [sic], D.C. 

REPORT OF

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

BIOSCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

JANUARY 25, 1960

Wallace O. Fenn, Ph.D.

David R. Goddard, Ph.D.

Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Chairman 

Donald G. Marquis, Ph.D

Robert S. Morison, M.D.

Clark T. Randt, M.D., Executive Secretary 

Cornelius A. Tobias, Ph.D.

[Table of Contents not included]

[no page number]

Summary and Recommendations

The role of the life sciences in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Program was evaluated by the Bioscience Advisory Committee at the request of the

Administrator.

314 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
The objectives of space research in the life sciences are twofold: (1) investigation of

the effects of extraterrestrial environments on living organisms including the search for

extraterrestrial life; (2) scientific and technologic advances related to manned space flight

and exploration.

The same reasons which prompted the establishment of NASA and gave it

responsibility for all space research and development devoted to peaceful purposes

require that NASA assume responsibility for leadership, coordination and operation of

the biomedical aspects of the national space program.

Present and future needs were considered in three broad categories:

1. Basic biologic effects of extraterrestrial environments, with particular emphasis on

those phenomena associated with weightlessness, ionizing radiation, and alterations in life

rhythms or periodicity as well as the identification of complex organic or other molecules

in planetary atmospheres and surfaces which might be precursors or evidence of

extraterrestrial life.

2. Applied or technologic aspects of medicine and biology as they relate to manned

space flight including the effects of weightlessness on human performance, radiation

hazards, tolerance of force stresses, and maintenance of life-sustaining artificial

environments.

3. [no page number] Medical and behavioral scientific problems concerned with

more fundamental investigation of metabolism, nutrition, blood circulation, respiration,

and the nervous system control of bodily functions and performance in space equivalent

situations.

The Bioscience Advisory Committee makes the following recommendations:

1. That NASA establish an Office of Life Sciences having the responsibility and

authority for planning, organizing, and operating a life sciences program including

intramural and extramural research, development, and training.

2. That a Director of Life Sciences be appointed who is directly responsible to the

Administrator of NASA in the same manner and at the same directional level as the other

program directors.

3. That the internal organization of the Office of Life Sciences include Assistant

Directors for Basic Biology, Applied Medicine and Biology, Medical and Behavioral

Sciences, and the Life Sciences Extramural Program.

4.That an intramural life sciences program and facility be established with three

sections:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 315
a. Basic Biology 

b. Applied Medicine and Biology 

c. Medical and Behavioral Sciences

5. That the Director of Life Sciences recommend advisory committees made up of

consultants outside of NASA to be appointed by the Administrator.

6. That maximum integration of the personnel and facilities applicable to the spaceoriented life sciences in the Military Services and other Government agencies be arranged

in the most appropriate manner indicated by the nature and extent of the specific

problem at hand.

7. [no page number] That the Office of Life Sciences assume proper responsibility for

education and training in the space-oriented life sciences through post-graduate

fellowships, training grants to institutions, and short-term visiting scientist appointments

to be integrated with other NASA efforts in this area.

8. That the NASA Life Sciences Program place special emphasis on the free exchange

of scientific findings, information, and criticism among all scientists.

9. That security regulations be exercised with great caution and limited to matters in

which national security is clearly involved.

10. That the NASA life sciences facilities be considered a public trust in implementing

national anal international cooperative efforts.

[1] I. The Role of the Life Sciences in the National Space Effort.

The Congress of the United States has given to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration the responsibility for all space research and development devoted to

peaceful purposes. NASA has begun the fulfillment of this responsibility with an emphasis

on the physical and engineering sciences which occupy a fundamental position by virtue

of their pertinence to the design, launching and control of all vehicles, whatever their

ultimate scientific purpose. With this aspect of the total program well under way, attention

is properly being directed to other disciplines which, though dependent on the

engineering sciences, will in turn give scientific meaning to the national effort. The

biological, medical and behavioral sciences are among these disciplines. The Bioscience

Advisory Committee has been appointed to aid in representing them adequately within

the NASA program. 

The reasons which prompted the Congress to create NASA as a civilian space agency

and to give it responsibility for achieving the peaceful purpose of the national effort in

space argue equally strongly for the creation in NASA of a strong division of life sciences.

As set forth below, two major areas represent the role of the biological sciences in the

national space effort and should form the core of the proposed program in the life sciences

316 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
of NASA. These are the fundamental biological questions relative to extraterrestrial

environments and the scientific and technologic aspects of manned space flight.

It is altogether fitting that these matters, both of which involve man's curiosity about

himself and his environment in their broadest and most fundamental sense, should be

placed in the hands of an agency broadly representative of society as a whole. The military

agencies which have so soundly laid the groundwork for much of existing space

technology must properly give primary attention to the development of weapons systems

and the national defense. Although the military effort in astronautics should not be

arbitrarily restricted by narrow definitions of military relevance, the broader implications

of extraterrestrial exploration demand the attention of an organization unhampered by

such predetermined objectives.

[2] Space exploration has captured the imagination of men the world over to an

extent which was not, perhaps, anticipated. These activities have became representative of

technological superiority among nations. The United States must maintain its

international role as a strong and self-confident but basically peaceful and benevolent

power. This requires that the first of her citizens who enter space do so as representatives

of the scientific aspirations of all men and not as a symbol of military strength.

The basic study of extraterrestrial environments is ultimately likely to be most

productive in furthering an understanding of the fundamental laws of nature. Among the

most perplexing questions which have challenged men's minds are the nature and origin

of life and the possibility of its presence elsewhere in the universe than on the earth alone.

For the first time in history, partial answers to these questions are within reach. Limited

knowledge acquired over the past century concerning atmospheric and climatic

conditions on other planets, the topographical and seasonal variety in color of the surface

of Mars, the spectroscopic similarities between scattered sunlight from portions of that

planet and those demonstrable from algae and lichens on earth have suggested the

presence of extraterrestrial environments suitable for life and permitted the formulation

of hypotheses for the existence there of some forms of life at present or in the past. These

hypotheses may, within the foreseeable future, be tested, at first indirectly by astronomical

observations made beyond the interference of the earth’s atmosphere and by samplings

taken mechanically from various celestial bodies, and finally, by direct human exploration.

The discovery of extraterrestrial life and a description of its various forms, knowledge of

the presence and types of complex molecules based on carbon or other elements, or

conversely, the absence of living organisms or of their traces in environments conducive

to life will have important implications toward an ultimate understanding of biological

phenomena.

[3] These studies will not be complete until the scientist himself is able to make

meticulous investigations on the spot. This is true, not only for the biological, but, also,

for many other physical, chemical and geological problems which are involved. Although

significant engineering achievements in automation, sensing, recording, programming

and telemetering have been realized and considerable future development is in prospect,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 317
the indispensability of the human observer in much of space exploration is well

established. Man's versatility and selectivity, his ability to perceive the significance of

unexpected and unprogrammed findings or to react intelligently to unanticipated

situations have not been simulated by any combination of physical devices, however

complex, which have been' developed or are even contemplated. Human intelligence and

manual skill in servicing the complicated mechanisms of space vehicles or repairing

breakdowns in flight are not readily dispensed with or replaced. When along with these

attributes are considered his weight of 70 kg, his total resting power requirements of 100

watts, his ability to function for years without maintenance or breakdown, then even the

most elaborate provisions for his sustenance, welfare and safety are amply justified simply

in terms of engineering efficiency. A national program in space science which does not

recognize the essentiality of the human observer and does not plan to utilize him most

effectively may wait indefinitely for the automatic devices to replace him or be limited to

incomplete and opportunistic observations.

Putting a man into space, especially if he is to stay for long periods, is a task which

involves considerable attention and effort from a wide variety of biological, psychological

and medical specialties. It will require careful planning and extensive basic and

developmental research. Together with the effort in astrobiology it should constitute a

substantial part of the total space research and development enterprise.

It comes as no surprise to find that the early stages of space research have been

primarily concerned with engineering matters. To many responsible people it seems

premature if not actually presumptuous to think about what man will do in space until we

are sure that we can actually put him there. But the validity of even the earliest of

engineering decisions must be continually appraised in terms of their capacity to maintain

man comfortably and effectively in space and increase his knowledge of its properties.

Failure to meet the numerous and often subtle physiological and psychological needs of

the [4] human organism, or premature decisions to send man off into an unknown

universe can have disastrous effects not only on the individuals concerned, but on the

nation's political and moral position in the eyes of the world. The scientific objectives of

the program and especially the determination of the nature of extraterrestrial life may be

forever rendered impossible if vehicles containing complex organic molecules are

carelessly allowed to contaminate celestial bodies before science has had a chance to study

the original conditions. Nor can we simply ignore the perhaps remote possibility that

infective organisms brought back from space to earth may cause human disease or destroy

food crops essential to human life. How is the necessary biological wisdom to be brought

to bear in planning the space effort?

As pointed out later in this report, the nation's best scientific brains are already

organized in the form of advisory committees to study and consult on every detail of the

space problem. However, such outside bodies, no matter how soundly constituted, cannot

have effective impact on day-to-day decisions within the space agency unless the agency

itself is provided with a sensitive and powerful administrative mechanism for receiving the

advice and translating it into the energy of decision.

318 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
To implement this program in the life sciences, appropriate in size and importance to

its responsibilities, it is essential to have in NASA a Director of Life Sciences reporting

directly to the Administrator of NASA so that the biomedical interests and skills will have

adequate representation in important decisions. The director of the life sciences

program, therefore, must have broad biological training and interests. He must be able to

understand the physicists and engineers as well as have the ability to present biomedical

aspects of combined problem areas effectively to his colleagues so that he can have

appropriate influence on comprehensive policies and decisions.

These reasons compel the committee to emphasize that the NASA Life Sciences

Program requires and deserves strong financial support and adequate administrative

representation. 

[sections on “Present Status of Life Science Activities” and “Present Needs” not included]

[14] IV. Recommendations for a NASA Program in Life Sciences.

A. Organization of the Office of Life Sciences

This office should have the responsibility and authority for planning, organizing and

operating the Life Sciences Program of NASA, including intramural and extramural

research, development and training. This office would also advise and consult with the

other divisions of NASA and with the Administrator in matters involving biology,

medicine, and psychology. It should have the responsibility for safeguarding the welfare

of human subjects and the public health as well as definitive participation in those projects

which might jeopardize satisfactory investigation of possible extraterrestrial life.

1. The Director of Life Sciences would be vested with the responsibility and

authority of the office of Life Sciences and should be responsible directly to the

Administrator of NASA in the same meaner and at the same directional level as the

other program directors. The calibre [sic] of the incumbent is obviously of

fundamental importance. He should be a man of high scientific stature, an able

administrator with demonstrated capability in the selection and direction of staff. It is

probable that the Director will be found among physicians who have had considerable

experience in the basic medical sciences, although there are others who are not

physicians who might have the requisite background.

2. The Internal Organization of the Office of Life Sciences

The Committee proposes that the Office be organized in four Sections, each with

an Assistant Director responsible to the Director of Life Sciences.

a. Section on Basic Biology

b. Section on Medical and Behavioral Sciences 

c. Section on Applied Medicine and Biology

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 319
The substantive nature of the program of each of these three sections is indicated

under the respective heading in Section III of this report [not included], although

considerable latitude in planning should be given to each assistant director.

[15] d. Section on Extramural Program

This section should be responsible for the administration and in collaboration

with the other assistant directors, and the Director of Life Sciences, the planning of

the extramural program.

3. Advisory Committees

The Director of Life Sciences may desire an advisory committee made up of

consultants outside the NASA, recommended by him and appointed by the

Administrator. Such a committee would normally report to the Director of Life

Sciences or on occasion directly to the Administrator of the NASA.

The assistant directors of the four sections may well need advisory committees for

their activities. These could be made up of NASA personnel plus outside consultants.

B. Intramural Program of the NASA Office of Life Sciences

For a number of cogent reasons, an intramural program in the life sciences of

significant size, diversity, and excellence should be established by the NASA. It is

urgent that this program be initiated without delay.

1. Objectives

The present research effort in this field within NASA appears to be concentrated

upon a single specific goal, exemplified by Project Mercury, at the possible expense

of broader, more remote, but fundamental aims. It is important that the biomedical

aspects of the Project Mercury be placed squarely under the jurisdiction of the Office

of Life Sciences and that it be coordinated with other aspects of the Life Sciences

Program. The remainder of the national space biomedical effort, as found in military,

industrial and academic laboratories, is sporadic and incidental to other primacy

interests or responsibilities. These efforts are, on the whole, of excellent quality and

320 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
[16]

EXPLORING THEUNKNOWN 321

Administrator

Office of 

Business 

Administration

Office of 

Advanced 

Research Programs

Office of 

Space Flight 

Programs

Office of 

Life Sciences 

Programs

Office of 

Launch Vehicle 

Programs

Central Life Sciences Facility

Basic 

Biology

Applied 

Biology and 

Medicine

Medical and 

Behavioral 

Sciences

Life Sciences 

Extramural 

Program

Auxiliary Facilities

I

II

III
[17]

should be maintained and supported; there is need, however, in addition to these

and, coordinated with them, for a broad and thoughtfully planned biomedical

program of research extending from the most fundamental aspects to their most

practical applications. The nucleus of such a national undertaking should be the

NASA intramural program in biology, medicine, and psychology.

The number of competent biological, medical and psychological scientists

motivated toward space research and skilled in its special problems and techniques is,

at present, seriously limited. It is necessary to create a number of career opportunities

in these fields on a long-term, full-time basis and to increase the number of

laboratories and facilities in which post-graduate training for such careers may be

accomplished.

An important ingredient of a productive and creative research effort is the

opportunity for interaction among scientists in all the relevant disciplines; between

those whose interests are in the fundamental areas and those working in the applied

aspects of the problem. The need for interaction has become essential in recent years

as the result of the high degree of specialization which modern science and

technology demands and the accelerating rate at which new knowledge is

accumulating. The older formula for creativity which depended upon the

accumulation by a single mind of all the information necessary to a new concept is

becoming increasingly difficult to achieve; it may, partially at least, be replaced by the

daily contact and collaboration among scientists within a single institute.

An active and distinguished research program in the biological, behavioral and

medical sciences within NASA should provide an atmosphere of knowledge and

responsibility is which the national effort in these fields can best be planned,

administered and coordinated. It should be represented at the highest administrative

levels within NASA and should participate is the planning and direction of the entire

space program. Its members should be available for consultation and should be given

appropriate responsibility and authority in all of NASA activities which involve biology,

medicine or psychology.

[18] 2. Scope of Intramural Life Sciences Facilities

To fulfill these objectives the Committee recommends an intramural research

program whose ultimate dimensions may be envisioned as follows:

a. A broad central facility with laboratories ranging from the most basic biological,

behavioral and medical disciplines through their highly applied aspects. A site at

Goddard Space Flight Center at Greenbelt, Maryland or adjacent to the National

Institutes of Health recommend themselves, each for somewhat different reasons. The

latter would offer the advantages of the unsurpassed facilities of the National Library of

Medicine and of interaction with basic and clinical medical, behavioral and biological

scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the adjacent Naval Medical Center, and

the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Armed Forces Institute of Pathology which

are only a few miles away. All of these opportunities would make the NIH site especially

322 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
advantageous and attractive to scientists in the medical, biomedical, and behavioral

fields. The Greenbelt site, on the other hand, would offer active interfaces both with the

space sciences and space technologies and also with the basic biological sciences

represented in the laboratories of the Department of Agriculture. This site has a further

advantage in the potential for expansion as a national space center which the greater

congestion and the different orientation of the NIH could not make possible. Further

plans regarding the facility should be the responsibility of the Director of Life Sciences

and his staff who will make specific recommendations to the Administrator.

b. A limited number of additional facilities situated at some of the present or

future NASA installations and possibly an institute at one or two universities. Each of

these accessory groups would be somewhat differently oriented depending on the

special functions and the variety of competences represented in their environs. Thus,

an institute located at a university with an important biological tradition should be

more heavily weighted toward basic astrobiology, while one situated where astronomy

and physics were [19] emphasized should reflect an orientation toward astrophysics.

The groups to be incorporated into NASA installations, on the other hand, should be

primarily representative of the technological and engineering aspects of biology and

medicine. They would thus be in a position to utilize the unique facilities of these

installations in the furtherance of astronautical research and, conversely, this would

ensure that engineering development of space vehicles would be carried out with due

regard for the requirements of future occupants.

The Committee is reluctant to stipulate the dimensions which these facilities

should attain or to indicate more precisely their scientific complexion. It would

suggest, however, that the directors would give prior consideration to high quality

rather than quantity, realizing that excellence is not necessarily proportionate to size.

It would emphasize, however, that at least some of the peripheral units, as well as

each of the three units of the central facility, be planned in terms of a minimum critical

mass, defined as an adequate variety of disciplines and number of professional

personnel and their necessary supporting staff and physical facilities to constitute a selfsufficient, mutually interacting and sustaining unit. It is of interest that the varied

experience of the Committee members converged on an estimate of 20 scientists and

30 to 35 supporting personnel as constituting such a minimal staff. An annual budget

of $800,000, exclusive of permanent equipment but including overhead or

reimbursement, would probably be required to support such a minimum unit, and a

facility of 30,000 square feet, over all, to house it, based upon acceptable standards of

biomedical research in other fields. This would indicate therefore an annual budget for

the central facility of the order of 2.4 million dollars and a total of 90,000 square feet.

Even where the program of a unit were oriented to one or another aspect of the

field as would be the case in the accessory laboratories, the scientific staff should be

representative of numerous disciplines, basic as well as applied.

[20] 3. Development of the Intramural Program

The rate of growth toward an intramural program of the scope outlined above will

perforce be limited by the total budget and the competitive needs of the parent agency.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 323
More important, perhaps, may be the limitation, self-imposed by the program's

directors in recognition of the paucity of adequately trained personnel and the other

national needs for such individuals, including the needs by the military departments for

national defense and security and the needs of academic and other institutions for

teaching and research.

The Committee recomends [sic], therefore, that the development of the intramural

program be deliberate and gradual with cooperative utilization of presently available

manpower and facilities which are outside of NASA and their judicious duplication or

replacement by the intramural NASA program as those facilities become obsolete or

overutilized and as the total resource of competent and motivated scientists is augmented

by a training program which NASA itself will substantially support.

The immediate and most pressing need of the program is the appointment of a

Director of Life Sciences and, on his recommendation, the Assistant Directors. (See

Section IV - A. Organization [not included].) It should be the responsibility of the

Director and his Assistant Directors, in consultation with an Advisory Council, should one

be appointed, to plan a national program for NASA in the Life Sciences, to determine its

complexion, establish its philosophy, recruit its senior personnel, and guide its

development.

The Committee recommends that the Director of Life Sciences and his staff in their

initial planning select those segments of the national program which are currently being

carried out by existing facilities in the military services, in universities and research

institutes, and by industry, or which certain of these facilities are capable of carrying out

in the immediate future. By appropriate contracts, transfer of funds, construction grants

or other mechanisms of support, participation of these existing facilities in a coordinated

national program should be invited and made feasible.

[21] At a very early date, the Director of Life Sciences and his staff should begin the

planning, construction and organization of the central and certain of the auxiliary

facilities, concentrating on those areas of basic and applied science not adequately

provided for in existing programs.

As major physical facilities utilized by the NASA biomedical program on a cooperative

basis and of primary concern to that program (i.e. centrifuge and controlled

environmental chambers) become obsolete or overutilized, or as completely new designs

become necessary and feasible, these may be constructed by NASA within its intramural

program and maintained as national and international facilities. This should not prevent

the construction of similar facilities by other agencies where necessary to the execution of

their respective responsibilities. Present cooperative arrangements are a fitting precedent

for the continuance of the concept that these expensive facilities should be shared

wherever possible both in cost and usage, but that the initiative and responsibility for the

construction of any one of them should lie with the agency which has the greatest need.

324 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
C. Extramural Program of the NASA Office of Life Sciences

Investigations in extraterrestrial biology and resolution of problems related to

manned space flight provide an area for research and development necessitating many

diversified contributions. An optimum rate of achievement will require further

cooperation with other government agencies. Important contributions are expected to

come from scientists working in universities, research institutes, and industry. Thus a

strong extramural program is an essential aspect of the activities of NASA in the Life

Sciences: (l) to mobilize the relevant research talent; (2) to obtain ideas, information and

participation essential to the activities of NASA from the best qualified available sources;

(3) to generate among the scientific and industrial communities an awareness of the

activities of NASA and to secure support of its programs.

1. Grants

NASA should set up a system of research grants for individual scientists or groups

of scientists working in [22] universities or nonprofit research institutes based on

original research proposals and with appropriate means for their review and approval.

Such grants should be for the support of basic or applied research in areas of interest

to NASA. These areas of its interest should be broadly interpreted. Proposals from

well qualified interdisciplinary groups should be encouraged.

2. Contracts

We believe that the NASA should enter into contracts with industrial corporations

and governmental agencies for specific research needs, particularly in the field of

technology but also in fundamental research. Such research contracts are particularly

favorable for the solution of short-term problems which might be inefficiently studied in

an intramural program and which might require the hiring of specialized scientists or the

building of particular equipment that would have no long-term value to the agency.

3. Timing

The Committee strongly recommends that the grant program and perhaps

research contracts should be initiated so that money is available to the recipients at the

earliest practicable date. The initiation of this program need not await the setting up

of the permanent organization of the Life Sciences. The NASA may be able to borrow

an experienced official from the United States Public Health Service, the Office of

Naval Research, or the National Science Foundation to get this program under way.

Alternately, the NASA could delegate the approval of such grants to the National

Research Council - National Academy of Sciences. The sort of study section mechanism

used by the United States Public Health Service could serve as an excellent model.

[subsections on NASA/military relationship, training, and communication and

information not included]

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 325
[30] G. NASA Life Sciences Facilities as a Public Trust 

Although much basic research related, to problems of space can be conducted in

appropriate facilities on earth, it is apparent that many observations must be made in

space vehicles. The study of the effect of weightlessness is an obvious example;

spectrographic analysis of the surface of the planets from platforms high above the

disturbing influences of the earth's atmosphere is another. For some time to come, the

space available for scientific instruments in space vehicles is likely to be strictly limited. At

the present time almost all such space and bandwidths available for telemetry are being

absorbed by the equipment necessary to monitor the function of the vehicle itself or to

make limited physical observations of its immediate environment. Prospective

improvement of propulsion systems will soon provide more commodious vehicles, but for

years to come the supply of facilities is likely to be far less than the demand. Proper

allocation of such space facilities will be very difficult to arrange and certainly cannot

much longer be left solely to the good will of those responsible for the design and

operation of launching equipment, or to random excitement as to who can inject the

largest mammal into orbit.

Attention may be drawn to the fact that at present two great powers between them

enjoy a monopoly on operations in space. Although this list may be expanded somewhat

in years to come, the extensive resources needed to support such missions make it likely

that they can be carried out only by the very largest nations. It is a tradition of long

standing in the United States that a monopoly position carries with it the obligation to

conduct affairs with due regard to the public interest. In the present instance the

monopoly is essentially worldwide, since it includes the control not only of the vehicles

themselves but of the most suitable launching sites throughout the world. It follows that

these facilities should be administered so far as it is possible in the public interest of the

world at large. The Committee is heartened by the provisions which the NASA has made

towards greater international cooperation. As man stands before the moment when at last

he may break the bonds which have chained him to a single planet, it seems fitting and

proper to ensure that all mankind, and not two nations alone, should have the

opportunity to meet this momentous challenge.

Document III-5

Document Title: “Interim Report to Space Science Board of Biology Committees,” 1960.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The possibility of both contaminating the Moon or planets with organisms brought from Earth aboard

a landing spacecraft (forward contamination) and of bringing an alien organism back to Earth as

a spacecraft returned from the Moon or another planet (back contamination) has been, from the start

326 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
of space exploration, a concern of the scientific community. This 1960 report to the overall Space

Science Board from its Committee on Psychological and Biological Research, and that committee’s

Exobiology Subcommittee, and the attached resolution, were discussed at the Space Science Board’s

seventh meeting in the spring of 1960 and forwarded to NASA in May 1960.

National Academy of Sciences Attachment A

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N. W.

Washington 25, D. C.

Interim Report

to

SPACE SCIENCE BOARD

of

Biology Committees (11 and 11-A)

The Space Science Board Committee on Psychological and Biological Research, and

its Exobiology Subcommittee has given careful consideration to the tasks outlined in SSB139 and its attachments. The Committee is now reorganizing to improve the biology

coverage in the space science programs of the 1965-70 and 1970-80 periods. Completion

of this reorganization will make possible the broad assessment necessary to provide a

properly balanced biology input to program formulation.

1970-80 Period and the late 1960's

Within the foreseeable future, the cost of sending an experimental device through

space and receiving information from it will be many times that of using comparable

analytical instruments in the laboratory. For many other reasons, the retrieval of samples

of the planets would ultimately be the most informative means for the advancement of

planetary science. This self-evident design has been and should continue to be foremost

in the long-range planning for the scientific utilization of spacecraft with the requisite

capabilities. However, such missions also introduce the risk of back-contamination, a risk

that cannot [2] be decisively evaluated within the framework of our present knowledge of

planetary biology. The same missions, as well as the one-way probes that will precede

them, also entail the possibility of contaminating the targets; however, these missions can

be programmed so as to minimize the carriage of "samples" of the earth, and to disinfect

the spacecraft by methods of known efficacy for terrestrial organisms. Furthermore, as a

matter of policy, acceptable risk figures for contaminating a planetary target must be

substantially higher than for bringing trouble home.

From this standpoint, it may be fortunate that the vehicles for one-way missions will

(as is obvious) become available first. We must make every effort to develop experiments

that can be flown on such missions and give telemetered information on planetary life and

life habitats (with particular reference to exobiology).

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 327
1960-65 Period

During this time, Centaur will be available, but Saturn will not. The most significant

experiments in exobiology are not possible with these capabilities: these require planetary

soft landings, however, considerable preparatory work must be done now. This consists of

two parts--both, for this period, independent of sequence.

1) Space Experiments

a) Lunar soft landing

b) Planetary fly-bys

c) Satellite-borne telescope

d) Recoverable nose-cone or satellite capsule

2) Back-up research, for space flight experiments and for general scientific

information

a) instrumentation

b) Earth-based experimentation

Many aspects of the planetary chemistry program are of particular interest to the

biology groups; in fact, there is no chemical information not useful to planning biological

experiments.

A. Exobiology

1) Space Experiments

a) Lunar Landing - Biologists await anxiously the chemical analysis of the lunar

surface and of deeper layers. These results are essential for planning any

biological approach [3] [U]ntil this information is available, however, we

continue to stress the necessity for minimizing contamination of the moon by

terrestrial organisms.

b) Planetary Fly-bys

i) Determination of the temperature profile of Venus

ii) Examination of Mars in the infra-red as proposed by Davis and Gumpel in

their COSPAR Symposium paper. This experiment was conceived by Jet Propulsion

Laboratory in collaboration with Messrs. Calvin and Weaver of the University of California.

It is understood that the instrumentation is essentially ready.

c) Satellite Telescope - This experiment can, under certain conditions of

technological development, provide essentially the same information as the

328 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
fly-bys, either would be helpful depending on the solution of their respective

technology problems. It is very important to have planetary study capability

included in the satellite telescope.

d) Recoverable Nose-cone or Satellite Capsule

i) Temperature relations of small particles in vacuum under incident

radiation. Particles whose diameter is less than IR wavelengths may reach

very high equilibrium temperatures owing to their difficulty of reradiation. It

may be possible to simulate the reaction of, say, bacterial spores (d = l μ) in

vacuum in the terrestrial laboratory, but it may be difficult to prevent

interaction between particles and container [sic] wall. Space experiments,

e.g. recoverable satellite capsule and nose-cone flights (giving as much as 30

minutes exposure) may be the most convenient way to determine the effect.

ii) Study of the effects of the low pressures of free space on the survival of

terrestrial organisms. To a considerable extent it may be possible to simulate

on the ground.

(Halverson of Wisconsin is interested in both i and ii.)

As with radio biological experiments final assessments should be made

empirically in space with test systems that have been thoroughly worked out

on the ground.

[4]

2) Back-up Research

Throughout this period, continuing research on every aspect of the control of

contaminating organisms must continue in anticipation of soft landings on the moon, and

more particularly the planets.

a) Instrumentation for Space Flight Experiments

i) Gathering of samples of planetary surface materials for analysis. This problem

needs fundamental review.

Electrostatic collection of falling dust Scoops or augers

ii) Chemistry of planetary surfaces

Application of mass spectrometer techniques to solid as well as gaseous samples

Automatic spectrometry in infrared and ultraviolet

Handling of materials for chemical analytical reactions

Detection of micron-sized particles giving volatile products

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 329
iii) Protection of samples

Encapsulation of samples in hermetically-sealed containers for (a) local

protection for later analysis and (b) ultimately for safe return to earth.

iv) Biological detection

Culture and micro chemistry of micro-organisms (Vishniac and Lederberg both

interested)

v) Space Craft (and components)

Means for subsequent location and identification of space craft used in early

planetary landings 

vi) Surveys for macroscopic exobiota

Means for vidicon survey at various magnifications and focal lengths for

macroscopic exobiota (and for other planetary data)

Detectors for enzymatic catalysis

Interaction of planetary organisms, with tissue cells

Response of planetary organisms to disinfection [5]

b) Ground-based Experimentation for General Scientific Information

i) Telescopy - particularly continuing planetary studies

ii) Analysis of meteorites

iii) Profile of earth's atmosphere with respect to microbe-bearing dust

Sample collection by high altitude balloons, and sounding rockets; also

micrometeorites thus collectec [sic] can be analyzed for abundances of

carbonaceous materials.

The transport of micron particles can be determined through studies of high

altitude atmospheric turbulence.

Consideration of the mechanisms necessary for organisms to escape the earth's

gravitational field.

iv) Interpretation of the appearance of earth from high altitude for detection of

biological phenomena-both high resolution photography and in IR.

v) Simulation of planetary environments as habitats for terrestrial organisms.

330 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
vi) Conditions for the origin of life: simulation of planetary atmospheres and

characterization of products of biochemical interest resulting from their irradiation.

B. Radiation Biology

1) Space Experiments - More detailed physical measurements of the radiations in

space. When known reliably, these measurements can be translated easily into

biological terms by (a) laboratory simulation and (b) calculations from fundamental

parameters.

Cosmic Ray Effects. These effects at a cellular level are pretty well understood, but

their heterogeneous distribution over the animal (needle-like lesions 25 μ diameter,

1 mm long) gives effects on performance of the whole animal not yet easily calculated.

2) Back-up Research - Experiments with available accelerators and microbeam

equipment will enable selection of the best biological indicators to be used later in

flight tests.

[6]

C. International Co-operation

1) Development of acceptable method of decontamination

2) Exchange of ideas concerning the objectives of exobiological research and

discussion of the instrumentation

3) Depending on success of these enterprises negotiation of tacit agreements through

COSPAR.

D. Environmental Biology

No serious proposals for rhythms or gravity-free state experiments were at hand.

[no page number]

Attachment B

POLICY RESOLUTION CONCERNING QUARANTINE OF MATERIALS OF

PLANETARY ORIGIN

WHEREAS

A. The technological capability for roundtrip space missions may be achieved by this and

several other nations within the next ten to twenty years.

B. Such return missions from other planets may allow for the implantation on the earth

of organisms whose biological capacities are at present unknown.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 331
C. Such organisms may include many types unable to survive on earth, or having a

neutral ecological value, or even of important benefit to industry, agriculture or

medicine; however, they may also include types that might be seriously deleterious to

the health of [sic] economy of man. (Footnote)

D. The protection of public health and the maintenance of agricultural quarantines are

presently within the jurisdiction of several national agencies which have had

considerable experience and expert knowledge in dealing with related problems;

however, they have not evidently actively concerned themselves with the impending

problems of planetary quarantine.

E. Policy on space missions, as it concerns the activities of other sovereignties and the

welfare of all people, must involve our international relations. In due course, the

World Health Organization will inevitably take an interest in interplanetary

quarantine, and other organs of the United Nations may also be expected to do so.

The United States should take statesmanlike leadership in such an area, rather than

be made to seem to comply reluctantly with the pressure of external opinion.

F. The development of sound policy on interplanetary quarantine has important

implications for the planning of future space missions. On the other hand, present

scientific knowledge limits the reliability of any conclusions, and must be exploited to

the fullest possible extent.

G. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has primary operational

responsibility for space science and exploration; however, it cannot be expected to

take responsibility for policy questions primarily concerned with public health.

[2]

H. Although one or more decades may elapse before return vehicles actually can

function, considerable time is needed for the assessment of policy, for planning space

missions, and for intercurrent research.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Space Science Board of the National Academy of

Sciences that the following recommendations be transmitted to the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

1. That he join with the Surgeon-General of the United States Public Health Service in

establishing an inter-agency committee on interplanetary quarantine, with

representation from such agencies as National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, the Public Health Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of

Defense (Biological Warfare Defense), Department of Sate [sic], and others; that this

committee be charged with the formulation and timely review of a national policy on

interplanetary quarantine; and the committee be advised by experts in the various

relevant sciences from within the agencies and from civil life.

2. That the requisite organization be established within the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration to represent it in the formulation and administration of policy in space

biology, and to develop the research programs that are therefore urgently needed.

332 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Footnote

While many scientists have already concluded that back-contamination is a serious and

tangible threat, or should be regarded as such until we can be sure otherwise, others feel

that the risks are very small and should be disregarded. Except to report that the

magnitude of the risk is at least controversial, we need not anticipate the further findings

of the committee whose establishment is being recommended herewith. The main

arguments take the following form:

1. Are other planets in fact inhabited by micro-organisms?

The evidence at least for Mars is sufficiently encouraging to warrant substantial

effort in constructing experiments to detect life there despite great technical

difficulties, however, at least a landing will be required to be sure.

2. Could such organisms grow on earth?

This cannot be predicted in advance. However, many species of terrestrial

bacteria would grow on Mars, as far as we can judge by our knowledge of their

requirements and of the environment.

[3]

3. Could such organisms be harmful to man?

This question elicits the sharpest division of opinion. 

Pathogenicity for man on the part of most organisms seems to require the

evolution of very elaborate adaptations to allow for transmissions from one infected

individual to a new host, and to invade the host tissues despite natural defenses.

Microbial pathogenicity would have evolved only in company with quasi-human hosts,

and even so these pathogens would be poorly adapted to attack terrestrial organisms

which would be biologically novel for them.

The counterarguments would be that our natural defenses against infection

represent our own evolved adaptations against terrestrial bacteria and viruses; they

may require the presence of familiar proteins and carbohydrates to recognize the

invading organisms as foreign. Planetary organisms with a distinctive chemistry might

not be recognized as foreign, and therefore not elicit an adequate response.

Furthermore, new organisms might cause serious economic harm even if they are not

pathogens for man.

Document III-6

Document Title: A Review of Space Research, Report of the Summer Study conducted

under the auspices of the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences, 17

June–10 August 1962.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 333
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The Space Science Board in 1962 organized a comprehensive examination of NASA’s research

program. The study took place at the State University of Iowa under the general chairmanship of

Professor James Van Allen. The Board’s assessment of NASA’s life sciences research is contained in this

excerpt from the study. 

A REVIEW 

OF

SPACE RESEARCH

The Report of the Summer Study conducted under the auspices of the

Space Science Board 

of the

National Academy of Sciences

at the

State University of Iowa 

Iowa City, Iowa 

June 17 - August 10, 1962

Publication 1079

National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council 

Washington, D. C. 

1962

Chapter Nine [9-1]

BIOLOGY*

I. Introduction

The biologist's task in space science may be divided arbitrarily into three categories.

First and - for reasons developed later - foremost, is the search for extraterrestrial life.

Second is the immense task for the biological engineer of putting man into space

adequately protected from the peculiar hazards of space and adequately sustained by a

334 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
good simulacrum of his terrestrial environment. Third is an exploitation of special

features of the space environment as unique situations for the general analysis of the

organism-environment relationships including, especially, the role environmental inputs

play in the establishment and maintenance of normal organization in the living system.

Superficially these three aspects of space biology are very different in character, in

importance, and in justification. They are, furthermore, so disparate in their emotional

and intellectual appeal that we have a heavy responsibility to appraise their relative

importance as carefully as possible without at the same time - by the very exercise of sober

care - stifling that element of challenge and high adventure that has characterized the

scientific enterprise since it was put on its modern course by the brave minds of the

Renaissance.

Later sections of this report address themselves to details pertinent to each of the

three aspects of space biology. The purpose of this general preamble is to explicate, as we

see it, the general philosophy that should guide the over-all enterprise of space biology.

If one looks at the third category - the utilization of space environments as tools for

analyzing the organism-environment-relationship - he is faced with a prospect of certain

dividends but at huge cost, and dividends, moreover, that insofar as they are certain are

neither large nor revolutionary. If we limit our outlook to such dividends (those that are

certain) and center our attention on the nonsense that a program like this must inevitably

invite in its early stages, it is hard to escape cynicism about the vast sums that will be spent

and a revulsion from the mixture of mediocrity, nonsense, and huge cost in which the

NASA program could become involved if extreme care is not taken. A similar cynicism

about putting man in space derives on the one hand from the staggering cost involved,

and on the other from the project's early association with cereal boxes and comic strips.

Most of us at one time or another have been beset by such cynical doubts. However, we

have undertaken a careful scrutiny of the over-all potential for space biology in the NASA

program. It is our considered judgement that the exploration of space will prove to be one

of man's truly great adventures.

*See Appendix I for list of participants in Working Group on Biology [not included].

[9-2] To delimit the scope of opportunities for environmental biology in the NASA

program seems deceptively simple. In the space environment we can identify several

factors of obvious biological importance which differ quantitatively and even qualita-tively

from those which obtain [sic] on Earth. Space can provide us with unique environmental

variables (or with otherwise unattainable ranges of a familiar variable) to accomplish

critical tests of existing biological theory. We cite briefly as examples the attainment of

near weightlessness and the imposition of an environment unequivocally disconnected

from the Earth's rotation. In both instances there exist theoretical bases for predicting

more than one pattern of growth and behavior to be expected of organisms exposed to

these features of the space environment. Patterns of orientation, growth, and other

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 335
responses to the Earth's gravitational field are identifiable in all phyla of both animal and

plant kingdoms. Circadian rhythms (those having a period of about one day) in divers

[sic] biological parameters also have been observed in a large variety of plants and

animals. The mechanism of the biological sensing apparatus, whether for gravity or for

time, is unknown or incompletely known. In the case of gravitational responses there are

a number of sensing mechanisms which differ in principle. For the apparently ubiquitous

circadian rhythms displayed by different species in many different ways we have no sound

basis for deciding whether in principle nature employs one or more than one

fundamental mechanism to achieve the responses we can observe. Regretfully we

recognize that theoretical analysis fails to provide neat predictions of the behavior of

biological systems in the space environment on which most biologists are agreed. There is

still so much ignorance of biological organization and so little theory in the proper sense

of that term that we are much more likely to encounter unexpected results, to detect

relationships we do not know how to anticipate, and to be surprised by the behavior of

biological systems in respect to the unique aspects of the space environment, than is the

case for non-biological systems. Therefore, it seems much more than idle speculation to

suggest that, insofar as space provides opportunity for truly new types of environmental

exposure of known biological systems, it not only offers means of testing - sometimes

critically - those relationships we now think are understood, but it also invites the discovery

of unforeseen relationships. Space experiments are too expensive and too difficult to be

designed in cavalier fashion by trying out anything and everything in hope of a new

discovery of fundamental importance; nevertheless, programmed serendipity is not really

a contradiction and it should play a role in our long-range thinking about environmental

biology in space.

We are, however, in general agreement that this category of effort in the space program,

environmental biology, is subsidiary in importance to the search for extra-terrestrial life. The

peculiar point is that in this search we can be even less certain of the dividends which the

cost in money and effort will return. It may be that Mars, the only serious candidate for

another home of life in our solar system, will prove barren when we get there. But we have

not the slightest hesitation, while facing fully our responsibility as members of society, in

urging strongly that the venture be undertaken. More than that - unless we wholly mistake

the nature of man and science - we are not really free to eschew the challenge and the

opportunity to pursue this goal that rocketry has placed within our grasp.

We are fully aware that what follows - the justification for setting the search for

extraterrestrial life as the prime goal of space biology - has a far greater philosophic appeal

than has been fashionable in scientific discussion for some time. But it is not since Darwin

- and before him Copernicus - that science has had the opportunity for so great an impact

on man's understanding of man. The scientific question at stake in exobiology is, in the

opinion of many, the most exciting, challenging, [9-3] and profound issue, not only of this

century but of the whole naturalistic movement that has characterized the history of

western thought for three hundred years. What is at stake is the chance to gain a new

perspective on man's place in nature, a new level of discussion on the meaning and nature

of life.

336 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
The Darwinian revolution in biology had as one of its implicit propositions the notion

that the development of life itself was only one chapter in the natural history of the planet

as a whole. Oparin later made this notion explicit in his view that the origin of life was a fully

natural - and in some sense inevitable - step in the ontogeny of the Earth. Those chemical

systems capable of replication and controlled energy transfer which we call living systems

had their origin in the sequence of chemical changes that were part of the planet's early

history. This view has inevitably led to questioning the uniqueness and centrality of man in

the universe in an even profounder way than the Copernican and Darwinian insights forced

upon us. If planetary systems like our own are at all common in the vast reaches of the

universe, life may also be almost as common in nature as a whole. It is surely unnecessary to

belabor the immensity of this prospect for any man's philosophic position; or to belabor the

pusillanimous and provincial viewpoint that would shrink from pursuing it.

It is useful to recall here a few of the more specific points that the biologist himself

finds so exciting. The exploration of Mars, which the new technology makes an almost

certain prospect within a decade or two, will allow us to pursue the question of how

common life is. Given the estimate that there are something like 1020 stars in the

universe, we need to know first, what fraction of these have planetary systems comparable

to ours;* and second how "inevitable" - or how probable - is the origin of life in the natural

history of a planet. It is the second question which in principle we can now begin to

answer by an empirical exobiological research [sic]. If there is life on Mars, and if we can

demonstrate its independent origin (from its chemical basis, etc.), then we shall have an

enlightening answer to our question of improbability and uniqueness in the origin of life.

Arising twice in a single planetary system it must surely occur abundantly elsewhere in the

staggering number of comparable planetary systems.

If there is life on Mars, the biologists' interest will not stop with its discovery. In one

sense the quest will have only begun. The analysis of Martian life - or even Martian

paleontology, if the planet has passed through that phase of its development during which

it could sustain life - will be a grand extension of the comparative method that

characterizes most of biological analysis. Shall we find on Mars some of the unexplained

peculiarities of terrestrial biochemistry? If amino acids are involved, are they D or L forms,

or both? Does adenine, for instance, again play so many roles? Is the energy transfer

system again based on phosphorus? What is the genetic mechanism like? What

information storage and replication systems are involved? Has sex again been evolved or

have some other devices arisen to engender genetic variability? At higher levels of

organization, how have these systems adapted to peculiar features of the Martian

environment including its ranges of temperatures and moisture, its thin atmosphere, and

its low gravitational field? What has been the course and mechanism of Martian evolution?

*The estimate of Huang puts the number at 1018. Huang, Su-Shu, "Occurrence of Life in

the Universe," American Scientist, 47, 3, pp. 397-402 (Autumn, 1959). If the upper limit

of star systems that can support life is 5% and if there are 1020 stars in the observable

universe, then 1018 systems capable of supporting life is a reasonable guess.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 337
[9-4] This search for life elsewhere will inevitably demand that man must get into

space himself. The search for life on Mars, for example, ultimately will require that

Martian samples be studied in manned - preferably terrestrial - laboratories. Many of us

believe that the retrieval of Martian samples should be recognized explicitly as the

ultimate objective of exobiological missions. It is doubtful if such retrieval can be

accomplished satisfactorily by an unmanned expedition. Of course we shall get on with

the job using remotely controlled life-detection systems even before this venture is fully

possible. But we shall never be satisfied with negative results from our instrumental lifedetectors because they are intrinsically hampered in their scope by our current ignorance

of the nature of whatever extraterrestrial life there may be. Should these preliminary

sallies give positive results, the urgency for man to get there will only increase. Therefore,

while the intellectual appeal and status of the extraterrestrial life question stands out

above all else in space biology, we are also confronted with the important task of providing

the physiological basis for prolonged manned space flight.

Finally, it becomes clear that what the physiologist has to do to put man in space for

any reasonable length of time is to learn far more fundamental environmental physiology.

The three aspects of space biology enumerated at the onset are not, after all, so very

different in aim nor disparate in importance. In a real sense they are three aspects of one

and the same undertaking - a general extension of the scope of nature that the biologist

can bring within his grasp.

In addition to cosmobiology, man into space, and environmental biology, we feel that

a fourth point warrants emphasis, not because it is logically coordinate in importance but

because of its practical, economic, and scientific impact on experimental biology of all

kinds. We predict as confidently for space biology as for other space sciences that the

economic costs will be amply repaid in the long run by applications of space-oriented

biotechnology to other fields of biology and medicine. We are not unmindful of these

inevitably substantial though indirect contributions of NASA's continuing efforts in 

space biology.

Document III-7

Document Title: Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Associate Administrator memo to Albert F.

Siepert, Director of Administration, “Bioastronautics,” 6 July 1962.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-8

Document Title: Memorandum from Albert F. Siepert, Director of Administration, to Dr.

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Associate Administrator, “Coordination of NASA’s Interests in

Bioastronautics,” 19 July 1962.

338 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-9

Document Title: Letter from James E. Webb, NASA Administrator, to Dr. Norton Nelson,

Institute of Industrial Medicine, New York University Medical Center, on NASA’s Life

Sciences programs and organization. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-10

Document Title: Memorandum from Nello Pace, Consultant for Life Sciences to the

Administrator, to Associate Administrator, 4 October 1963.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

These documents reflect the deliberations, at the top levels of NASA, regarding how best to organize for

life sciences. While external advisory committees and consultants consistently recommended

centralizing all NASA life sciences activities in a single management structure, NASA management

resisted these recommendations.

Document III-7

July 6, 1962

MEMORANDUM: to Mr. Albert F. Siepert

Director, Office of Administration

From: Associate Administrator

Subject: Bioastronautics

Reference: Memo June 29, 1962, to Seamans from Dr. E. C. Welsh, Executive Secretary,

National Aeronautics and Space Council, subject: Bioastronautics

There is attached a copy of the above referenced memorandum [not included]. In

this memorandum, Dr. Welsh refers to a recommendation made by the Bioastronautics

Panel of the President's Scientific Advisory Committee that NASA appoint a national

leader in biomedical sciences as Deputy Associate Administrator.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 339
As stated in the memorandum, we have directors of biotechnology, bioscience, and

aerospace medicine, each in separate offices, and it is felt by the Bioastronautics Panel

that policy coordinating work necessitates a special Deputy Associate Administrator. We

established three directors for bioastronautics because of the breadth of the

bioastronautics discipline and the difficulty experienced in obtaining a single individual

with competence in fields ranging from fundamental biology to life support technology.

In addition, if this rationale were followed to the limit, we would have deputy associate

administrators for propulsion, electronics, and a variety of other discipline that cut across

our program lines.

However, I certainly recognize that we have had difficulty planning and implementing

our effort in bioastronautics and properly relating our effort to that of the Department of

Defense, National Institutes of Health, and non-government agencies. Undoubtedly, one

of the medical scientists listed in Dr. Welsh's memorandum would strengthen our

organization. With these factors in mind, I would like your recommendations as they

relate to Dr. Welsh's memorandum.

[stamped “Original Signed by Robert C. Seamans, Jr.”]

Robert C. Seamans, Jr.

Associate Administrator

Attachment a/s

RCS:flp

cc: Mr. Webb w/ inc

[handwritten note “cc Dr. Dryden w/inc”]

Document III-8

July 19, 1962

MEMORANDUM: to Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.

Associate Administrator

Subject: Coordination of NASA's Interests in Bioastronautics

I am in agreement with the reasoning set forth in the second paragraph of your

memorandum to me of July 6, 1962. Our experience with a Life Science Program Office

indicates that the concept of the life sciences as a coherent field around which to set up

an effective program office was not sound. Instead of placing the various elements of the

life sciences in an organizational posture where they could have an effective voice in the

various programs and projects to which they were integrally related, just the opposite

occurred. Most of the time the Office of Life Sciences was on the outside looking in. Our

reorganized structure attempts to fit into the direct operating structure the various aspects

340 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
of Life Sciences. This arrangement still looks promising, and the problems of program

coordination envisioned in Dr. Welsh's letter are not likely to become a serious internal

operating problem. The real problem is that this arrangement gives NASA a fragmented

external image which is not reassuring to the outside bioastronautics community.

Unfortunately, the medical, dental, and some scientific disciplines still place considerable

importance on the device of an across-the-board official to look out for their interests at

a high level in the organization even if he has no direct operating responsibility.

In several situations where other organizations found it obligatory to create this type

of high level staff symbol, the results were either disruptive or ineffectual. Similar

arrangements for chief professional officers in the Public Health Service, in the medical

corps of the several Armed Services, and in the legislatively created post in HEW of an

Assistant Secretary for Medical Officers, all have suffered from the inability to keep a good

man in such a position from asserting line responsibility. The purely advisory function

seldom is sufficiently appealing to attract an adequately distinguished outsider to serve as

NASA's image.

In view of these considerations, I would suggest that in replying to Dr. Welsh you make

the following points:

1. NASA's experience in trying to establish a single focal point in Headquarters to

coordinate all NASA's interests in the life sciences.

2. Desire to test the effectiveness of the present organizational arrangement over a

longer period of time before making additional changes. Only with the recent

availability of Dr. Konecci have all three key positions in the Life Sciences area

been staffed.

[2]

3. That you will keep an open mind on the suggestion that a Deputy Associate

Administrator (under you) or an Assistant Administrator (under Mr. Webb) be

appointed to give over-all leadership and coordination to NASA's interests in the

Life Sciences.

If the actual need for over-all coordination at the Associate Administrator's level, both

internally and externally, becomes a real burden, you may wish to appoint a life sciences

specialist under Mr. Fleming, or the external pressure for a larger symbol may dictate that

this individual be designated an Assistant Director of the Office of Programs in this area.

This would have advantages over adding another staff person you will have to supervise

and communicate with directly on a day-to-day basis. One caveat needs to be recognized.

It may still be necessary for developing some assistants working directly with you to handle

material and special assignments falling within certain functional areas, e.g., Field Center

Relations, DOD Relationships, Industrial Relationships. While I would not consider

Bioastronautics a logical cross-sectioning under such an arrangement, you might need to

accommodate it in view of the external concerns. I personally believe there would be

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 341
more external satisfaction, and less internal disruption, if such a position were created as

a staff assignment directly under the Administrator rather than attached to the critical

focus of operations in our agency.

[signed]

Albert F. Siepert

Director of Administration

Document III-9

[no page number]

IN REPLY REFER TO:

Office of the Administrator November 14, 1962

Dr. Norton Nelson

Institute of Industrial Medicine

New York University Medical Center

550 First Avenue

New York 16, New York

Dear Dr. Nelson:

Dr. Dryden, Dr. Seamans and I have had several discussions recently on your

recommendations concerning NASA’s life sciences programs and organization. I

appreciated your discussing your ideas with Dr. Seamans who has taken a deep and

personal interest in this subject.

In considering these questions over the past year, we have been striving to incorporate

our life sciences, activities within meaningful program contexts. For example, our space

medical activities which are under the direction of General Roadman are an integral part

of the manned flight program. The formulation and execution of space medicine efforts

are interwoven into the broader mission planning and operations involved in manned

flight. Thus we are assured that our energies are focused upon space medicine technology

directly associated with manned flight and that these tasks receive the resource support

and decisive management direction required. Similarly, our bioscience efforts under Dr.

Reynolds, and our biotechnology and human factors research under Dr. Konecci, have

also been fully integrated within the broader space science and advanced technology

programs. We are convinced that the benefits accruing from such close association and

identification with on-going development activity are substantial.

342 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
With respect to the question on the coordination of these three related activities, I

would like to point out that the absence of a single office to oversee these efforts has not

proven to be an obstacle. General Roadman, [2] Dr. Reynolds, and Dr. Konecci meet at

fixed and frequent intervals to review and consider their program accomplishments and

plans. In addition, they receive important support from our outstanding technical staffs at

Houston, Ames and other NASA and DOD centers. This type of responsible interchange

of ideas and data promotes a healthy overall life science program which is responsive to

the needs of our program directors.

We recognize that NASA does not present a single “Life science” face to the nation’s

scientific community. In our judgment, however, the auxiliary benefits of a “single face”

must not be overestimated since in the final analysis, such benefits are direct functions of

the program activity planned and underway. Organizational patterns in and of themselves

will contribute little in terms of meaningful contributions to our national capability in the

life sciences without the right arrangements for programmatic support. We have been

steadfast in our determination to avoid the establishment of a figurehead position in this

area in order not to disrupt or dilute the very real authority delegated to General

Roadman, Dr. Reynolds, and Dr. Konecci. Each of these individuals has a major

programmatic responsibility and has the authority and resources needed to execute his

programs in an expeditious and comprehensive manner.

Although we are convinced that the existing arrangement is suited to our internal

requirements in terms of program planning and im,lementation [sic], Dr. Dryden, Dr.

Seamans, and I are agreed that we can and ought to do more to develop and crystallize

the identification of NASA’s life sciences programs with the outside scientific and medical

community. We are currently considering the assignment of one or more consultants to

general management to determine how this relationship can be strengthened,

particularly in terms of involving in a very active manner a greater portion of our truly

outstanding medical and scientific talent. We have asked several of our program managers

to consider this question and to give us the benefit of their thinking. In this regard your

letter and listing of eminently qualified leaders in the life sciences has been particularly

helpful. As a consensus develops on this question, we will be happy to discuss our

judgments with you and other participants in the Summer Study.

[3]May I again express my appreciation to you and to each member of the Working

Group on the NASA Biological Management for a thorough and most helpful series of

recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Webb

Administrator

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 343
Document III-10

[no page number]

Report No. 6

4 October 1963

Memorandum to AA/Associate Administrator

From A-6/ Consultant for Life Sciences to the Administrator

Subject Reorganization of NASA Life Sciences Activities

Careful consideration of the objectives of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

indicates that the broad responsibilities of NASA lie in three major areas:

1. The pursuit of research on phenomena of the atmosphere and space.

2. The design, construction and operation of vehicles for carrying out such research,

and for transportation generally through the atmosphere and space.

3. The dissemination of results of these research and technological developments.

That the research an development to be conducted under the provisions of the ACT

includes the life sciences (taken herein to comprise the various branches of biology and

medicine, including psychology) is implicit in its language defining the objectives of

NASA: Sec. 102(c)(1), “The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the

atmosphere and space”; and Sec. 102(c)(3), “The development and operation of vehicles

capable of carrying instruments, equipment supplies, and living organisms through

space”. The inclusion of life sciences research and development activities in the NASA

program is also made explicit by the annual Congressional Authorization and

Appropriation acts which include funds for this purpose. 

[2] Although life sciences activities were being carried out by NACA as studies of “human

factors” as early as 1943, and although Project Mercury, initiated in October 1958, had a

strong life sciences component, the development of a substantial and well-rounded life

sciences program has been slow. This may be compared with the spectacularly successful

and far larger physical and engineering sciences program which has grown so rapidly

under the initial powerful impetus of the International Geophysical Year. As detailed in

my Report No. 4 to you, dated 17 September 1963, in FY 1963 life sciences total research

in NASA was only 2.1% of the entire NASA total research obligation, whereas physical and

engineering sciences research accounted for 97.8% of the NASA research dollar.

The reason for the unduly protracted growth of the NASA life sciences program are, but

for the consideration at hand suffice it to say that it has involved such factors as the

344 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
newness of the concepts involved, lack of experience in a new field, greater complexity of

the field generally, misunderstanding of the distinction between headquarters staff versus

line management functions, and to a certain extent unfortunate personality differences.

Regardless of past history, however, it is clear that the life sciences must be regarded as full

partners with, rather than adjuncts to, the physical and engineering sciences in the total

NASA program.

It should be pointed out that the original NASA Bioscience Advisory Committee under

the chairmanship of Dr. Seymour S. Kety produced a brilliant justification for the

establishment of a strong, centralized authority in the form of a Headquarters Office of

Life Sciences in a report to the Administrator dated 25 January 1960. Largely on this basis

the Office of Life Sciences Programs was established on 1 March 1960 with Dr. Clark T.

Randt as Director. After a brief and somewhat stormy tenure, however, Dr. Randt resigned

on 1 April 1961, and was succeeded by Brig. Gen. Charles H. Roadman, USAF.

Brig. Gen. Roadman strongly favored dismemberment of the Office, with complete

dissociation of operations activities from research activities in the life sciences area.

Accordingly, on 1 November 1961 the Office of Life Sciences Programs was abolished,

leading to the present structuring of life sciences in NASA Headquarter which comprises

the following independent components:

[3] Office of Manned Space Flight:

Aerospace Medicine (MM), Dr. George M. Knauf

Acting Director

Systems Studies (MG), Dr. William A. Leo, Director

Spacecraft and Flight Missions, Human Factors (MSH),

Maj. Leroy Paige, USAF

Air Force Systems Command, Space Medicine (MAF),

Col. John M. Talbot, USAF

Office of Advance Research and Technology:

Biotechnology and Human Research (RB), Dr. Eugene B. Konecci, Director

Office of Space Sciences:

Bioscience Programs (SB), Dr. Orr E. Reynolds, Director

Grants and Research Contracts (SC), Dr. Thomas L. K. Smull, Director

Manned Space Sciences Division (SM), Dr. Verne C. Fryklund, Acting Director

Office of Administration:

Safety and Health Office (BY), Mr. George D. McCauley

Occupational Medicine (being established)

Office of Technology Utilization:

Life Sciences Evaluation (being established)

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 345
Another result of the dissolution of the Office of Life Sciences Programs has been the

development of independent research grants and contract negotiating activity in the life

sciences area in some of the field centers, particularly Ames and Houston, as well as by

most of the above listed Headquarters components.

Because of the wide dispersal of life sciences responsibility throughout NASA, both for

funding and for operations, it is not surprising that the development of a sound, broad

program in this area has been slow, with many instances of needless duplication and

serious gaps.

After careful and intensive consideration of the situation for the past three months, I

should like to propose reconsolidation of the management of life sciences activities. The

consolidation should not only substantially improve the effectiveness of current

operational practices, it should materially [4] improve NASA’s image in the academicindustrial scientific community and in Congress, and perhaps most importantly it should

expedite the development of forthcoming flight programs which have major or entirely

life sciences objectives. In this category I would include the Gemini, Apollo, Biosatellite,

Mariner and Voyager series as well as more advanced concepts such as Manned Orbital

Research Laboratory, Manned Lunar Base and Manned Mars Mission.

Before elaborating on the proposed reorganization, I should mention that I have talked

with a number of people both from within and from outside NASA about it, as

appropriate. Among the former are Drs. Bisplinghoff, Mueller and Newell, as well as Drs.

Knauf, Konecci and Reynolds, because of their obvious primary interest and role in the

matter. Among the latter were representatives of universities, industry and other Federal

agencies. Thus, the proposed plan takes into account information and opinions from a

wide variety of sources.

One of the major weaknesses of the current position of the life sciences in NASA is the

arbitrary split of primary funding authority into three autonomous programs: Aerospace

Medicine (MM), Biotechnology and Human Research (RB), and Bioscience Programs

(SB). 

Living organisms, whether man, amoeba or bread-mold, represent enormously complex,

highly integrated systems whose nature is understood only fragmentarily and dimly by

scientists. There are few generalizations or laws in biology which have predictive value;

hence, specific answers to new problems can usually be obtained only empirically.

This is quite the opposite situation from engineering where known materials are

combined according to exact laws to achieve a desired end effect. Even better, many times

engineers can specify the exact nature of previously non-existent materials required to do

a job, and confidently expect the development of such materials.

Biology is not this way. In reality, no distinction can be made between “basic” and

“applied” research on a human being, for instance, because all scientific data obtained on

346 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
man are useful in on medical application or another. By the same token, there is no

“advanced research” in biology. We know [5] far too little to put any research area in a

special category. Therefore, as with the living organisms themselves, attempts at

overcompartmentalization or isolation of parts in life sciences administration can lead to

loss of viability of the whole.

Accordingly, in order to achieve the requisite coordination of life sciences activities within

NASA, it is proposed that a Deputy Associate Administrator for Biospace Missions be

appointed for overall management coordination of life sciences activities at the

Headquarters level.

It is further proposed that all present life science program functions in the Office of Space

Sciences and the Office of Advanced Research and Technology be combined into an

Office of Biospace Missions. In effect, this would be accomplished by coalescing the

current activities and personnel of Bioscience Programs (SB) and Biotechnology and

Human Research (RB) into a single Office.

Because of his broad experience, his excellent reputation in the National bioscience

community, and his demonstrated high level of administrative and scientific competence

as exemplified in the past year by his extremely effective development and management

of Bioscience Programs, I strongly urge the dual appointment of Dr. Orr E. Reynolds as

Deputy Associate Administrator for Biospace Missions and Director of the Office of

Biospace Missions, to be effective at the earliest possible time. 

Parenthetically and by way of contrast, I should like to mention that there has recently

occurred an international display of poor scientific judgement on the part of Dr. Eugene

N. Konecci, which serves to illustrate the potential hazards of lack of adequate

coordination and competent overall review in the life sciences area. The incident

concerns the press publicity resulting from Dr. Konecci’s unfortunate remarks on the

subject of mind reading while serving as Chairman of the Bioastronautics Committee of

the International Astronautical Federation in Paris on 26 September. It is my

understanding that formal censure of Dr. Konecci’s action is being considered by the

Space Science Board, although on being asked my opinion by the Chairman of their Life

Sciences Committee I urged a less drastic treatment of the incident. In any case, it seems

quite evident that Dr. [6] Konecci has not yet developed the level of scientific maturity

required for independent program decision making in an important segment of the

national scientific economy.

One of the major management problems which arose early in the history of the old Office

of Life Sciences Programs was the conflict over ultimate decision authority concerning

selection and flight activities of the astronauts in the manned space flight program.

Clearly, the enormously formidable operational engineering problems to be solved

required total control over all aspects of a manned flight by the responsible engineering

authority. Yet equally clearly the man is a living organism with enormously complex

characteristics, and poorly defined tolerance limits, the assurance of whose effective

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 347
performance, well-being and safety require total control over the man-environment

interface by the responsible medical authority.

I propose that the dilemma be resolved by retention of the present Directorate of

Aerospace Medicine (MM) in direct line responsibility to the Deputy Associate

Administrator for Manned Space Flight for astronaut selection and flight operations

matters, but at the same time the Directorate also be place under direct line responsibility

to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Biospace Missions for biomedical research and

development matters. Thus, a smooth coordination can be effected between practical

engineering end-item production and physiological research input so essential in this

unique man-machine assemblage.

Implicit in the changes suggested is the very important feature that all life sciences

Supporting Research and Technology funds would be administered by the Office of

Biospace Missions. This is absolutely essential to a coordinated effort in the total life

sciences area so that wasteful duplication and hurtful gaps will be avoided.

Besides the major collaborative role with the Office of Manned Space Flight, the Office of

Biospace Missions would have as its other primary role the “expansion of human

knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space” in the life sciences area. These

activities fall quite naturally into two broad sub-units: the search for extraterrestrial life

and the elucidation of the mechanisms of the origin of life generally, which has been

termed conveniently “Exobiology”, and investigation of the [7] effects of the space

environment in all of its characteristics on the life functions of terrestrial organisms, plant

and animal alike, which may be described conveniently by the broad term “Environmental

Physiology”. It is to be emphasized and re-emphasized, however, that a perfect continuum

exists between the theorizing concerning biochemical evolution and the origin of life at

one extreme, and the medical monitoring of an astronaut during a flight mission at the

other extreme. Any fragmentation for administrative convenience of this broad

consideration of the various facets of the life process serves only to delay our ultimate

understanding of the phenomena involved and the solution of many practical medical

and engineering problems.

Another change which I propose is that the intramural Life Science Research Laboratory,

currently scheduled for construction at Ames, be given the status of a Field Center and

that the Director report directly to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Biospace

Missions. This would accomplish two important results, and it would permit the

acquisition of a higher level bioscientist to direct NASA’s intramural research program

than is now possible. This proposed change would apply whether the Laboratory remains

physically at Ames as a Life Science Research Center, or not. It would also apply if a

Human Factors Research Center were instituted separate from an Exobiology Research

Center, except that in such a case there should be two Directors rather than one.

Another suggestion I make is that an effective, coordinated procedure be adopted at the

Headquarters level, i.e., in the Office of Biospace Missions, to provide expert outside

348 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
review of all research and facilities proposals in the life sciences area, intramural and

extramural alike, for scientific quality and to determine acceptability from a scientific

point of view. It would then remain the responsibility of the NASA cognizant scientific

administrators in the Office of Biospace Missions to determine priorities and mission

appropriateness among the scientifically acceptable proposals. Additionally, the review

machinery established for this purpose should easily be able to handle any review

requirements in the life sciences area generated by the Office of Technology Utilization

or by the Office of Research Grants and Contracts.

[8] It is further proposed that the Headquarters Occupational Medicine and Safety and

Health activities be transferred from the Office of Administration to the Office of

Biospace Missions. This would again make possible the establishment of a smooth liaison

between research in radiobiology and toxicology on the one hand, for example, and

industrial hygiene practices on the other.

Another factor of importance in achieving the most effective program in the life sciences

is the matter of primary responsibility for flight projects. In order to assure optimal

experiment control, it is essential that the cognizant program activity have primary flight

project control and responsibility. Therefore, I propose that flight projects relating

entirely or primarily to biospace missions shall be assigned to the Office of Biospace

Missions for management control. Thus, at present, the Biosatellite Project would fall in

this category as would some of the Martian exploration proposals. Flights involving

biospace missions only in part, such as the Gemini and Apollo Projects, would continue

to be the joint concern of the program offices involved.

Finally, because of the scope and importance of NASA’s manifold responsibilities and

activities in the life science area, which cannot help but increase in the future, I urge most

strongly that an Office of the Life Sciences Advisor be established at the Administrator’s

staff level. In order to maximize the utility of this Office in advising the Administrator on

policy in the life sciences area, I recommend that prestigious bioscientists be invited to

spend not less than one year and not more than two years as the Life Sciences Advisor to

the Administrator. Furthermore, the Office should have a small permanent staff which

would include one medical man and one engineer, each experienced in space activities,

who could provide the practical, applied information background and perspective for 

the incumbent.

Such an arrangement should make available to the Administrator a continuous flow of

new ideas from the best bioscientists of the country, yet would not interfere with the

managerial need for continuity in the operating program in life sciences, which would be

provided by the Deputy Associate Administrator for Life Sciences at the level of the

Associate Administrator.

[9] As epilogue I should like to make apology for the rough-hewn nature of this

communication. However, as a major reorganization of the Headquarters management

structure is rumored to be imminent, I feel it is urgent and essential that the NASA life

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 349
sciences activities receive appropriate consideration in any new arrangement. They form

many important threads of the NASA fabric, and are long overdue for top management

and policy level representation. I shall of course be pleased to discuss the proposal further

as you may wish.

Nello Pace

cc: A/Webb

AD/Dryden

Document III-11

Document Title: Letter from Homer Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, to Dr. Harry

Hess, Chairman, Space Science Board, 16 April 1969.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Beginning in 1968 and picking up momentum as the first lunar landing approached, NASA began

to develop a comprehensive plan for its post-Apollo activities. Homer Newell was in charge of this

planning effort, which involved participants from all parts of the Agency. As those who were planning

the space life sciences program developed a statement of NASA’s future objectives in that area, Newell

asked the Space Science Board for its assessment of NASA’s planning.

[stamped APR 16 1969]

Dr. Harry H. Hess

Chairman, Space Science Board

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20418

Dear Dr. Hess:

Although currently we are having some difficulty funding the kind of space bioscience

program that we feel the nation should have, we are, nevertheless, attempting to develop

a long range plan that can be used to put our space bioscience program on a sound basis

and will lead to getting the best returns we can from our investment in the program. To

this end, the Office of Space Science and Applications has assembled a set of goals and

objectives for space biology, a copy of which is attached. I would very much appreciate the

comments of the members of Dr. Allan Brown’s Committee on Life Sciences of the Space

Science Board, on the appropriateness and adequacy of these goals and objectives as a

starting point for NASA’s long range planning.

350 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
In particular, is the stated position of value appropriate? Is it achievable within the next

one or two decades, assuming a reasonable application of resources? Is it too optimistic?

Or is it just plain not achievable? Is there perhaps some other position of value that is

more appropriate to state as the motivation for our space biology program?

Are the stated objectives the right ones on which to base a national space biology

program? Are the objectives oriented toward the right questions and are they sufficiently

aggressive to take advantage of our capability to advance in this area? Are there any gaps

that should be filled in? With regard to the last question, it should be emphasized that

exobiology is included elsewhere in our planning. Under space biology we include the use

of space for fundamental research into the fundamental nature and processes of life,

using the space environment and techniques for whatever advantage they can give us. 

[2] Any assistance the Committee on Life Sciences can give us in fixing upon the best set

of goals and objectives for planning our national space biology program will be greatly

appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

[stamped “Original signed by 

Homer E. Newell”] 

Homer E. Newell

Associate Administrator

Attachment:

Space Biology Report

Dated 1 April 1969

CC: Dr. Allan H. Brown

Prepared by: SB/Jenkins/Arney

ext. 24621 4/11/69

[3]

[stamped APR 1 1969]

SPACE BIOLOGY

GOALS 

• To contribute substantially to the development of a fundamental unifying theory of

biology, by increasing our understanding of the influence of gravity and time on life

processes and structures.

• To utilize this biological theory in combination with the unique capabilities of space

flight for the advancement of such fields as medicine, public health, and agriculture.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 351
FUTURE POSITION OF VALUE

The significant position of achievement, to which our space biology program will

contribute substantially during the next fifteen years, is the development of a coherent

and unifying theory of biology.

The possession of such a theory will make it possible to increase by several-fold the

contribution of biological research to the solution of contemporary social problems. 

Although biological knowledge to date has resulted in some of the most useful

applications in the whole of human existence, such as a phenomenal increase in

longevity and in food production, the knowledge has come from empirical research

approaches which are very slow and which are low in predictive value. In other fields

of science, such as physics and chemistry, unifying theories have greatly increased the

ability to predict events. Therefore, we can logically expect a new theory in biology to

result in a much improved ability to produce useful benefits for man. Since many of

our major problems are biological in origin (population, food, health, pollution), it

follows that many of the solutions will be biological in nature.

Two missing links in our development of biological theory are the operation of gravity

and time (Earth-induced periodic influences) on living processes. Space flight frees

experiments from the regulating influences found in laboratories on Earth, allowing

us to accurately study the mechanisms involved. Thus, space flight can provide a

unique environment for [4] obtaining these missing links in our knowledge, speeding

our theory-building and vastly improving our ability to place biological research at the

service of pressing human needs. It is in support of this area of research that the Space

Biology Program is dedicated.

Exobiology, a related area of research, is expected to provide the third key ingredient

from the space program to the building of a general theory of biology. This activity is

supported under the Lunar and Planetary Exploration progams [sic]. The discovery

of life elsewhere in the Universe would allow us to compare its chemistry, structure,

and function, with that of life on Earth. It would allow us to derive universal concepts

of biology and broaden our understanding of the laws governing the science of life.

It would provide us with a much better understanding of the relationship of life and

life processes to the laws governing the related sciences of physics and chemistry.

Much can be learned from an independent set of molecules and molecular systems,

whether they are, or have been, alive. In particular, extraterrestrial genetic codes or

morphologies could provide, through comparisons, opportunities to understand the

origin and evolution of life on Earth.

352 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
BROAD AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Broad Objective

1. Understand the biological roles of the universal force of gravity on life and the

capability of life to adapt to gravitational changes.

Supporting Specific Objectives

a. To determine the effects of gravity on maintaining normal organization in

living cells.

b. To determine the gravity sensors and the effects of gravity on plant growth,

develop-ment, physiology, and morphogenesis.

c. To determine gravity sensing thresholds and gravity selection preference for

animals.

d. To determine the effects of gravity on the development, growth, metabolism,

physiology, and behavior of animals. [3]

e. To determine the effects of weightlessness in producing and correcting

abnormalities and to modify or alter mechanisms in organisms.

Broad Objective 

2. Understand the roles of time expressed in oscillations, rhythms, and life spans on living

organisms.

Supporting Specific Objectives

a. To determine the influence of Earth and lunar environmental periodicities in

inducing and maintaining oscillations and biorhythms in living organisms using

Earth orbital, lunar, and heliocentric missions.

b. To determine the role of oscillations and biorhythms in maintaining normal

organization and life, and determine whether they are innate or environmentally

induced.

c. To determine the interaction of time phenomena with gravity and organism

volume (space).

Broad Objective

3. Determine the potential applications and develop techniques to modify or alter living systems

to produce changes or correct abnormalities to advance medicine, public health, agriculture,

and space exploration, including modification of planetary atmospheres or surfaces.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 353
Supporting Specific Objectives

a. To determine the capabilities of life to change and adapt to environmental factors.

b. To develop techniques to use time and weightlessness in producing and correcting

abnormalities and to modify or alter mechanisms in organisms.

c. To utilize the experimentation techniques and capabilities developed in the

program, for short-leadtime problem-solving in biology and medicine.

d. To explore the potential use of Earth organisms to modify or alter environments

on planetary or lunar surfaces. [4]

PROGRAM THRUST

Pursue a program to make a broad survey, and carry out selected intensive studies on the

biological effects of space environmental factors on a variety of types of Earth life. Studies

will be carried out initially in Earth orbit and then in interplanetary space, and on lunar

and planetary surfaces. The program will be balanced, including: studies on Earth;

automated recoverable biological satellites; non-recoverable Earth orbital and heliocentric

missions; and manned flight experiment programs, both manual and automated.

Document III-12

Document Title: NASA Policy Directive 8020.14, 16 July 1969.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

NASA, since its early years, has had a policy regarding measures to avoid both forward and back

contamination, resulting from robotic and human visits to other celestial bodies. With the 16 July 1969

launch of the Apollo 11 mission to land the first humans on the Moon, an updated policy was issued.

[1]

July 16, 1969

Effective date

Policy Directive

SUBJECT: EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE

354 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
1. PURPOSE

This Directive establishes:

a. NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against any harmful

contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting from personnel,

spacecraft and other property returning to the Earth after landing on or coming

within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body.

b. Security requirements, restrictions and safeguards that are necessary in the interest of

the national security.

2. SCOPE

The provisions of this Directive apply to all NASA manned and unmanned space missions

which land on or come within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body and return to

the Earth.

3. DEFINITIONS

a. "NASA" and the "Administrator" mean, respectively, the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration or his authorized representative (see NMD/A 8020.15).

b. "Extraterrestrially exposed" means the state or condition of any person, property,

animal or other form of life or matter whatever, who or which has:

(1) Touched directly or come within the atmospheric envelope of any other celestial

body; or 

[2]

July 16, 1969

(2) Touched directly or been in close proximity to (or been exposed indirectly to) any

person, property, animal or other form of life or matter who or which has been

extraterrestrially exposed by virtue of subparagraph (1).

For example, if person or thing “A” touches the surface of the Moon, and on “A's”

return to the Earth, “B” touches “A” and, subsequently, “C” touches “B,” all of

these – “A” through “C” inclusive -- would be extraterrestrially exposed (“A” and

“B” directly; “C” indirectly).

c. “Quarantine” means the detention, examination and decontamination of any person,

property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever that is extraterrestrially

exposed, and includes the apprehension or seizure of such person, property, animal

or other form of life or matter whatever.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 355
d. “Quarantine period” means a period of consecutive calendar days as may be

established in accordance with paragraph 5a.

e. "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and any other territory or

possession of the United States, and in a territorial sense all places and waters subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States.

4. AUTHORITY

a. Sections 203 and 304 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 2473, 2455 and 2456).

b. 18 U.S.C. 799.

c. Article IX, Outer Space Treaty, TIAS 6347 (18 UST 2416).

d. NMIs 1052.90 and 8020.13.

5. POLICY

a. Administrative Actions. The Administrator or his designee as authorize by NMD/A

8020.15 shall in his discretion:

(1) Determine the beginning and duration of a quarantine period with respect to any

space mission; the quarantine period as it applies to various life forms will be

announced.

[3]

July 16, 1969 NPD 8020.14

(2) Designate in writing quarantine officers to exercise quarantine authority.

(3) Determine that a particular person, property, animal or other form of life or matter

whatever is extraterrestrially exposed and quarantine such person, property, animal

or other form of life or matter whatever. The quarantine may be based only on a

determination, with or without the benefit of a hearing, that there is probable cause

to believe that such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever

is extraterrestrially exposed.

(4) Determine within the United States or within vessels or vehicles of the United States

the place, boundaries, and rules of operation of necessary quarantine stations.

(5) Provide for guard services, by contract or otherwise, as may be necessary to maintain

security and inviolability of quarantine stations, quarantined persons, property,

animals or other form of life or matter whatever.

(6) Provide for the subsistence, health and welfare of persons quarantined under the

provisions of this Directive.

(7) Hold such hearings at such times, in such manner and for such purposes as may be

desirable or necessary under this Directive, including hearings for the purpose of

356 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
creating a record for use in making any determination under this Directive or for the

purpose of reviewing any such determination.

(8) Cooperate with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the

Department of Agriculture in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6.

(9) Take such other actions as may be prudent or necessary and which are consistent with

this Directive.

b. Quarantine

(1) During any period of announced quarantine, the property within the posted

perimeter of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center,

Houston, Texas, is designated as the NASA Lunar Receiving Laboratory Quarantine

Station.

[4]

July 16, 1969

(2) Other quarantine stations may be established if determined necessary as provided in

paragraph 5a(4) .

(3) During any period of announced quarantine, no person shall enter or depart from

the limits of any quarantine station without permission of the cognizant NASA

quarantine officer. During such period, the posted perimeter of a quarantine station

shall be secured by armed guard.

(4) Any person who enters the limits of any quarantine station during the quarantine

period shall be deemed to have consented to the quarantine of his person if it is

determined that he is or has become extraterrestrially exposed.

(5) At the earliest practicable time, each person who is quarantined by NASA shall be

given a reasonable opportunity to communicate by telephone with legal counsel, or

other persons of his choice.

6. RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPARTMENTS OF H.E.W. AND AGRICULTURE

a. If either the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or the Department of

Agriculture exercises its authority to quarantine an extraterrestrially exposed person,

property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever, NASA will, except as

provided in subparagraph c, not exercise the authority to quarantine that same

person, property, animal or other form, of life or matter whatever. In such cases,

NASA will offer to these departments the use of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Quarantine Station and such other service, equipment, personnel and facilities as

may be necessary to ensure an effective quarantine.

b. If neither the Department or Health, Education and Welfare or the Department of

Agriculture exercises its quarantine authority, NASA shall exercise the authority to

quarantine an extraterrestrially exposed person, property, animal or other form of life

or matter whatever. In such cases, NASA will inform these departments of such

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 357
quarantine action and, in addition, may request the use of such service, equipment,

personnel and facilities of other Federal departments and agencies as may be

necessary to ensure an effective quarantine.

c. NASA shall quarantine NASA astronauts and other NASA personnel as determined

necessary and all NASA property involved in any space mission.

[5]

July 16, 1969 NPD 8020.14

7. COOPERATION WITH STATES, TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS

Actions taken in accordance with the provisions of this Directive shall be exercised in

cooperation with the applicable authority of any State, territory, possession or any political

subdivision thereof.

8. COURT OR OTHER PROCESS

a. NASA officers and employees are prohibited from discharging from the limits of a

quarantine station any quarantined person, property, animal or other form of life or

matter whatever during an announced quarantine period in compliance with a

subpoena, show cause order or other request, order or demand of any court or other

authority without the prior approval of the General Counsel and the Administrator.

b. Where approval to discharge a quarantined person, property, animal or other form of

life or matter whatever in compliance with such a request, order or demand of any

court or other authority is not given, the person to whom it is directed shall, if

possible, appear in court or before the other authority and respectfully state his

inability to comply, relying for his action upon this paragraph 8.

9. VIOLATIONS

Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate any provision of this

Directive or any regulation or order issued under this Directive or who enters or departs

from the limits of any quarantine station in disregard of the quarantine rules or

regulations or without permission of the NASA quarantine officer shall be fined not more

than $5000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both (18 U.S.C. 799).

[signed by “Thomas O. Paine”]

Administrator

DISTRIBUTION:

SDL 1

Published in the Federal Register under Title 14 , Chapter V , Part 1211

(34 F.R. 11975 - 11976, July 16, 1969) .

358 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Document III-13

Document Title: “Life Sciences in Space,” Report of the Study to Review NASA Life

Sciences Programs, Space Sciences Board, National Academy of Sciences, 1970.

Source: Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Document III-14

Document Title: Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator, NASA, Memorandum on

Organizational Alternatives for NASA’s Life Sciences Activities, 9 November 1970.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-15

Document Title: Memorandum from George M. Low, Acting Administrator to Associate

Administrator for Manned Space Flight, 3 December 1970. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

As it began to plan and execute its programs in the post-Apollo period, NASA in the spring of 1970

asked the Space Science Board to undertake a comprehensive review of the NASA life sciences efforts.

The review committee was chaired by H. Bentley Glass, a biologist at the State University of New York,

Stony Brook. Once again, as had most prior reviews of space life sciences, the Glass Committee

recommended the centralized management of most NASA life science activities, and once again NASA

managers decided not to accept the totality of that recommendation. 

Document III-13

Life Sciences in Space

Report of the Study

to Review NASA Life Sciences Programs

Convened by the

Space Science Board

National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council

H. BENTLEY GLASS

EDITOR

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 359
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Washington, D.C. 1970

[1] 1. Summary and Major Recommendations

The successful Apollo landings on the moon mark the attainment of the primary goal

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the 1960’s and necessitate a

reappraisal and reorientation of the objectives for the next decade. The objectives

indicated by President Nixon in his statement of March 7, 1970, reduce to three:

exploration, scientific knowledge, and practical application. Because the enlargement of

human understanding and the increase of scientific knowledge occupy a position of

growing importance in the official justification of the support of NASA’s programs (see

pages 9-10) [not included], the need to reevaluate the NASA programs in the life sciences

is clear.

The present Study was convened under the auspices of the Space Science Board in the

spring of 1970 to undertake this task. The Committee has visited major laboratories of

NASA where life sciences work is being conducted and has conferred with numerous

consultants now or previously engaged in the various aspects of life sciences work

supported by NASA. It also examined the more recent surveys and critiques of NASA life

sciences programs. Among these, Space Biology, the report of a study convened by the

Space Science Board in Santa Cruz, California, in the summer of 1969, and the report

(1969) of the Space-Science and Technology Panel of the President’s [2] Science Advisory

Committee, entitled The Biomedical Foundations of Manned Space Flight, received

particular attention. The present Committee, composed for the most part of biologists not

previously engaged in NASA programs and largely unfamiliar with the scope and the details

of the life sciences programs supported by NASA, must disclaim any readiness in so short

a time to provide a definitive evaluation of the total program in all details.

Nevertheless, in the three months of our preliminary planning and site visits and the

more intensive two-weeks’ study conducted at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 12-25,

1970, we have been able to arrive at a consensus about broad priorities in the life sciences

as well as about the effectiveness with which NASA is currently able to pursue its life

sciences objectives. The present report will be limited to these matters.

First, our Committee agrees that exobiology -- the inquiry, into the existence of life

elsewhere in the universe and the scientific explanation of the origin of life -- represents

the most important basic question in the life sciences disciplines associated with the space

program as well as one of the great scientific questions of our time. In this we concur with

the views expressed in the NASA Report for the Space Task Group, 1969 (see page 14 of

the present report) [not included]. We are not optimistic, however, about finding living

things elsewhere in the solar system: the moon is quite lifeless, and Mars, which presents

the greatest probability for life of any of the planets, has an environment hostile to life as

we know it. We believe, nonetheless, that the search for extraterrestrial life is a prime

scientific goal, one that must be a part of any program of planetary exploration.

Exobiology embraces considerably more than the simple question, “Does life exist

elsewhere than on our earth?” The further questions that must be asked, and that must

determine experimental strategy in this area, include the following: Has life ever existed,

360 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
in former ages, upon the celestial body being examined? Are there indications of

prebiological chemical evolution that would support or clarify present ideas about the

origin of life? How does life develop? What are the environmental conditions that would

prevent terrestrial organisms from populating the planet? Can a lifeless moon or planet,

by controlled modification of the environment, become a laboratory for the adaptation

and evolution of terrestrial life? In pursuing answers to these question, NASA can also

make very important contributions by support of fundamental studies here on earth.

Nevertheless, earth-based studies must remain preliminary. [3] They can only provide

useful guides to the definitive explorations to be made in space itself.

Second, we agree that if manned space flight is to continue and be further developed,

then there must be a much stronger and more broadly based program of research in the

physiology and psychology of man in space, over and above the aspects of biomedicine

concerned with the safety and efficiency of the astronaut or space passenger. We regard

this consensus of our Committee to be in agreement with and parallel to the President’s

Science Advisory Committee Space Science and Technology Panel’s emphasis upon the

need to “qualify man for space.” Unless this can be done, all other missions depending

upon man in space must fail or be severely handicapped. We agree with that report’s view

that NASA has not had an adequate scientific program directed toward this goal.

Third, if the space station and space shuttle represent the technological goals of the

coming decade, then such facilities should certainly be adapted to include an appropriate

program in space biology. As citizens and scientists, we cannot avoid uneasiness over the

large costs involved relative to the prospective gains in scientific knowledge. We have

asked ourselves whether a better understanding of biological rhythms, radiation effects

upon man and other organisms, and the biological effects of gravity and weightlessness

justifies so great an expenditure of public funds in comparison with other fundamental

biological problems and critical needs for federal support of the life sciences. Yet we also

realize that Skylab, the space station, and the space shuttle will be programmed or

abandoned for reasons other than the expectation of making important biological

findings. We therefore reiterate our conviction that if the new space facilities are to be

developed, they should provide for well-chosen and well-designed biological experiments.

Fourth, we emphasize the excellent opportunity for NASA to promote international

cooperation within the life sciences. Much has already been done to encourage

international participation in the planning and execution of certain kinds of experiments

conducted in space. This is commendable. Nevertheless, more can be done in biological

and biomedical experimentation, and, in view of the extensive Soviet manned and

unmanned flights, cooperation with Soviet scientists is of significant mutual interest and

should be earnestly sought.

Fifth, even a preliminary survey of the organization of the life sciences programs

within NASA has disclosed grave defects, resulting from overlapping authority, insufficient

[4] internal communication, a multiplicity of advisory groups, each with a very limited

purview, inadequate programmatic involvement on the part of the life sciences

community, and lack of any strong representation of the interests of the life sciences at

high administrative levels. We are convinced that before any reordering of other priorities

within the life sciences, there must be a thoroughgoing reorganization of NASA’s

administration of its life sciences programs. The present system exists for historical

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 361
reasons which were presumably compelling at the time but which no longer obtain.

Repeated recommendations for a reform of the administrative structure have remained

unheeded. Without reorganization along such lines as our Committee and others have

recommended, it is folly to expect any major improvement in implementation of goals

and in the development of the life sciences within NASA. If the programmatic objectives

stated above are worthwhile, then a better organization with a strong central voice for the

life sciences must be sought to achieve them. The matter cannot be postponed without

the gravest future damage.

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

1. We recommend the appointment of a Life Sciences Advisory Board at a high

administrative level within NASA, to review programs on a continuing basis and to

recommend policies and priorities. This Board should have rotating-term appointments

of individuals who are not currently staff members, grantees, or contractors of NASA.

2. We recommend the creation of a new Office of Space Biology and Medicine

(OSBM) headed by an Associate Administrator for the Life Sciences or, alternatively, of a

Deputy Associate Administrator for the Life Sciences in the Office of the Associate

Administrator, in that order of preference.

3. We recommend, in either case of Recommendation 2 above, a functional

reorganization of the life sciences programs, along disciplinary lines, into four Units:

Exobiology and Planetary Ecology, Space Biology, Human Biology and Aerospace

Medicine, and Personnel Health and Evnironmental [sic] Medicine. A biotechnology

research group to coordinate the life sciences programs with physical science technology

should be made an integral part of the life sciences organization.

[5] 4. We recommend a simplification of the advisory struc-ture and a reduction in the

number of advisory committees and panels. Each of the four Units proposed in

Recommendation 3 should have a single advisory committee to review plans and projects

and to evaluate applications in support of in-house programs. Advisory groups or panels,

organized along disciplinary lines, would be named to evaluate proposals for support of

outside investigators.

5. We recommend the establishment of better criteria for the selection of flight

experiments based on a careful review of existing criteria. The proposed Life Sciences

Advisory Board should have a major role in the final decisions with respect to these

criteria. As a continuing body of experts, it should be able to advise and recommend

priorities in programmatic strategy and planning which an ad hoc committee such as the

present one is unable to do in a few months of study.

6. We recommend the establishment of a NASA Life Scientist Program, in which up

to 40 appropriately selected life scientists would receive six-year appointments (renewable

once), with salary and minimal supporting research funds. Appointees would agree to

spend one third of their six-year term (suitably arranged) at one or more of the NASA

Centers or field stations. We are unanimous in the belief that no similar expenditure of

funds by NASA will do more to generate the increased involvement of the scientific

community, and that no other program will so quickly redound [sic] to the benefit and

improvement of the life sciences programs of NASA.

362 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
7. We recommend that NASA inform the life sciences community, especially

university staffs and students, more generally of its future plans and of opportunities to

contribute to the planning of life science objectives. When definite plans and programs

are formulated, the life sciences community should be informed well in advance of target

dates, and specific research projects should be solicited with greater lead-time than in the

past.

8. We recommend that an additional vigorous effort be made by NASA to encourage

international participation in the planning and conduct of experiments in its life sciences

programs and especially to seek active participation by the Soviet Union.

9. We recommend that the search for life on other worlds and for deeper

understanding of the origin of life (exobiology) remain the prime scientific priority of

NASA life sciences, one commensurate in importance (though not necessarily in expenditure or immediacy) with other primary scientific objectives [6] of NASA. This

recommendation does not imply endorsement of any specific presently planned

experiments (e.g., Viking): our Committee does not feel that it should endorse or criticize

such experiments without a much more exhaustive study.

10. We recommend that, if manned spaceflight is to continue, then, in order to

ensure the safety and efficiency of man in space and to “qualify man for space,” a far

broader program of space biomedicine and human biology should be undertaken. In

particular, programs in space physiology and psychology must be selectively strengthened.

The criteria for selection of astronauts and space passengers must be reevaluated

periodically and should envisage a progressive transfer of the tasks of collecting data and

conducting experiments from astronauts to persons trained as scientists.

11. We recommend that fundamental studies in space biology, and the supporting

ground-based experiments in particular, continue to receive support, and that, because

funding for and space within spacecraft must inevitably remain limited, only definitive

experiments should be given preference for flight. Accordingly, 90 percent or more of the

preliminary work necessary for experiments selected for flight, and probably most of the

controls, should be ground-based. It is therefore appropriate for NASA, even within the

strictest mission orientation, to support extensive ground-based biological research.

Document III-14

[no page number]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

20546

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR [stamped] NOV 9 1970

MEMORANDUM

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 363
TO: A/Acting Administrator

SUBJECT: Organizational Alternatives for NASA’s Life Sciences Activities

The Glass Committee, as one of the strongest recommendations in its report on the recent

summer study on the overall NASA life sciences program, urges NASA to draw together

into a single organizational entity, under the direction of a competent life scientist, all of

the research and research-related program in NASA’s life sciences efforts. Alternatively, if

NASA finds that this cannot be done, the Committee recommends that NASA reduce the

undesirable effects of the current fractionation of the life sciences effort by appointing a

Deputy Associate Administrator for Life Sciences responsible for the total integration of

the NASA life science program.

The Glass Committee is firmly convinced that an effective integration of NASA’s life

sciences programs is essential to generate the interdisciplinary interaction between the

various elements needed to produce the high quality results that should be obtained from

the substantial investments made in the space program. Moreover, the Glass Committee is

strongly of the opinion that such an improvement in program quality is going to be an

essential factor in NASA’s conduct of long-duration manned space flight missions. The

Glass Committee arguments are quite persuasive, and moreover the NASA Directors of

our Medicine and Biotechnology Programs agree with the Glass Committee that a

substantial integration of the total NASA program is essential to achieving success and the

required quality.

[2]On the other hand, NASA is not a life sciences agency, and its organization is

determined primarily by other factors. Under these circumstances, there are persuasive

reasons why different portions of the life sciences activity should be in different elements

of the NASA activity. These would be cases where the value of interaction between the life

science activity and another part of the NASA program overrides the importance of

having all life sciences together.

In my view, we have several such cases in NASA. The medical flight operations, because of

their criticality to manned space flight operations, must be located within the Office of

Manned Space Flight; there appears to be universal agreement on this. Likewise, the life

sciences work in the aeronautics program, because of its criticality to aeronautical flight

and research operations, must be within the Office of Advanced Research and

Technology, and must be staffed with enough medical research capability to be able to

carry out an effective program. The reasoning behind this point of view is illustrated in

the attached letter [not included] from Dr. Hans Mark, Director of the Ames Research

Center. I feel, also, that having exobiology and planetary quarantine in the Office of Space

Science and Applications is beneficial because of the central role that exobiology plays in

planetary exploration at the present time, a role that is best carried out with the very

closest of association between the biology, engineering, and physical sciences people

involved in the effort.

364 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
The rest of the life sciences research could well benefit by being pulled together into a

single office. Moreover, if we placed all of this research under the direction of a Deputy

Associate Administrator (of the office) for Life Sciences, and assigned to that individual

both the responsibility and the authority to oversee the total NASA life sciences research

program, we will have gone a long way toward meeting the recommendations of the Glass

Committee. By “oversee” I mean, working with the program offices, to develop an

integrated life [3] sciences research program for all of NASA, to present to the

Administrator each year a proposed program plan and budget for the integrated

program, to review the conduct of the entire NASA effort and make periodic reports to

the Administrator, to recommend on they filling of key life sciences positions, and to serve

as NASA’s principal contact with the outside life sciences community in life sciences

matters.

After discussions with a number of people, including Dale Myers, Roy Jackson, John

Naugle, General Humphreys, Walt Jones, and Hans Mark, I have come to the following

conclusions. First, it does not seem to me that we want to load OSSA with responsibility

for biotechnology and bioengineering, man-machine integration, biomedical research, or

even with advanced bio-instrumentation Thus, I would eliminate placing the nucleus of

life sciences activity within OSSA.

Secondly, if this point of view is accepted, then there appear to be two principal

alternatives to consider. These are set forth in Attachment 2, entitled: CURRENT AND

PROPOSED LIFE SCIENCES PROGRAM LOCATIONS [not included]. In both

alternatives, medical flight operations would be in OMSF, life science research associated

with aeronautics would remain in OART, and exobiology and planetary quarantine plus

the very small activity in earth resources would remain in OSSA. In alternative 1 all of the

remainder would go to OART, while in alternative 2 the remainder would be placed in

OMSF. In either of the two alternatives I would recommend establishing the position of

Deputy Associate Administrator (of the office) for Life Sciences, with the total life sciences

oversight responsibilities discussed above. (Some other name such as “Aerospace

Medicine and Biology” might be preferred over “Life Sciences”.)

Advantages of alternative 1 are:

– A large part of the work involved is in the nature of advanced technology work, or

applied research leading to the advancement of technology, and this is precisely the

sort of research OART was set up to accomplish.

[4] – This arrangement would maintain the closest of association with the aeronautics

aspects of our life sciences work, in a period when we are increasing our aeronautics

effort, moving into more sophisticated man-machine systems, and increasing our

work with flight prototypes.

– OART has one of the two major centers engaged in life sciences research, namely

Ames Research Center, under its cognizance.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 365
– OART has had extensive experience with the university community in the support

and conduct of academic research programs, which form a very important segment

of NASA’s advanced life sciences research effort.

The disadvantages of alternative 1 are:

– Biomedical research, which the Glass Committee has emphasized will in the long

run be fundamental to developing capabilities for long-duration manned space

flight, will be in a separate office from medical flight operations, with which it must

continually interact in order to realize the full returns desired.

– The Manned Spacecraft Center, which is engaged in a major portion of NASA’s life

sciences activities, is not directly under OART cognizance.

– Procedures for moving from the definition of flight experiments for manned

missions to the engineering development and conduct of those experiments will be

more complicated than if the total life sciences activity were under OMSF.

[5]

The advantages of alternative 2 are:

– Biomedical research will be closer organizationally to medical flight operations with

which it must interact intimately.

– The process of moving from definition of flight experiments to their engineering,

development, and conduct should be more straightforward than in alternative 1.

– The Manned Spacecraft Center, which has a large segment of NASA’s life sciences

activity, is directly under the cognizance of OMSF.

– The life sciences research program activities within OMSF would give the office an

opportunity to wrestle internally with the conduct of a scientific program in the

shuttle and space station; this experience should prove of value, in working on

scientific programs in other areas with OSSA and OART.

The disadvantages of alternative 2 are:

– The major nucleus of life sciences research is separated from the aeronautics

program, with which it should interact intimately.

– Responsibility for a research effort is placed in a development and operations office,

where special care will have to be taken to ensure that the ever-present urgent demands

of development and operations do not act so as to short-change the research.

– The Ames Research Center, which has a large segment of NASA’s life sciences

activity, does not come under the cognizance of OMSF.

366 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
[6] Both of the foregoing alternatives are based on the premise that we wish to pull

together as much as possible of the life sciences activity, excluding only those activities

that must, for reasons stated earlier, be located in specific program offices. Based on

past history and the various discussions we have had on the subject, the choice of either

alternative would produce strains in NASA, leaving some key people strongly

dissatisfied. On the other hand, to fall back from these two alternatives would certainly

be viewed by the Glass Committee as leaving the NASA life sciences program

substantially as fractionated as before, and would be viewed as a rejection of the

Committee’s very strong recommendation.

With respect to medicine and medical research, the major and most visible activity within

NASA will be associated with manned space flight. The Glass Committee has said that it is

undesirable to separate clinical medicine from medical research. Rather, the two should

be brought together so that both can benefit from the interaction between the practical

urgencies of the clinician and the exploratory viewpoint of the research scientist. Also, it

is important that OMSF direct its thinking and planning toward the research that will be

necessary if the future needs of manned space flight are to be fulfilled. Thus it would

appear, on balance, that alternative 2 (combining all life sciences, other than certain

unique programs, in OMSF) should be chosen. I therefore recommend that NASA take

appropriate steps to implement alternative 2.

[Original Signed by Homer E. Newell ]

Homer E. Newell 

Associate Administrator

Document III-15

[no page number]

[stamped “DEC 3 1970”]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20540

OFFICE OF THE ADMINSTRATOR

TO: M/Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

FROM: A/Acting Administrator

SUBJECT: Establishment of a NASA Director of Life Sciences in the Office of Manned

Space Flight

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 367
The position of NASA Director of Life Sciences is established, effective this date, in the

Office of Manned Space Flight with responsibility and authority to oversee the total NASA

life sciences program.

I FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The NASA Director of Life Sciences, working with the Program Offices will develop

an integrated life sciences research program for all of NASA, present to the Administrator

each year a proposed program plan and budget for the integrated program, review the

conduct of the entire NASA effort and make periodic reports to the Administrator,

recommend on the filling of key life sciences positions and serve as NASA’s principal

contact with the outside life sciences community in life sciences matters.

The NASA Director of Life Sciences will be responsible for providing Biomedical

Flight Operations support to project offices and for the direction of all life sciences

research and technology programs including Biomedical Research, Bioscience Research,

Life Support and Protective Systems, Man Machine Integration, Advanced

Bioinstrumentation and related flight experiment definition.

The following Life Sciences activities will remain assigned as follows:

a. Exobiology and Planetary Quarantine will remain within OSSA.

b. Research relative to man’s operating environments in aircraft and the techniques

and equipment required to improve and measure his performance, noise research

and simulation technology, will remain within OART.

[2]

c. Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health will remain within the Office of

Administration.

II BUDGET

FY 1971 program in areas impacted by this reorganization will continue as planned

except that funds approved for these programs will be transferred to the OMSF consistent

with the revised functions and responsibilities.

The proposed FY 1972 budget will be reconstructed to reflect the realignment of

responsibilities and a line will be established within the Space Flight Operations budget

authorization to cover OMSF life sciences responsibilities.

III ORGANIZATION

Details including the restructuring and the identification of key positions will be

developed and submitted for approval as soon as possible.

368 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
IV MANPOWER RESOURCES

Negotiations to identify and transfer manpower resources from OSSA and DART will

be completed as soon as possible.

V APPOINTMENT

Dr. J. W. Humphreys, Jr., is appointed as NASA Director of Life Sciences.

[signed]

George M. Low

Document III-16

Document Title: Meeting Record, “Proposal to Undertake Search for Extraterrestrial

Intelligence,” 11 September 1973. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-17

Document Title: Letter from Bernard M. Oliver, Hewlett Packard Company, to James C.

Fletcher, NASA Administrator, 20 September 1973. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-18

Document Title: Memorandum from James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, to Dr.

Homer Newell, Associate Administrator, “Cyclops Proposal,” 4 October 1973. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

John Billingham at NASA’s Ames Research Center was the moving force behind the birth of the SETI

project. In 1971 he teamed with Bernard Oliver, an electrical engineer and former Vice President for

Research at Hewlett Packard and a technical expert in microwave signal processing. Together with

Frank Drake, the astronomer who had first developed a mathematical equation containing the

relevant factors involved in determining the likelihood of communicative civilizations in our galaxy,

they organized a summer study to plan a project for accomplishing their goals. The result of their

efforts, titled Project Cyclops, “envisioned a detector consisting in its final stages of an ‘orchard’ of

perhaps 100-meter antennas covering a total area some 10 km in diameter.” As these documents show,

when Project Cyclops was presented to NASA’s leadership as a possible large-scale initiative—the cost

projection for the total project was in the range of $8 billion—the concept received a sympathetic

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 369
reception on intellectual grounds, but was thought to be too politically risky and too uncertain of

success to justify significant NASA funding.

Document III-16

[no page number]

MEETING RECORD

DATE: September 11, 1973

TIME: 10:00 am. - 12:15 p.m.

ATTENDEES: Dr. Fletcher, Dr. Newell, Dr. Barry - HQ Dr. Mark, Dr. Billingham, 

Dr. Wolfe, Dr. Johnson - ARC Dr. Oliver - Hewlett Packard

SUBJECT: Proposal to Undertake Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

COMMENTS:

The ARC personnel, supported by Dr. Oliver, outlined a proposal that NASA undertake a

study to establish the feasibility of initiating a serious search for extraterrestrial

intelligence. Described in general terms, the feasibility study would involve the selection

of a search mode, an examination of engineering alternatives, the selection of a preferred

system, and the preparation of a work plan for detailed engineering design. The study

would cost $300K in FY 74, and $1100K in each of FY's 75 and 76 for a total of $2.5M.

Specific discussion centered on the evolution of an earthbound searching system which

might eventually consist of microwave receiving and recording equipment in conjunction

with a clustered array of 1000 to 2500 antennae having an effective area ranging from 7

to 20 km2. This facility would conceivably detect microwave transmissions from selected

solar systems on a target-by-target basis out to a distance of 1000 light-years (the thickness

of our disc-shaped galaxy), assuming the existence of a 1000 MW omnibeacon at 1000

light-years broadcasting in the frequency band 1420-1660 MHz. Such a facility would cost

approximately $8B to plan and construct.

Several potentially advantageous features of the proposed study were mentioned in the

presentation. The overall program would span a considerable period of time, and would

require a limited initial investment. It would be a new application of space technology

which would ostensibly generate widespread public support and interest, and, at the same

time, it would [2] serve as a possible avenue for international participation. If

extraterrestrial contact should be made, the event would have great scientific,

philosophical, and social significance. New and useful knowledge would be forthcoming

to help provide answers to questions associated with galactic history, longevity of a

civilization, and the biochemical nature of alien life. If extraterrestrial contact should not

370 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
be made, the most significant benefit of the overall program would be an enhanced

capability in the field of radioastronomy.

In discussion following the formal presentation, Dr. Fletcher based his remarks on

anticipated public opinion. He posed the crucial question of whether the proposed

program would actually generate widespread public support and interest. Dr. Fletcher

stated that it would be quite undesirable to fund such a program over a 10 year period

with no significant results having been realized. He said that the general public were [sic]

not greatly interested in radioastronomy, and that if the chance of achieving contact were

something on the order of 1 in 10, he would not want to support the effort.

Drs. Mark and Oliver could not offer positive assurance that extraterrestrial contact would

be made. Instead, they pointed out the relationship between the longevity of a civilization

and the probability of a successful contact. For a longevity of 103 years, the contact

probability was considered to be small. For a longevity of 106 years, the contact probability

was assessed as high. If the entire $8B program were funded, 30 years would be required

to search the entire galactic thick.

Dr. Fletcher stated that, in his opinion, the public would not be willing to take a long shot

on a civilization lasting 106 years. He felt that the proposal would be more palatable if

other desirable spin-offs and side effects in addition to an enhancement of

radioastronomical capability could be identified and emphasized.

[signed]

Acting Executive Secretary: Harvey W. Herring

Document III-17

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

1501 PAGE MILL ROAD

PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94304

BERNARD M. OLIVER 20 September 1973

VICE-PRESIDENT

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Dear Jim:

I want to thank you and Homer for taking the time to discuss the future of interstellar

communication with us last week.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 371
Your concerns over possible adverse political reaction to the proposed study are

understandable. We are in complete accord that if a final program is to succeed, we must

proceed openly and with full congressional and popular understanding of the magnitude

of the effort, of the time scales involved, of the consequences of success and the possibility

of failure. It occurs to me that, not being a NASA employee, I may in some instances be

in a better position to help win that support that [sic] if I were. If you have any suggestions

I would like to hear them.

Jim, I am very worried, as I know you must be, over the long term future of NASA. The

shuttle program is a means to an end -- the end of getting sizable payloads into orbit

more cheaply. Whether the missions needing these payloads will be approved remains to

be seen, and the shuttle itself may encounter technical problems. If it gets shot down,

NASA will lose a great deal of talent and momentum that took years to assemble. Small

probe explorations can continue, of course, but after we've explored Mars and the outer

planets, what then?

At the brink of space -- real space -- our missions must stop, but our curiosity will not. The

only way I can see of greatly extending NASA's lifespan is to extend the radius of its sphere

of influence a million fold; from a milli-light year to a kilo-light year, with a program like

Cyclops. Surely this possibility must be explored further.

I am convinced that the real hidden motive that lay behind NASA's early popularity would

be restored if we could once more entertain the expectation of finding other life. You

asked what we really thought the chances of success were and I hesitated because I

couldn't give a precise figure. Let me say that I believe the probability of success is on the

[2] order of unity, that is, not 10-1 or 10-2 or less. Knowing that great discoveries in

astronomy and cosmology will be realized in any event, this is enough for me.

I strongly hope Ames can proceed with this program. In my view, the organizational risks

of not having a strong backup program ready outweigh the political risks of going ahead.

In addition to giving us a better fix on the task of the search, the study represents an

excellent way to test the political waters with our little toe, so to speak, before diving in.

As I said, if there is any way I can help to warm these waters for you, let me know.

With best personal regards,

[signed]

B. M. Oliver

Dr. James C. Fletcher

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 7137

Washington, D.C., 20546

372 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Document III-18

[no page number]

[stamped OCT 4 1973]

MEMORANDUM

TO : AA/Dr. Homer Newell

FROM: A/Administrator

SUBJECT: Cyclops Proposal

After screening the Cyclops proposal and participating in a discussion with Hans, Barney

and others, I have come to the following tentative conclusions:

1) The ideas is a very intriguing one, particularly if there is a real possibility that in a

reasonable length of time we would indeed be able to pick out signals transmitted by a

society similar to our own somewhere within 100 million light-years of earth.

2) The calculated statistical probability of being able to so gives me great concern. As I

understand it, we need to assume that the life expectancy of a high technological society,

such as our own, must be of the order of several thousand years to get somewhere near

unity probability of detecting a similar society with the proposed system.

3) The assumption of several thousand years may appear to some to a reasonable one, but

it would certainly be unprecedented compared with seemingly more stable societies (e.g.,

Byzantine Rome and Egypt ), and would certainly be considered unduly optimistic by

most scientists. 

4) Even if this assumption is made, we must still assume that the other society is willing to

transmit with a multi-directional antenna the required megawatts for the full several

thousand years of its existence and in the particular band that we happen to have chosen

as being optimum.

[2]

5) There is even some question in my own mind as to whether indeed we have picked the

optimum frequency, although this amendable to further study.

Putting all of the above together, I have serious doubts regarding whether Cyclops makes

sense at NASA’s present budget levels. However, if Ames feels strongly that a further study

of this should be made, I would offer no objection. If you, George Low or Hans would like

to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 373
[stamped “Original signed by James C. Fletcher”]

James C. Fletcher

cc: AD/Dr. Low

Document III-19

Document Title: Report, “The Life Sciences Program of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration,” 1 February 1974.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher became concerned in 1973 with conflicts within the life

sciences program and asked William Barry of Ames Research Center to conduct yet another review of

the program. In February 1974, Barry presented to Fletcher his report outlining the same fundamental

flaws that were raised by all previous reviews—responsibility without authority and the fragmentation

of programs. He also identified the problem of “bureaucratic inertia” from those who were seeking to

maintain 1960s relationships while the program was trying to change to the new priorities of the

1970s.

[no page number]

THE LIFE SCIENCES PROGRAM

OF THE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Headquarters, NASA

Washington, DC

1 February 1974

[1]

I. Historical Perspective

The problems inherent in conducting an agency-wide Life Sciences Program have long

been recognized. Since the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration in 1958, at least 13 major studies have been undertaken to give top NASA

374 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
management guidance and direction in the conduct of its Life Science Program

(Attachment A ).[not included] After reading these reports in their entirety, some

recurring recommendations become readily apparent. The first of these is the repeated

counsel to consolidate the management of all elements of the life sciences in a single

office located at NASA Headquarters. The administrative level of this office, and its

location within the agency's organizational structure have been widely debated. The most

common suggestions have been to establish the position of Director at either the Associate

Administrator or Assistant Administrator level, and the proposed location within the

organization has varied with the chronological age of the agency, the perspectives of the

respective advisory committees, and apparently with the perceived actions and reactions

NASA had taken to previous studies.

An early abortive, attempt at consolidation was the Office of Life Science Programs

established on March 1, 1960. It was headed by Dr. Clark T. Randt and reported to the

Administrator of NASA "in the same manner and at the same directional level as the other

program directors." A significant distinction in this program office however, was the

mechanism of funding. Although detailed evaluation is difficult, it appears that at the time

of abolishment on November 1, 1961, this office still had only minimal budgetary

responsibility. It existed largely as an advisor organ available as counsel to the "real"

program managers, and affecting coordination only when input was provided from the

line organizations.

The parochial requirements of the major program elements of that time (OMSF, OART,

and OSSA) continued to support independent efforts. For several years after 1962, there

was an agressive [sic] build-up of NASA funds in the SR&T programs of both OART and

OSSA. Much impetus was apparently provided by the Bioastronautics Panel Report of the

President's Science Advisory Committee, in February of 1962. During this period Drs.

Lovelace and Pace served as consultants to the NASA Administrator, in repeated [2]

attempts to consolidate the agency-wide life science effort.

As the agency effort in manned space flight gained momentum with the termination of

Project Mercury and the beginning of Project Gemini, the role of man-in-space took the

attention of most of the NASA Life Sciences establishment regardless of where in the

organizational chart they were located. Flight programs which were evisioned [sic] to have

life science objectives included Gemini, Biosatellite, Mariner, Voyager, Apollo and more

advanced concepts such as the Manned Orbital Research Laboratory, the Manned Lunar

Base, and the Manned Mars Missions.

An anomaly in the organization had developed by 1963, the Headquarters Occupational

Medicine function. This had been separated and was located in the Office of

Administration. Despite a knowledge of the personalities involved in the establishment of

this office, and the temporal expediency once served by its separation, it has persisted.

Previous reports are practically unanimous in their recommendation that it be aligned

with the rest of NASA's life science organization.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 375
As the Apollo Program progressed to a successful conclusion, and as the Skylab Program

with its significant life science experiment role approached, NASA once again sought the

assistance of the external scientific community regarding appropriate directions for its life

sciences effort. The Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National

Research Council convened an ad hoc panel in response to a formal request by NASA. Its

mandate was to review all previous NASA Life Sciences Programs, and to make

recommendations aimed at shaping agency goals and priorities for the 1970's. Despite the

fact that none of the numerous appraisals of these activities since 1963 had really

addressed itself to the entire range of NASA's life sciences work, considerable reluctance

to participate was evident on the part of some previous NAS consultants. The reasons cited

centered on the widespread perception that NASA had shown no obligation or inclination

to implement recommendations of previous studies. The findings and recommendations

of this ad hoc panel chaired by Dr. H. Bentley Glass, were published in a final report

entitled Life Sciences in Space, in December of 1970.

[3]

Shortly after completion of that study, agency top management established the position of

NASA Director for Life Sciences. Management Instruction 1138.14, dated May 28, 1971,

described the roles and responsibilities of this position. Specifically, to develop an

integrated life sciences research program for all of NASA, by working closely with the

program offices involved. A requirement to present a proposed plan and budget to the

Administrator each year was also established. The responsibilities for this position

included a line function in the Office of Manned Space Flight to plan, budget, justify, and

manage a space life research, technology, and experiment definition program. This

program mandate included biomedical, behavioral and biological sciences; life support

systems and crew equipment; atmosphere, food, water and waste management subsystems;

man-machine integration, human augmentation devices; advanced bioinstrumentation

and habitability. In addition, an overview function with responsibilities for "guidance,

review, and recommendations" was outlined for the following agency activities:

a. Office of Space Science and Applications (1971) (exobiology, planetary

quarantine, and ecology).

b. Office of Advanced Research and Technology (1971) (aeronautical life sciences,

human performance augmentation, stress measurement, bioengineering, noise

research and simulation technology).

c. Office of Administration (occupational medicine and environmental health).

It is significant to note however, that this latter category of overview responsibility

included no budgetary mechanism by which the Director could effect the degree of

integration and prioritization apparently envisioned. The Director was further cautioned

in paragraph 4a. of the NMI, that in exercising his responsibilities related to the life

sciences activities in OART, OSSA, and the Office of Administration he should “be

mindful of the line responsibilities of these offices over the people working in life sciences

activities assigned thereto.” Final direction stated that in the performance of his duties,

376 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
the NASA Director for Life Sciences would function as the equivalent of a program office

deputy associate administrator. The position of Director since the time of its establishment

[4] (May 1971) has been held by two physicians. The first was USAF Major General James

Humphreys; the current Director is Dr. Charles Berry.

II. The Current NASA Life Sciences Program

The recent budgetary restraints on NASA have been reflected in its life sciences program.

The level of effort showed a decline from FY ‘73’s $66 million total to a level of

approximately $57.3 million in FY ‘74. (The R&T base declined in the same period from

$39.2 million to $35.5 million.) This represents roughly 2% of the annual NASA budget.

Of the SR&T resource total, less than one quarter is spread between Lewis Research

Center, Langley Research Center, Kennedy Space Center, Dryden Flight Research Center,

Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center

and Wallops Station. Essentially all of the agency life science direction comes from

Headquarters, Johnson Space Center, and Ames Research Center.

Life sciences manpower is fairly evenly divided between civil service (441) and support

contractor (392) personnel. This represents slightly less than 2% of NASA's current

manning. These manpower proportions are similarly reflected at ARC and JSC, with well

over half of the total NASA effort being located at these two centers.

The current Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health program is conducted

on an individual basis at each Center. It is managed by a small Headquarters staff, with

line responsibilities in the Office of Administration. The need for standardization is

reflected by the widely varying patient costs and benefits among the Centers. Each

office's integration into the overall activity of its respective Center in areas such as

environmental health and safety, job site surveys, hazardous area monitoring, protective

equipment for known occupational exposures and worker outpatient health programs

varies widely. The demands of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 (OSHA)

alone, should prompt some closer, coordination in the preparation of each Centers'

required Environmental Impact Statements. These are currently being [5] written by

staff engineers without appropriate medical review. Although attempts at closer

coordination between individual center efforts have been undertaken by the use of such

techniques as annual occupational medicine meetings, the wide variety of each office’s

structure and function (civil service vs. support contractor, etc.) markedly resists

standardization. In some cases, the medical personnel are closely related to the center

mission with its respective hazards, requirements and problems; while in others they

merely function as private practitioners, essentially unaware of the clinical importance of

the hazards inherent in the highly complex NASA industrial work environment.

Standardization of this $3 million per year effort should be a significant element of any

proposed reorganization process.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 377
A. The Headquarters Life Science Organization

At the time of its establishment in 1971 after the NAS-NRC study, the office of the NASA

Director for Life Sciences appeared to have been structured around individual strengths

of the personnel transferring in from other program offices involved in the consolidation

(Attachment B [not included]). Because of the attendant parochial loyalties

(programmatic as well as personal) involved in the consolidation process, apparently no

zero-base exercise in organizational structuring was attempted. As a result of the

requirement to accommodate the ingress of key personnel from what had been, in effect,

three independent life science programs, all of the current division heads are very senior.

Most appear to have very little grass roots program experience, and there seems to be a

distinct absence of feeling for problems at the Primary Investigator and Center level.

From the time of consolidation under Dr. Humphreys, through Dr. Berry's tenure, the

lack of dialog between the life science communities at each Center has been striking. The

deficit of cross-fertilization can be cited in numerous examples. ARC personnel have only

recently been invited to participate in Skylab debriefings at JSC, despite an extensive basic

science research effort aimed at assisting the development of solutions for current and

future operational problems. Similarly, JSC has had considerable concern regarding the

non-invasive techniques currently being used to measure cardiac output and other

cardiovascular parameters; because of this they have gone to [6] the NIH with a request

to conduct a study regarding the use of echo equipment. During this same period, ARC

in concert with researchers at Stanford, had become one of the nation's recognized

centers for state-of-the-art expertise in doppler echo techniques. The lack of rapport is

obvious. Much of what is transmitted between centers (leaving Headquarters out of the

loop) occurs at the P.I. level. Although this coordination is hit-and-miss, some excellent

examples of cooperation can be found. The efficiency of utilizing another center's welldeveloped laboratory competence in processing sophisticated clinical samples is

particularly noteworthy; it underlines the need to extend such cooperation.

An aspect of routine operational technique on the part of the entire Headquarters staff,

which is readily obvious to even the most cursory observer, is the attitude of OMSF

program preeminence. The appropriateness of this pervasive approach is beyond the

scope of this review; its effect on the total NASA Life Sciences Program however, demands

that the question of organizational structure be raised. The perception that the MM

Directorate (even though charged with the additional responsibility of being total

program coordinator) is primarily OMSF line organization, is ubiquitous. This attitude is

noted in the Headquarters review of program/project PAD's which have a life sciences

component. These PAD's are required to have the concurrence of the NASA Director for

Life Sciences. Direction from the NASA Comptroller on March 19, 1973, outlined the

seven unique project numbers (UPN's) in which Life Sciences were to be conducted. In

the areas of Space Life Sciences, Planetary Biology, and Planetary Quarantine the effort

had already been defined at the UPN level; and no major restructuring of the PAD

elements was required. However in the case of Aeronautical Life Sciences, Medical

Engineering, Ecological Studies, and Technology utilization, specific action was required

378 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
to break out the life sciences component at the unique project level and to incorporate

those projects in the applicable PAD. In keeping with the objective of a total overview of

all NASA Life Sciences, the Manned Space Flight PAD was extended to cover not only its

own area of responsibility (i.e. Space Life Sciences) but also to summarize and integrate

the total NASA Life Sciences effort. The improvements noted since these implementing

directives were published, are modest at best.

[7]

A system which had been utilized with success by OAST, involving review by task discipline

(RTOP), was adopted by the other Associate Administrators for their life science projects.

A widely held opinion however, is that the OMSF projects (Space Life Sciences) for which

the MM Directorate retains direct line responsibility, receive a predominance of

management attention. A corollary to that observation is that the other major program

offices' life science projects receive only secondary emphasis. The present Life Science

Director's concern in this regard is considerable. But in light of his dual mandate of line

responsibility on one hand (with associated budgetary authority), and his "guidance,

review, and recommendation" function on the other (with a caution to "be mindful of the

line responsibilities OA, OSS and OAST"), the direction of his attention and emphasis are

predictable.

An additional overview function which the Director has been involved in since the NASNRC study, has been with the Office of University Affairs. The Life Scientist grant program

suggested by the study was begun on a limited basis with the selection of three universitybased life scientists in 1972. NAS-NRC recommended 40 such Life Scientists, who would

spend one-half to one-third of their time at NASA Centers. This demonstration program

however, has not been effective. Although continuation for an additional year at current

funding levels is planned, resolution of the program's future remains unclear.

B. Ames Research Center

The roles and missions of each individual NASA Center are understandably modified by

the interest and support of its respective Center Director. Nowhere in NASA is this more

apparent than at ARC. Dr. Hans Mark's knowledge, participation in, and personal support

of the Life Science Program which has developed under his aegis is exceptional

(Attachment C [not included]). ARC has developed strong working relationships with

both nearby colleges and universities, and the external scientific community. These

relationships in the life sciences are practically ideal. ARC, an OAST Center, is currently

engaged in extensive life science research for OSS, OA, OAST, and OMSF. The extensive

degree of of [sic] OMSF research which has developed in the past few years is striking.

This growth was prompted to some degree by an interest [8] of the Headquarters Life

Sciences Office aimed at improving the overall agency competence in operational spacerelated research. A more forceful etiology however, was JSC's preoccupation with current

on-going mission requirements, and a predisposition to engage in only the most

hardware-related applied research. This predisposition by all reports was pervasive, and

extended even to exclude important basic projects which were demanded by the very

flight program to which their support was dedicated. In light of such circumstance, ARC

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 379
acted to fill the void, and develop the basic life science research capability which the

agency required. This was culminated in FY '73, with OMSF research representing some

$8 million, roughly 73% of the total ARC life sciences budget. While some elements of this

research were no doubt appropriate for ARC direction, a significant percentage could

probably have been more effectively located at JSC. As the Skylab Program draws to a

close, alternative roles and missions for the sizeable proportion of the JSC life sciences

staff currently devoted full-time to operational aerospace medicine, will have to be

established. An organization with obvious overlap, in the spectrum extending from purely

basic to totally applied research, is ARC's Biomedical Research Division.

A significant part of the research currently being conducted by the Biomedical Research

Division is closely akin to the applied aspects of space life science. Organizationally, this

has clearly been described as a prime JSC mission function. While much of this type of

preliminary research (endocrinology, metabolism, environmental physiology, etc.) could

be termed basic--it takes an agency program which is closely integrated in fact as well as in

name, to avoid costly overlap. The Headquarters Life Sciences Office must maintain

cognizance over such research, to shift the thrust of activity from ARC to JSC as it becomes

more closely related to the flight program phase. The recent female bedrest studies

utilizing Air Force active and reserve flight nurses provides an excellent example of this

jurisdictional problem. Much of the animosity which resulted between the Centers could

easily have been avoided by Headquarters Life Science Office leadership and

coordination. Resolution of this problem continues to be a matter of primary concern, as

planning for extensive follow--on protocols is proceeding apace. In an attempt at

objectivity however, it should be added that similar problems will no doubt [9] recur as

long as JSC remains indifferent to all but unequivocal operational support, and ARC

continues to agressively [sic] fill the vacuum.

A recently approved addition to the ARC Life Sciences directorate has been a flight

experiments office (Attachment D [not included]). This office should allow a close

overview by the Director and Deputy Director of Life Sciences of the entire pipeline of

Experiment development: from inception, through proof-phasing, to the delivery of a

piece of flight ready hardware. If the Headquarters Life Sciences Office develops the

degree of coordination outlined above, it would have the ability to shift the control of

these developing experiments to the applicable project/program office as required.

Whether this final integration process occurred at JSC, or at MSFC (with its developing

responsibilities in this area for the Shuttle), the NASA Director of Life Sciences could

support it appropriately.

A significant parameter in ARC's studied development of a capable in-house organization

has been their interaction with the academic community. The utilization of grants, with

only occasional use of contracts, has worked well. The augmentation of in-house

personnel by research associates, post-doctoral researchers, grant-supported students, and

other technical personnel has been highly effective. The development of the ARC inhouse staff of civil service professionals has been exceptional. This staff is now over twice

the size of JSC's (175 to 70); with manpower tables similarly reflecting JSC's disparate

380 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
dependence on support contractor personnel (100 to ARC's 60). Leadership in all three

divisions (Planetary Biology, Biomedical Research, and Biotechnology) is good. The

Division Directors besides being professionally capable, have had sufficient management

experience and tenure to develop considerable talent at the Branch level. Two of the

divisions manage their own extramural grants, while the other does not. The Exobiology

Division does not because its responsible Headquarters Program Office (OSS) has

retained central control. This variance in policy is repeated in the disparity noted between

major program office reporting requirements. These differences in administrative

procedures are most apparent at the Center Life Sciences Office, where time and effort

are lost accommodating non-standardized systems.

[10]

Some aspects of current ARC research deserve comment. The first is in the obvious lack

of any biomedical research programs in the aeronautical life sciences area. Concentration

on the hardware aspects of the man-machine interface is virtually complete. While this has

led to some promising work in such areas as new cockpit displays, simulation, crewtasking, avionics integration, flight-path prediction, and ADI/map/HSI presentations, the

lack of biomedical programs is striking. ARC personnel attribute this lack to policy

developed at Headquarters OAST, by a single life science manager (Gene Lyman), who is

not responsible to Dr. Berry's office. When one considers the outstanding simulation

techniques being developed at Ames, and the wide variety of testbed aircraft available on

station, failure to capitalize on the obvious opportunities is particularly regrettable. The

correlation of "flight truth" for highly advanced aircraft simulation systems to the "ground

truth" of ERTS data is virtually one-to-one. Life Science personnel at ARC describe the

flight testing phase as the ultimate dream; scientists involved with analogous research at

other locations take it for granted as a necessity in each phase of development. A cursory

sampling of ARC flight test personnel seems to indicate that sufficient flexibility exists in

the operational flight schedule to accommodate a considerable number of these missions,

especially if the piggybacking of experiments on already-scheduled missions is acceptable.

When ARC test pilots participated in previous life science research (biological sampling

on 4 hour U-2 flights while in partial pressure suits, etc.), pilot acceptability was excellent,

and rapport regarding research participation was instant. Another personnel resource for

aeronautical life science projects is the pool of experienced USN aircrews at NAS Moffett.

Cooperative participation on such research projects could serve as a positive example for

other USN-ARC joint programs.

Another locus of expertise which has developed at ARC is the group working in the area of

vestibular physiology. In light of the current Russian work in preconditioning, and their

extensive human and animal research program, their early reports of widespread motion

sickness seem plausible. Considering our Skylab experience, crew selection criteria must be

improved; and the portent for shuttle's short seven day mission profiles seems obvious. As

with other problems, JSC has been prone to [11] look outside of NASA for assistance in this

perplexing dilemma. Unfortunately the consultants most often selected (Naval Aeromedical

Institute, et al) have a uniformity of experience in angular disturbance (slow rotation rooms,

etc.); while ARC's Neurosciences Branch has been aggressive in looking into more widely

variable stresses. Once again the problem of NASA-wide coordination seems at issue. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 381
Other continuing problems which ARC might profitably pursue are: the venous compliance

changes seen on SL-4, to include the development of appropriate countermeasure

techniques; hematologic studies to address the open question of bone marrow regulation in

weightlessness (erythropoietin studies, etc.); and the search for sensor etiologies for the

significant red cell mass reductions noted during all of the Skylab missions.

C. Johnson Space Center

The life sciences activity at JSC has been focused on operational support requirements for

ongoing flight programs since the beginning of the Center in the early 1960's. The rapid

growth of life support technology required for Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo

appropriately dictated the development and capabilities of the JSC life sciences staff.

Because of the systems approach to spacecraft hardware development, and the lack of

scientific and technical expertise on the part of what was then, in effect, the "Flight

Surgeon's Office;" decentralization of effort was complete. With some insight regarding

that legacy, and the attendant expertise which then developed in a wide variety of Center

organizations that had both systems responsibility and developmental funding, JSC's

current organizational dilemma is understandable.

There are currently a minimum of twelve major JSC divisions or offices which have some

ongoing life sciences effort, outside the control of the Director of Life Sciences

(Attachment E [not included]). Examples include the widespread activities noted in

Bioenvironmental Technology and Bioengineering. Divisions working in these areas

include three of those in the Life Sciences Directorate (Bioengineering, Biomedical

Research, and Health Services), as well as three in the Directorate of Engineering and

Development (Crew Systems, Spacecraft Design, and Information Systems)--each under a

separate Assistant Director, and another [12] in the Directorate of Flight Crew Operations

(Crew Training and Simulation). This excessive degree of decentralization has long been

recognized. An attempt to improve the abysmal level of coordination between all of the

diverse elements at JSC operating in life science areas was outlined in a memorandum

dated March 29, 1973, establishing a JSC Life Sciences Steering Committee (Attachment

F [not included]). The functions of this committee were ostensibly to improve the

management and review of all life science activities at the Center. It was planned to meet

twice a year to carry out an in-depth program review and make recommendations on the

content of the RTOP program. An additional inclusion in the memo was the note that JSC

should attempt to organize a management team which more closely aligned with the

Headquarters Office of Life Sciences. Accordingly, it appointed JSC technical managers

for the three major areas of Bioresearch, Bioenvironmental Technology, and

Bioengineering. Although some improvement may have been derived from such

structuring, widespread dissipation of effort and uncoordinated, redundant activities are

at once apparent to the objective observer.

The reasons for JSC's difficulties in the area of Life Sciences are manifold and diverse. The

morale effect of fewer and fewer planned manned space flights, on an operational

support organization must be recognized. In the development of alternate Center roles

382 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
and missions for the post-Skylab era of the Space Shuttle, an integral part of the change

envisioned for JSC must include the Directorate of Life Sciences. The progressive

elimination of research talent during the operationally-oriented decade of Apollo, must

be reversed.

The life science staff at JSC is significantly limited in scope. This stems from two major

factors. The first has been outlined above; it is the pervasive operational orientation of the

Johnson Space Center, from the Center Director on down. While the reasons for this have

similarly been alluded to, the success of any conscious effort to reorient JSC's role in the

future demands its change. The overwhelming successes of Project Apollo were based

largely on management decisions which were sensitive to the constraints which existed at

that time (performance, safety, time, etc.). NASA successes in the period of the Space

Shuttle will similarly be based on [13] a sensitivity to changing constraints (demand for

increased productivity, decreasing budgets, etc.). The JSC life sciences organization will

have to improve its research capabilities to remain viable. The second major factor in the

organization's current debility is the obvious lack of leadership (Attachment G [not

included]). Despite any bias induced by discipline, speciality, or parochial loyalty, the

professional qualifications of the Director of Life Sciences must be addressed. The

minimum qualifications for this position should be: (1) a professional Doctoral degree in

medicine or an allied research discipline, and (2) some demonstrated scientific/technical

management ability. Without such leadership, discussion of further organizational

improvements becomes moot. Since appointment of the current Director, the already

diminished morale of the few remaining professionals has ebbed even lower. It is anarticle

of faith that in scientific, professional or organizations of competence, the tone must be

set at the top. This lack of both technical and leadership ability is similarly reflected in

every division; it is perhaps most acutely noted in the Biomedical Research Division, also

headed by an unqualified non-professional. Though this situation is apparently universally

deplored throughout the agency, even JSC operational leadership seems unable to

present a cogent scenario regarding how it was allowed to develop.

Any discussion of developing closer research ties with the external academic and scientific

communities would serve no useful purpose, as the minimum requirements for

preceptorship and residency training affiliations would preclude any participation on the

part of the excellent institutions in the Houston area. Conversely, however, should

reorganization proceed in a manner which placed qualified life scientists in the positions

of Director and Division Chiefs--the development of ARC-style academic affiliations

should be aggressively pursued.

Because of the requirement to integrate the operational and research efforts of such a

wide variety of scientific disciplines, it would be ideal to find a Director with degrees in

both engineering and medicine. At the very least however, the Director of Life Sciences

should have the M.D. or Ph.D. degree.

It is against the background outlined above, that a review of the expenditure of funds in

the life sciences should be approached. In the NASA total of $57.3 million expended last

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 383
[14] year, $35.5 was spent on R&T, and $21.8 was spent on projects. The significant majority

of both categories was administered by JSC. A striking aspect of the funding mechanism at

JSC is the ability to pay for, what is loosely called "supporting research," from either of these

two major funding categories (project or R&T). A brief survey appeared to reveal that

itemizations for virtually similar expenditures could be from either category. Another

subject which this review found perplexing was the wide variance. in perceptions

throughout JSC of what constituted life sciences. The Office of Safety, Reliability and

Quality Assurance; the Earth Resources Program Office; the Urban Systems Project Office;

the Future Programs Division; and the Telemetry and Communications Systems Division

are all devoting effort to what could be described as Life Sciences Applications. Roughly

10% of JSC's life sciences personnel are said to be involved in these Ecology Projects. Some

better measures of control in these areas of ecology, technology utilization and applications

would seem to be in order. This is of particular importance when one considers the variety

of disciplines that have congregated at JSC, which have only the most peripheral of mission

support or related research functions.

One division alone has some ten veterinarians, making it one of the largest complements

of these specialists in the Federal Government outside of the USDA. Such abuses of

staffing are not only questionable by any standard; they also serve to defeat the medical

research environment being sought. In addition they are a forceful lobby for the

expensive extension of more esoteric research, which if funded could compromise the

fundamental human research which NASA requires. A cursory review of the vast number

of research proposals engendered by these veterinarians, would be cause for serious

concern on the part of any functional program manager. Another aspect of JSC staffing

which deserves review is the policy of continued utilization of life sciences personnel from

other branches of government, for prolonged periods. Although the continuous infusion

of new ideas is highly desirable, the policy is defeated when DOD or USPHS detailees are

allowed to extend and re-extend. Some of these "temporary" personnel have been at JSC

since it was opened; this ossification process must be reversed. 

[15]

The persistent lack of center-to-center communication among life sciences personnel was

again noted at JSC. The individual professional, primary investigator or scientist knew

little of the life sciences activity at other NASA centers. Because of their proximity to the

Houston medical complex, JSC personnel were conversant with the surgical materials

which had been developed as spin-offs from previous space research. Yet they were totally

unaware of the materials research being done at Lewis Research Center (total hip

replacement prosthetic devices, cardiac valve seats and races, etc.), and similar research

being done elsewhere in NASA.

The intellectual climate which has existed for years in the JSC Life Sciences Directorate,

which has suppressed the publishing of professional articles, required the researcher to

include the Director of Life Sciences as senior author on key publications, and withheld

data for which no clear explanation was available, has been stifling. The current Director

has little insight into either the subtle interfaces each scientist must maintain with his

parent specialty, or the need to get preliminary data into the open literature quickly--a

384 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
fact which was stressed by the NAS-NRC study of 1970. An additional suggestion of the

Bentley Glass Committee was to convene an annual meeting of all key NASA Life

Sciences personnel, to exchange information and ideas. Investigations reveal that this

has never been done; but that key personnel would welcome such an opportunity to

improve communications.

The three medical scientist-astronauts merit some discussion in this review, because of

their recent incorporation into the JSC life sciences organization. Because of their

individual concerns regarding participation on shuttle missions as the payload specialist

only (not as pilot, or even as the mission specialist), and the fact that they represent a

minority when compared to the physical scientist-astronauts, their acceptance of the

recent reorganization has been guarded. This has led to an interesting phenomenon

regarding their physical location at JSC; culminating in a strong stance to keep their

offices immediately adjacent to the Astronaut office in the Directorate of Flight

Operations. Given the state of leadership and the Center image of the Life Sciences

Organization, their reluctance is understandable. The assimilation of their respective

talents into the organization however, should be viewed as highly desirable. Their lack of

clinical expertise [16] and their absence from the field of medicine for a protracted

period of time notwithstanding, they represent a natural strength in the areas of flight

crew rapport and operational mission support. Their failure to complete residency

training or to become Board Certified in a medical specialty should in no way detract from

their utilization in either applied research or flight hardware development. Their full

incorporation into the Center life sciences organization should be aggressively pursued.

III. Options for the Space Shuttle Era

The NASA Life Sciences Program for the period post-Apollo and Skylab, must be

approached as a single entity. The integration of efforts at the various NASA centers must

be closely coordinated to avoid costly reduplication and overlap. Any efforts to restructure

the headquarters organization must take into consideration aspects of the main

operational units of the present Life Sciences' triad: Ames Research Center and Johnson

Space Center. Replacement of the current Director at JSC can only succeed if

Headquarters support is provided by an effective, capable new NASA Director of Life

Sciences. Conversely the most competent new NASA Director cannot expect success

without a strong operational arm at JSC, adequately supported by the JSC Center Director.

These two positions are unquestionably the key slots upon which the future success of the

NASA Life Sciences Program depends.

The Headquarters Life Sciences Office (Attachment B) [not included] could be

consolidated. The Director of Bioenvironmental Systems recently retired, without

subsequent replacement. This function could easily be absorbed by the Directorate of

Bioengineering, at some considerable savings. In addition, the functions of the

Bioresearch Division could be included in a Directorate of Aerospace Medicine and

Biology. Assuming that the Occupational Medicine function were [sic] absorbed into the

Headquarters Office, a relatively streamlined three division organization could result:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 385
• Bioenvironmental Engineering

• Aerospace Medicine and Biology

• Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

[17]

The NASA Director, with a Deputy and a small administrative staff to manage program

planning and control, could interface most effectively with the center organizations via

this organization.

The location of the Headquarters Office remains an enigma. Unless a major NASA

reorganization were contemplated, to somehow modify the line missions of the Associate

Administrators as they presently exist, there does not appear to be a logical slot for the

Life Sciences at that level. Placing it under the control of any of the five major program

offices (OMSF, OSS, OA, OTDA, or OAST), is equally bad; because what is required above

all else is independence. An option which has not been discussed is establishing this

office, like that of the Comptroller or General Counsel, as a separate operating office. It

could report directly to top management and yet not compromise the efficiency of spanof-control considerations, by interfacing with the Deputy Administrator in the same

manner as an Assistant Administrator. This would have a number of salutory [sic] effects.

The first would be to affirm its independence, while operating to integrate the total NASA

Life Sciences Program. The second could be the complete standardization of the life

sciences budget, utilizing the PAD's, UPN's, and RTOP's. Examples of such dual line and

staff responsibility are found throughout the federal government. Individual military

hospital, research laboratory, and medical center commanders in the field have primary

line responsibility to the unit commander they support; yet they receive professional

program guidance, coordination, and funding through the office of an independent

Surgeon General. Such a system acts to preserve and protect the medical and research

functions which might otherwise be sacrificed for line mission objectives (e.g. airplanes

and weapons instead of X-ray machines and pharamaceuticals [sic]). Even in the

academic environment, basic research must be protected. To assume that NASA major

program or Center Directors would not sacrifice life sciences efforts first during periods

of restricted funding, would be contrary to past experience. The autonomy envisioned

would allow the Director of Life Sciences to develop long-term prospective planning to a

much greater degree, including those C of F items necessary to support major NASA

projects and programs. This in turn could avoid experiences such as the one at Langley,

where the Center [18] Director's decision to disband his life sciences effort resulted in the

inefficient conversion, of a costly new life science facility to other purposes. Not only are

such abuses difficult to explain to Congress, they also result in the loss of an invaluable

facility to the NASA Life Sciences organization as a whole. An attendant benefit in such

consolidation should also be the elimination of the current "Life Sciences Principals" in

OAST, OSS, and OA; or their incorporation into the Headquarters Life Sciences Offices.

The number and responsibility of these characters is not insignificant.

386 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
The qualifications for the position of NASA Director of Life Sciences have been widely

discussed. There is much to be said for the recommendation of bringing a capable

scientist from outside of NASA. His stature in the national scientific community could

significantly add to the success of NASA's relationships with the USSR, as well as with

international colleagues in the European Space Research Organization (ESRO). These

associations will assume even greater importance with the approach of the Apollo-Soyuz

Test Project (ASTP), and the use of the Spacelab on the Space Shuttle transportation

system. A desirable but not necessarily required characteristic would be some experience

on previous NASA programs.

The reappraisal and reorientation of the main objectives of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, after the successful Apollo moon landings, were indicated by

President Nixon in his statement of March 7, 1970. These were three in number: scientific

knowledge, exploration, and applications. In a similar fashion, the new Director of Life

Sciences should be charged with addressing major issues of important future significance:

1. Technology development to support the search for and identification of

extraterrestrial life.

2. Defining the physiological parameters for space shuttle scientist-passengers, and

developing appropriate selection techniques.

3. Definition, preparation, and coordination of Life Sciences payloads for the Space

Shuttle, including Spacelab.

[19]

4. Reduction of the inflight data obtained on Projects Apollo and Skylab, and its

prompt publication in the international scientific literature.

5. Conducting research aimed at better understanding the physiological problems

associated with weightlessness (vertigo, motion sickness, bone marrow regulation,

reduction of red blood cell mass, fluid and electrolyte imbalances, etc.); and

developing effective countermeasures for long duration space missions.

6. Developing operational procedures and research protocols in concert with Soviet

Physicians, for the US-USSR Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

The success of such a program is heavily dependent upon the authority of the new

Director to assemble the appropriate Headquarters staff, and to have some measure of

participation in selecting key life sciences personnel in the field. The recent emphasis on

personnel mobility should assist such efforts; and the wealth of talent at ARC should be

drawn upon heavily in any scheme to revitalize JSC. Above all else however, the new

Director should be given independent budgetary authority. Without it no significant

measure of program integration can be expected, as has been demonstrated by previous

abortive attempts at consolidation. The dual issues of independent fiscal and personnel

authority, and separation from any singular program office (OMSF, etc. ), are the two

parameters which will most directly determine the caliber of the man ultimately selected.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 387
Finally the present consultation mechanism deserves comment. The NASA Life Sciences

Committee is perhaps the least effective organ of the Space Program Advisory Council

(SPAC); the reasons for this are manifold. The external life sciences community is

probably the most heterogeneous assembly of diverse scientific disciplines that can be

described as comprising a single category. Therefore by definition, all specialities [sic]

cannot be proportionately represented. The makeup of the committee should be shaped

in large measure by the NASA Director of Life Sciences. The broadest representation of

all disciplines is highly desirable, but the needs of the Director for counsel in specific areas

should also be a strong consideration. Given the close working relationship between the

Director of Life Sciences and the Chairman of the LSAC, top NASA management [20]

might wish to consider delaying appointment of a successor to Dr. Shields Warren, until

the inputs of the new Director are obtained. Should that not be feasible an alternative

solution might be to hold the currently-vacant seats on the committee in abeyance, until

the new Director's preferences are known. The predominant representation on the

committee should continue to be those medical specialties most directly related with

manned space flight (aerospace medicine, physiology, cardiology, hematology, etc.), but

increased effort should be undertaken to include young scientists in the prime of their

research career. All members should have a clear understanding that a lack of interest, as

evidences by repeated absences at committee meetings, cannot be condoned and will

result in replacement. This committee should have representation by some members with

significant operational experience, as well as some with research management success.

Both of these parameters will be important in overseeing a successful NASA program in

the 1970's and 1980's.

There also presently exists no formal mechanism to include life sciences participation on

the Donlan ad hoc shuttle payloads applications team. Although a significant proportion

of the shuttle payloads will involve life sciences, including a proportion of roughly 50% of

those missions in excess of 30 days, no effort has been made to include life science input

on a continuing basis. This oversight is indicative of the lack of visibility of the current

Headquarters Office, and reflects the repeated frustration of career NASA life scientists to

provide effective counsel in their professional area.

IV. Summary of Recommendations

1. Reorganize the Headquarters Life Sciences Office into three Directorates (replacing

the current four and absorbing the Office of Administration's Occupational Medicine

function):

• Aerospace Medicine and Biology

• Bioenvironmental Engineering

• Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

388 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
[21]

2. Establish the office of the NASA Director of Life Sciences as an independent office,

reporting directly to top management.

• Establish its location separate from OMSF, pre-ferably in FOB 6.

• Provide an independent budgetary mechanism to allow it to develop a NASA-wide

integrated Life Sciences Program, including support for the development of a

prospective three to five year research plan.

• Rewrite NMI 1138.14 to clearly reflect these new mandates.

3. Appoint a capable medical or biological scientist of national stature as the NASA

Director of Life Sciences.

• Provide the personnel mechanisms to allow him to establish a capable staff at the

Headquarters level (the appointment of three strong Directors for the

organizational structure of 1 above, as a minimum).

• Clearly identify the significant issues to be addressed by the agency, and provide his

mandate in the most specific terms possible (see section III).

• Allow him to actively participate in restructuring the JSC life sciences organization,

to include the appointment of all key personnel (including the intra-agency transfer

of ARC personnel, if required).

• Solicit his inputs prior to filling the position of Chairman, and the vacant member

seats of the a Life Sciences Advisory Committee.

• Establish the requirement for an annual meeting of all key NASA life sciences

personnel; with a record of the formal proceedings to be forwarded to the

Administrator.

[22]

4. Consider the appointment of Dr. David L. Winter as the Director of Life Sciences at

Johnson Space Center. His knowledge of the research capabilities at ARC, his extensive

personal experience with the problems of JSC, and his knowledge of NASA life sciences

personnel, should provide a unique ability to blend the strengths of both Centers. His

experience in the basic research environment should contribute heavily to the effective

restructuring of JSC, to reflect the new roles and missions required for the shuttle era. An

exposure to the operational aspects of major flight programs would also serve to broaden

his personal experience, and qualify him for future leadership positions.

• Obtain a clear mandate from the Center Director at JSC, regarding such matters as:

the appointment of key life sciences professionals, the elimination of unqualified

incumbent non-professionals in leadership positions, an equitable agreement on

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 389
center housekeeping matters for the Directorate, and support for expanded

affiliations with the scientific and academic communities.

• Centralize the coordination of all life sciences activities, at JSC in the Directorate of

Life Sciences. Such action would eliminate the need for a cumbersome ad hoc

steering committee with the same purpose, and would allow coordination on a

continuing basis.

• Tighten the fiscal reporting procedures between JSC and Headquarters, to require

the funding of supporting research from either SR&T or Project sources, with clear

accountability for each.

• Allow the prompt termination of all exchange personnel from other governmental

organizations, who have served over three years with NASA (Department of

Defense, U.S. Public Health Service, etc.).

• Selectively eliminate all ancillary personnel not directly contributing to primary

mission functions (e.g. veterinarians, dentists, foreign exchange officers, etc.). 

[23]

• Actively incorporate the three medical scientist astronauts into the formal JSC Life

Sciences organization by eliminating the isolated separate office stigma; and

integrate them into the medical staff in consonance with their individual talents.

5. Consider expanding the activities of the Ames Research Center to include the following:

• Increased biomedical research in the areas of aeronautical life sciences.

• Increased use of flight testing for applicable phases of life sciences research.

• Development of joint ARC-USN research programs, to take advantage of P-3

testbeds and a large pool of experienced aircrew personnel.

6. Consider modifying the membership of the Space Program Advisory Council's Life

Sciences Advisory Committee to include:

• Rotating appointments with limited tenure and renewal provisos, to insure the

continued infusion of new ideas and perspectives; with mechanisms for revocation

of appointment if participation is ineffective.

• Representation by young scientists and physicians in the prime of their research and

clinical careers.

• Attempts to include participation by a few life scientists with aeronautical or space

flight program experience, to insure the balanced representation of the operational

point of view.

390 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
7. Establish a formal mechanism to insure life sciences participation on the Donlan ad hoc

shuttle payloads applications team. [24]

• Insure that this representation is delegated from the office of the NASA Director for

Life Sciences.

• Insure participation on team visits to the Centers, to allow cogent, realistic answers

to the significant number of life sciences issues in question throughout the agency.

Document III-20

Document Title: Memorandum from Dr. David L. Winter, Director for Life Sciences, to

James C. Fletcher, Administrator, “Report on the Status of the Life Sciences of NASA,”

16 February 1977. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

Document III-21

Document Title: Memorandum from John E. Naugle, Associate Administrator, to the

Deputy Administrator, 24 March 1977. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

David Winter was named as the NASA Headquarters Life Sciences Division Director in September

1974. His memorandum to NASA Administrator James Fletcher summarizes his reflections, and

frustrations, in executing the responsibilities of his position. NASA’s number-three official, Associate

Administrator John Naugle, provided a differing perspective on the situation. Within a year after

having written the memorandum, Winter had left NASA.

Document III-20

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 

20546

16 February 1977

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 391
MEMORANDUM

TO: A/Administrator 

FROM: SB/NASA Director for Life Sciences

SUBJECT: Report on the Status of the Life Sciences of NASA

REF: NMI 1138.14, Roles and Responsibilities, NASA

Director for Life Sciences

In my role as NASA Director for Life Sciences (NDLS), I have the responsibility to report

periodically on the status of Life Sciences within the Agency. I also have the responsibility

to represent the NASA focal point for external interactions on Life Sciences issues

(Attachment 1 [not included]).

In the past year and a half, we have seen many changes take place in the Agency, our

scientific constituency, and the field of Life Sciences. It is my feeling that Life Sciences

now constitutes a viable and highly relevant activity of the Agency. This has been

evidenced by the public reaction to the biology experiments on Viking, the very large

response to our Announcements of Flight Opportunities, the joint biological missions

with the U.S.S.R., and cooperative efforts with the National Institutes of Health and other

parts of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Concomitant with this highly desirable public interest and acceptance of the Agency’s

activities in Life Sciences has come increasing contact with the external community.

However, the multiplicity of contact points within the Agency is making it increasingly

difficult to assure that a coherent policy posture is maintained. Accordingly, there have

developed a number of potentially serious problems.

In response to various demands, the Agency has established offices within Headquarters

to function in broad generic areas encompassing many disciplines; e.g., Applications, [2]

Energy, Technology Utilization (TU), and the Low Cost Systems Office (LCSO). The

structure of most of the offices has required matrix-type technical/scientific support from

discipline offices. In this typical matrix-management concept, top management always has

the option of staffing the generic offices by colocating specialists or by maintaining the

specialists in their peer groups and providing support to the generic offices on an “as

required” basis.

In the first case, the specialists tend to drift away from peer contact with concomitant

reduction in proficiency and increased affiliation with the generic office’s problems and

parochialisms. In the second case, without colocation, the generic office tends to build a

psuedo [sic] capability within their own staff, thereby ignoring proper specialist and

technical support.

392 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
It appears to me these basic organization ambiguities may be contributing to the Life

Sciences’ problems. Functional authority has been delegated to these several

organizations within the Agency, and all of these functional entities have a requirement to

interface with the outside world in a broad capacity. Fine print in their Roles and

Responsibilities statements require “recognition of responsibility and authority of other

officials... and proper coordination with other groups....” In the day-to-day conduct and

handling of large, diverse activities, it is understandably easy to lose sight of a need to

coordinate with other parts of a complex interface matrix such as exists in NASA. Case two

seems to apply in regards to Life Sciences.

Clearly those Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T) programs and projects

currently funded in the Office of Space Science (OSS) are accepted Life Sciences activities.

They include Planetary Biology, Planetary Quarantine, Space Medicine Research and

Operations, Advanced Teleoperator Technology, Space Biology, Bioinstrumentation, and

Life Sciences Payloads. These items cover a wide range of disciplines, but are all part of the

Life Sciences organization and are reviewed externally by Life Sciences Review Panels and

Advisory Committees. They are closely coordinated within my OSS Division. However,

there are additional Agency efforts, funded and managed by other offices, which clearly fall

within the Life Sciences disciplines. These efforts are not reviewed nor coordinated

effectively with the NASA Director for Life Sciences.

It is these areas that are causing a concern at this time. I do not have sufficient staff at my

disposal to colocate [3] personnel in each of these offices and am dependent upon the

various organizations to recognize when their plans, and particularly their activities,

require a Life Sciences perspective.

A clear example of the problem is in Space Bioprocessing. In spite of repeated attempts

over some three years, Life Sciences’ input into this program has been discouraged. Only

in the last few months has any effort been made to consult with our staff on the biological

aspects of processing. The program planning, the overselling of commercial benefits, and

the partial (I hope) alienation of the scientific community, done without our

participation, has not enhanced the NASA image and has certainly tarnished the NASA

Life Sciences image (Attachment 2, for example )[not included].

The area of animal tracking is also one of concern. Repeated requests from outside

groups such as the Marine Mammal Commission, the Council on Environmental Quality,

and the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior for NASA help in

technology and, of course, funding have been received. Additional requests from

university scientists, either in the form of unsolicited proposals or responses to AO’s, were

and still are being received. NASA’s involvement in this area has all but ceased. At a time

when NASA technology could impact an area of great economic potential, and certainly

from my viewpoint public and scientific impact, NASA has “dropped out” of this area.

Admitting that NASA cannot do everything for all people, I am concerned that the

decisions made, concerning an essentially biologically related program, were made

without any Life Sciences input.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 393
A closely related area, again involving remote sensing techniques, is one Life Sciences calls

Public Health Ecology. This involves indirect assessments of geographic locales to

empirically relate habitat conditions to disease carrying vectors of public health concern.

Some initial enthusiasm in this program has been rapidly cooled by mixed outside reviews

of one NASA-supported task. Without debating the details of this task, the basic concern

I have is that, again, programmatic decisions have been made without consulting the Life

Sciences Directorate in Headquarters. As a result, I personally believe that some very great

potential benefits have been missed, not necessarily in the previously funded task, but in

the development of an approach to deal with a large series of generically similar tasks. I

can think of no more important benefit to mankind than to aid in the eradication of

disease vectors. This is not to say that NASA definitely can do this now, but the technology

presently [4] developed may do this. I believe that the potential cost/benefit ratio is

certainly worthy of some effort on NASA’s part--again, a Life Sciences’ judgment which has

not been heard, much less assessed.

A recent experience with the Energy Office illustrates the complexities of external

interfaces with the Life Sciences community. The concept of a Space Power Station is a

very important initiative. At present, there are three potential “show stoppers” to this

concept. Two of them are Life Sciences’ problems: particulate radiation at

geosynchronous orbit as it may effect a crew or work team, and microwave radiation as it

may effect biology and the environment on Earth. This latter problem is highly complex

and frought [sic] with controversy (see the recent New Yorker articles for a lengthy

appraisal of the issues).

A presentation was made to Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council

(ERMAC) about a NASA program to study the biological effects of microwave exposure;

this presentation was less than adequate. The main issue here is that the Life Sciences

Office in NASA knew nothing about this presentation to ERMAC and had no input on the

style, format, or content. The NASA Office of Life Sciences suffers the consequences of

activities outside its operational purview, yet clearly within its NASA Management

Instruction charter. In this specific case, NASA itself suffered. Recent contacts with the

Energy Office offer potential solutions to this problem.

On the other side of the coin, there are some good examples of coordination, and I would

like to discuss these briefly. Good coordination exists between Life Sciences and the Office of

Space Flight (OSF). Our people regularly attend OSF staff meetings and, I, OSF

Management Council Meetings. The Life Sciences role in the Shuttle program is well

understood, and a large segment of our activities is directed towards Shuttle support. The

irony here is that we are able to work effectively with the four Centers concerned with Shuttle

operations even though we are not a formal part of OSF. Obviously this could not happen if

we did not have the support and backing of OSF management and an understanding of our

role in coordinating the individual Center responsibilities in this large program.

The fact that Life Sciences was formally a part of OMSF has no doubt been a major factor

in this coordination. However, I am certain that the mature management philosophy in

394 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
OSF has been equally as important and demonstrates that it is possible for Life Sciences

to work across organizational lines to carry out its Agency responsibilities. [5]

Another example of a good coordination can be found in the TU-Life Sciences interface.

There is continuing close contact between these offices and, in fact, one Life Sciences

person was, until recently, spending part time colocated in the TU office. Although there

are some fundamental differences in philosophy between the Life Sciences and the TU

approaches, these are well understood by both offices and appear not to affect our

interaction. Such differences that do exist dwell primarily about the point at which TU

efforts should begin and the manner in which commercialization should proceed. I

personally believe that TU should be more involved in the developmental work of medical

devices; that is, to step in a little earlier and to support efforts a little longer in order to

facilitate the tortuous task of insuring medical community acceptance of such devices.

Acceptance by the medical community is a complicated procedure which requires tact

and interaction with specific elements; notably, governmental scientific bodies such as the

National Institutes of Health and the other parts of the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare. This approach is necessary as opposed to interaction with commercial

interests. In the biomedical field, physician acceptance drives the product as opposed to

other areas of commercialization where the product paces the user. These comments are

made only to improve what I consider a very good relationship between two offices to

allow NASA to take more advantage of biomedical spin-off.

This office continues to support and interact with the Occupational Medicine Program,

another example of effective coordination. In my opinion, the Occupational Medicine

Program is a model government program which is cost effective and sensitive to the legal

and ethical considerations of the day. As you know, this office was instrumental in

designing the new Occupational Medicine NMI and initiating the forward looking

program that NASA now expresses.

In summary, I have tried to point out a number of failures and successes which the Office

of Life Sciences has been party to, either directly or indirectly. I believe that some

fundamental questions should be asked regarding the future role, if any, Life Sciences

should play within NASA. The NMI which outlines our activities and responsibilities is

rather clear (Attachment 1 )[not included]. Either the NMI should be rewritten to be

consistent with NASA management’s view of the Life Sciences role, or methods should be

found to enable this office to carry out its responsibilities. I offer several options (A

through D) that could be considered.

[signed]

David L. Winter, M.D.

Enclosures

[no page number]

Option A

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 395
“REDUCED LIFE SCIENCES ROLE”

In this option, I propose that the Office of Life Sciences be eliminated. Those SR&T

activities associated with Planetary Biology and Planetary Quarantine could be retained

in OSS in another discipline office. A flight surgeon could be assigned to OSF to

coordinate operational requirements. All other Life Sciences activities could be

eliminated and NASA refrain from presenting itself to the external community as a Life

Sciences-related organization.

This option would provide the “service” functions which have been required over NASA’s

two decades of existence. It presumes no requirement exists for SR&T and Advanced

Studies to prepare for longer duration flights. It also presumes that Life Sciences payloads

can be managed by non-Life Sciences organizations to the satisfaction of the national and

international Life Sciences community.

[no page number]

Option B

“MODIFIED STATUS QUO”

In this option, I propose the responsibilities of the Life Sciences Office be reconsidered

in light of its current hierarchical location. The functions of the NASA Director for Life

Sciences cannot be performed satisfactorily given the limitations on personnel, travel, and

autonomy that go with what is rapidly becoming OSS “Division” status. The offices that I

am required to overview do not appreciate an OSS input into areas they do not consider

to be OSS related. This places my organization in an untenable situation.

If the status quo is maintained, then I recommend my non--“Division” responsibilities be

reduced to a consulting, vis-a-vis overview responsibility.

[no page number]

Option C

“INCREASED VISIBILITY”

In this option, I propose that the prescribed functions of Life Sciences remain, but that

they be made known to NASA management. As indicated above, the position of NASA

Director for Life Sciences (NDLS) has been downgraded in OSS to that of a Division

Director. Communication across organizational lines has been discouraged and both

manpower and financial resources have been reduced. It is unworkable to perform one

role as a “Deputy Associate Administrator” and another as a Division Director. This option

proposes that some arrangement be made, either within the existing or some other

structure, so that the NDLS has visibility and, more importantly, access to NASA top

management so that there is truly a single unfiltered voice representing the Agency on

Life Sciences issues. At the present time, far too many managers consider themselves as

396 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
adequate spokesmen on Life Sciences problems, while admiting [sic] a substantial

parochialism to causes.

[no page number]

Option D

“INCREASED LIFE SCIENCES ROLE”

In this option, the various Life Sciences activities within the Agency are put under single

management. This option has been recommended by at least five outside committees who

have reviewed the Life Sciences operations in NASA over the past ten years. It is time to

reconsider this possibility. This option presumes that NASA considers Life Sciences as an

important part of its developing programs and is willing to give it visibility and resources

to do its job properly. This point is of particular concern in regards to present activities

(Shuttle Biomedical Payloads) and future activities (space station and other concepts). In

my opinion, as long as the country pursues manned flight, Life Sciences is an absolutely

essential element in the NASA program and requires status comparable to OE, OA, TU,

and LCSO to function effectively.

Document III-21

[no page number]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20546

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR March 24,

1977

MEMORANDUM

TO: AD/Deputy Administrator

FROM: AA/Associate Administrator

SUBJECT: NASA Life Sciences

Enclosed is background on Life Sciences in NASA and my comments and recommendations

on the issues raised by Dave Winter. Since the memo comes out longer than the one page

you and Jim want, you may choose to skip the background and go directly to the issues and

recommendations. I wanted you to have this information prior to our next weekly meeting.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 397
[signed]

John E. Naugle

Enclosure

[1]

3/24/77

BACKGROUND ON LIFE SCIENCES IN NASA

There is a long and controversial history to the establishment of the position "NASA

Director for Life Sciences" reporting to the Deputy Administrator.

The life scientists involved in the Space Program have always felt that they should be

represented by a program office reporting directly to the Administrator's office as the

physical scientists have in OSS. There was even such an office for a short time under

Glennan. They feel that their research objectives are usually not understood and often

looked down upon by the physical scientists and that the only way their objectives will be

met is by having their "own" program. There is some justification in their view. There is

also a need to closely examine the caliber of people involved in life sciences and the value

of their experiments. We have generally not had the same caliber of research in their area.

There has also been a continuing controversy between the Office of Space Flight and both

the "flight surgeon" portion of the life sciences community and the bioscientists using

animals for research in space. The external medical scientists have been unhappy because

not enough data was collected on the reaction of the astronauts to O-G. The astronauts

resented being considered guinea pigs and subjected to a variety of sensors and painful

tests during hazardous and [2] hectic missions. The bioscientists felt that NASA should

precede manned flight by elaborately instrumented animal flights and were jeopardizing

the health of the astronauts by not doing so. NASA was concerned that if we waited until

these adequate animal experiments we would never get off the ground. Gagarin's flight

eliminated that disagreement.

There was also a continuing internal hastle [sic] between the bioscientists in OSS, the

aeronautical life scientists in OAST, and the "flight surgeons" in OMSF as to who should

be doing what.

This all came to a head shortly after Low came to Headquarters. We had demonstrated

man could survive in space and on the moon. We had just completed a rather disastrous

primate flight in which we had chilled the primate during flight as well as losing several

controls due to surgical procedures. Skylab was coming up, the future of bioscience was

at stake and everybody in NASA was fed up with the internal haggling. We has the SSB

convene an external study group to review what we should do and how we should organize

to do it. That group chaired by Harry Eagle,[ actually H. Bentley Glass] recommended

that we combine all the life science activity into one organization reporting to the

Administrator's office. I do not remember their program recommendations but shortly

thereafter Low decided that the only [3] life science work NASA would do would be to

398 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
determine the effect of the space environment on humans. Since the only place where

such work could be done was in OMSF on the remaining Apollo flights and Skylab, I

recommended and Low agreed that as much of the life science activity as possible be

centered in OMSF. OSS kept only the exobiology associated with Viking and OAST the life

science work associated directly with aeronatuics [sic]. To satify [sic] the reporting

requirements, Low gave the responsible individual in OMSF the title NASA Director of

Life Sciences. This was a director-level job in OMSF reporting to the Associate

Administrator of OMSF. There was a dotted line to Low and an understanding that the

person was to oversee all of the life science activity in NASA and pull it all together

annually in the form of a Life Sciences PAD.

The above situation prevailed until the completion of Skylab, the establishment of

Petrone as the person responsible for all of NASA's R&D, and the retirement of Chuck

Berry who had been the NASA Director of Life Sciences up to that time.

We made a decision at that time to move life sciences from OMSF to OSS and to

reexamine the objectives of life sciences research. We hired Dave Winter just before the

transfer. He was aware of the impending transfer and that he had a dual [4] responsibility

but reporting to Petrone rather than Low. We have not rewritten the NMI. There was also

an explicit agreement between Yardley, Hinners, Winter, Petrone and me regarding

certain activities that Winter would do for Yardley. There is an MOU in the system which

details that responsibility.

The decision to move OSF out from under AA's responsibility once more justified Winter's

reporting to you in his role as the NASA Director of Life Sciences since there are life

sciences activities in OSF. So much for background.

ISSUES

Winter states that there is no problem in OSS life sciences work; that there are good

relations with OSF and TU; and problems with OA and OEP. I generally agree with his

observations. He offers four options:

a. Reduced Life Science Role

b. Modified Status Quo

c. Increased visibility

d. Increased Life Science Role

Option A is unacceptable to me since he proposes the elimination of the Life Sciences

organization. That is not necessary, desirable or appropriate. We are in the process of

developing a Life Sciences Program for the 1980s. We do not know whether we will

succeed but we have every reason to believe we will. [5] 

Option D is also unacceptable to me. If we were to separate Life Sciences from OSS then

we would have to create an organization to handle their Spacelab missions and I would

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 399
have one more organization to personally worry about staffing and interfacing with STS.

Also, there is very limited experience in the life science community in developing

experimental space flight equipment. It would be an organization which would need

close supervision for the next several years. I am looking to Hinners and Calio to provide

that oversight.

There does need to be a better interaction between Applications and Life Science. I do

not intend to have Johnston create a separate life science capability in his organization.

I intend to have him use the OSS/Life Science capability. Aside from the one instance

cited by Winters, I believe OEP is looking directly to OSS to handle their

environmental problems.

I would propose the following course of action.

a. We agree to keep Life Sciences as a division of OSS and you assign to me the action

to work with Hinners and Winter to resolve the problems.

b. I will work the OSS/OA problem to involve Winter's organization in space

processing.

c. I will work the problem, if any exists, between OEP and Winter's organization. [6]

d. I will use my regular biweekly meeting with Yardley to resolve any issues with OSF.

(None have arisen since we have been meeting.)

e. In the event there is an issue that Yardley, Hinners, Winter and I cannot resolve we

will promptly involve you.

f. We will plan to keep Life Sciences as a division of OSS for the next five years with the

understanding that we will review the need for exercising option D at the end of five

years or when the Life Science Budget exceeds $100M annually, whichever occurs first.

g. Hinners, Winter and I recognize that the Administrator's office (A, AD, AA) may

from time to time consult Winter on the over-all NASA Life Science Program.

h. Winter prepare an annual report on the NASA Life Sciences Program for the

Administrator summarizing the major achievements of the past year and the main

activities that will take place in the coming year.

i. We abolish the requirement on Winter to prepare an integrated Life Sciences PAD.

It serves no useful purpose that cannot be served as well or better by the annual report.

j. Winter be responsible for intergrating [sic] the total Life Sciences Program into the

five-ten year planning process.

Document III-22

Document Title: Letter from Dr. Robert H. Moser, Chairman, Life Sciences Advisory

Committee, to Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, 30 July 1987.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

400 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
The NASA experience with U.S.-Soviet cooperation in the Cosmos/Bion program was so rewarding

that NASA’s Life Sciences Division began considering a program using similar U.S. robotic spacecraft.

Planning workshops were organized by Ames, which had the firsthand experience with both

Biosatellite and the Cosmos/Bion programs. Out of these discussions, the LifeSat program was born.

LifeSat was warmly received by NASA’s Life Sciences Advisory Committee.

The NutraSweet Company

Box 1111, 4711 Golf Road, Skokie, Illinois 60076

Telephone: 312/982-8383

July 30, 1987

Dr. Lennard A. Fisk

Associate Administrator

Office of Space Science and Applications

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear Dr. Fisk:

The Life Sciences Advisory Committee (LSAC) has met several times to discuss the

current concept of a recoverable, reusable biosatellite for application to life science

research issues. The Committee is in unaminous [sic] agreement that this capability is

required by Life Sciences to fill both a science and time void in our program.

We are all painfully aware of the science hiatus brought by 51L. When Dr. Culbertson met

with LSAC in March of this year he stressed the importance of off-loading payloads to

expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and preserving the Shuttle for missions which require

its unique capability. In life sciences we not only have many payloads which can be offloaded but much science which can, in fact, be done better utilizing ELVs to orbit a

LifeSat. Additionally, the planned Spacelab missions are too few to accomplish everything

we must do and science should no longer he forced to rely on a single system which

continues to be plagued by uncertainties of launch date, crew time, mid-deck space, etc.

Life Sciences requires and would appreciate alternative means of pursuing its flight

objectives--means which OSSA has provided to its other Divisions.

I believe you understand the salient science features of the LifeSat. There are many

biological processes for which the Shuttle offers only the first few data points during its 7

to 10 day flight, while the planned biosatellite provides up to at least 60 days. Although

the Space Station offers us indefinite low gravity conditions, it will not be operational until

the mid-1990's. Data from the LifeSat would scope our science and hardware for the [no

page number] Station. If we are to consider seriously long term human flights and science

bases on the moon during the early 21st century we need to explore the CELSS option

early--much of its effort requires more than 10 days aloft. The capability of LifeSat to

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 401
access unique orbits would enable radiation biological studies in space. Finally, there are

a class of investigations requiring studies of toxic substances or use of radio-tracer labels

which are difficult to carry out on manned vehicles. If you so desire I would be most

willing to discuss these science benefits with you.

From your candid discussion with LSAC on July 17, 1987 regarding a LifeSat approval I

understand and appreciate your two major concerns, ELV availability and satellite cost. We

were subsequently informed in a review of the status of LifeSat that a fully satisfactory

biosatellite can be launched as a partial payload (30%) on a Delta II at an apportioned

cost equivalent to that of a current Scout, which cannot provide adequate science

capability. Further, I understand that the planned Phase II Mixed Fleet acquisition would

be able to provide a Delta II in early 1992, corresponding to the first planned LifeSat flight

and that ELVs will probably be costed in the same manner as Shuttle opportunities. For

the satellite itself, I agree that its cost should be weighed carefully relative to other life

science and Space Station initiatives. We saw a range of costs from $20 to $50 millions of

dollars for a LifeSat, but even at the top end the scientific benefits far exceed the cost.

Speaking for all of the LSAC members, I urge you to commit at least to a design effort for

LifeSat which can provide the cost numbers required for an informed decision. Please let

me know your decision on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Robert H. Moser, M.D.

Chairman, Life Sciences Advisory Committee

Document III-23

Document Title: NASA Life Sciences Strategic Planning Study Committee Report,

“Exploring the Living Universe: A Strategy for Space Life Sciences,” June 1988.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

When he became NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science and Application in 1987,

Lennard Fisk decided to develop an overall strategic plan for all of NASA’s space science programs.

Life Sciences Division Director Arnauld Nicogossian created a Strategic Planning Study Committee,

chaired by Frederic Robbins, to help his division in developing such a plan for the life sciences.

402 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
[25]

2. Findings and Recommendations

This section is the central part of the Life Sciences Strategic Planning Study Committee

(LSSPSC) report, for it highlights the Committee's overarching recommendations,

strategic milestones for achieving those recommendations and findings and

recommendations related to particular subject areas. The material emerged from the

LSSPSC Study Group reports given in section 3 [not included], which present

corresponding and more detailed findings and recommendations. It is organized in the

categories itemized below, incorporating the subjects explored by the Study Groups:

• Human Space Flight focuses on the physiological and psychological challenges to

humans in space and on the research and facilities necessary to overcome factors that

may limit the success of manned missions, especially of extended duration.

• Gravitational Biology is concerned with the influence of gravity on the structure,

development, and function of plants and animals.

• Planetary Biosciences Research concentrates on scientific issues pertinent to the

origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe and the relationship of a

planet's biota to its biosphere.

• Flight Programs emphasizes the need for flight opportunities for life sciences

research, including dedication of Space Station laboratories for clinical and basic

biological research.

• Program Administration itemizes administrative and organizational issues important

to strengthening the work of NASA in the life sciences.

Overarching Recommendations and Strategies

In developing their summary papers, the LSSPSC Study Groups came to a number of

parallel conclusions about life sciences at NASA and devised several similar

recommendations. The LSSPSC determined that these recommendations were basic to the

success of the Life Sciences program and, by extension, to the achievement of NASA's

overall goals and long-range strategies, particularly as they affect human exploration of the

solar system. The Committee presents these recommendations in the box on the next page.

The LSSPSC devised strategic milestones for fulfilling the requirements that are part of

the overarching recommendations. These milestones, itemized according to 3-, 5-, and 15-

year periods, emphasize the need to initiate work immediately, in the 1989 fiscal year.

[26]

Overarching Recommendations

To resolve life sciences issues critical to the success of the civilian space program, NASA

should:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 403
• Maintain and expand the Nation's life sciences research facilities located at the

Agency's field centers, universities, and industrial centers by:

- Establishing a mechanism for attracting promising young scientists to work on

NASA projects and developing additional training programs at major universities

and appropriate NASA installations

- Establishing a program of NASA supported professorships in space life sciences

at selected universities

- Encouraging industries to develop capabilities in space life sciences through

technology research and development.

• Assure timely and sustained access to space flight, thereby facilitating the conduct of

critical life sciences experiments. This should be accomplished through:

- Accumulating state-of-the-art instrumentation

- Flying an augmented series of Spacelab missions

- Using a series of autonomous bioplatforms to study radiation and variable-gravity

effects

- Dedicating suitable facilities on the Phase 1 Space Station complex for life

sciences research

- Conducting a major augmentation of life sciences capabilities during the early

Post-Phase 1 period.

• Synergize the presently independent research activities of national and international

organizations through the development of cooperative programs in the life sciences

at NASA and university laboratories.

• Complete and consolidate the unique national data base consisting of basic life

sciences information and the results of biomedical studies of astronauts conducted on

a longitudinal basis. This data base should be expanded to incorporate information

obtained by other spacefaring nations and be available to all participating partners.

Strategic Milestones for 1989-1991

Life sciences research requires replication to verify experimental results, a process that

involves considerable time in planning and conducting the investigations, as well as in

developing advanced technology. Working from this understanding, the Committee

recommends that NASA should do the following in the next 3 years:

404 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
• Strengthen the planning process of the Life Sciences Division by assuring its timely

integration into the Agency's overall strategic planning process.

• Augment life sciences research programs to establish the base of scientific knowledge

required by planners and engineers to conduct missions relevant to agency goals.

• Provide adequate funding to develop new state-of-the-art flight hardware for

upcoming manned and unmanned life sciences missions in space. Such an investment

will have a significant impact on the field of biomedicine not unlike the impact of the

Apollo Program on medicine and space science.

• Initiate advanced technology development in the areas of minimally invasive

biomedical instrumentation, biological remote sensing, exobiological flight

instrumentation, and microwave signal processing.

• Increase the frequency of life sciences data acquisition on the Space Shuttle and

international missions.

• Conduct a study to determine the requirements for extravehicular activity (EVA) for

the next 20 years, to delineate innovative options, and to identify needed

technologies.

Strategic Milestones for 1989-1994

The next milestones are gauged for completion of life sciences preparations for the Space

Station, scheduled to begin operations in the mid-1990's, and to implement a project

requiring immediate action. For 1989-1994, the LSSPSC urges the Agency to:

• Operate reusable biosatellites to obtain environmental, radiation, and artificial

variable-gravity data on plants and animals.

• Achieve ground-based validation of major physiological and psychobiological

countermeasures for long-duration missions.

• Conduct ground-based research on bioregenerative life support systems to achieve 90-

percent closure.

• Initiate the Microwave Observing Project of the Search for Extraterrestrial

Intelligence (SETI) Program.

Strategic Milestones for 1989-2004

The 15-year plan looks to missions beyond the Space Station and asks the Agency to:

• Establish a combined national and international life sciences research facility on the

Space Station. This facility must support basic research on plants, [28] animals, and

humans necessary to develop an understanding of the fundamental biological

processes affected by gravitational forces.

• Develop an advanced biomedical research facility in space to investigate and verify

technologies and medical support necessary to enable the planning and

implementation of human exploration of the solar system.

• Develop and test in space a fully operational bioregenerative life support system(s) for

future use in solar system exploration.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 405
• Conduct cooperative missions with other national and international organizations to

study the behavior of the biosphere and the origin, evolution, and distribution of life

on Earth and in space.

[pp. 28-37 not included]

[37]Program Administration

The coordination of life sciences activities at NASA is a challenging task. The research is

multidisciplinary in approach and involves many other organizations – both within and

external to the Agency – that are pursuing similar interests. The findings and

recommendations given below identify the administrative challenges, acknowledge recent

progress, and specify resources requirements.

Findings

• During the course of this study, the life sciences have received increased attention

within NASA.

- Concern about the effects of long-duration space flight has given life sciences a

higher priority in the Agency and has provided the program with an opportunity

to articulate its own goals more clearly.

- At the same time, however, senior managers have not always appreciated that life

sciences concerns are unique in the study and maintenance of life in space and

that this uniqueness creates special administrative challenges for the program.

• The Life Sciences Division does not have sufficient resources in funds, staff, and

facilities to realize its own objectives or the objectives set for the program by senior

managers.

• The dispersion of life sciences activities across a number of NASA program offices has

made it difficult to conduct research in several important areas, particularly human

factors and biospherics. While new coordination efforts are under way, the integration

of life sciences efforts across the Agency remains problematic.

• NASA's Life Sciences Division supports diversified programs that could benefit from

coordination between the Division and outside organizations. The Division has

initiated formal cooperative agreements with the National Institutes of Health and

other Federal agencies.

• The increasing importance of foreign space programs has opened up a broad field for

potential cooperative projects. These arrangements require international

negotiations that are lengthy and involve multiple U.S. agencies.

406 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
• The Life Sciences Division has not always been able to create stable relationships with

outside scientific groups.

[38]

- Scientists outside the Agency provide a valuable resource to NASA, both as

researchers and as advisors to Agency staff.

- Recent program development plans for a balance between external and

intramural research, as well as the creation of a new advisory and planning

structure, promise desirable change in this area.

• Information concerning life sciences activities is not disseminated as widely as possible

and desirable. As a result, many university and industrial researchers find it difficult

to secure data on past, current, and future life sciences projects.

Recommendations

• Senior NASA management should support the continuation of recent Division efforts

to establish a strong program by:

- Strengthening the Division's role in Agency-wide planning

- Facilitating access to frequent and regular flight opportunities

- Acknowledging the differences between programs of the Life Sciences Division

and other NASA program areas

- Indicating to the rest of the Agency that biomedical research relevant to the safe

conduct of human space flight is essential to ongoing and future NASA initiatives.

• Senior personnel from the Life Sciences Division should participate in all top-level

planning of Agency flight programs.

• NASA should substantially increase the resources for Life Sciences programs to assure

implementation of the recommendations given in this report.

• NASA should increase its efforts to expand the numbers of scientists at the Centers

and Headquarters and should institute new efforts to provide career development

opportunities for existing staff.

• The Life Sciences Division should further its efforts to establish formalized

agreements and working groups with other agencies and organizations.

• NASA should provide funds to expand and implement plans to establish Specialized

Center of Research (SCOR) units within selected universities, an effort designed to

develop young scientists in space life sciences.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 407
• In addition, the Agency should consider the establishment of NASA-supported

professorships in space life sciences at selected universities, so that by 1990 one or two

internationally recognized bioscientists and clinical investigators can play a significant

role in the biomedical research crucial to human space missions of extended duration.

• The Life Sciences Division should generate and maintain a data base through

collaborative arrangements with NASA's Scientific and Technical Information Facility

and the National Library of Medicine.

Document III-24

Document Title: Announcement of Opportunity, Spacelab Lab Sciences-4, Neurolab, 21

July 1993.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

This Announcement of Opportunity solicited research proposals for what turned out to be the last

Spacelab flight dedicated to life sciences. It is an indication of how far space life sciences had come,

both in the sophistication of the areas of science proposed for investigation and in the use of the

Shuttle/Spacelab system as a global resource for carrying out life sciences in space. The Neurolab

mission was launched on 17 April 1998 and landed on 3 May. Neurolab’s 26 experiments targeted

one of the most complex and least understood parts of the human body—the nervous system. The

primary goals were to conduct basic research in the neurosciences and to expand the understanding

of how the nervous system develops and functions in space. Test subjects were crewmembers, rats, mice,

crickets, snails, and two kinds of fish. 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

JULY 21, 1993

AO 93-OLMSA-01

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

Spacelab Life Sciences-4, Neurolab

An Announcement of Opportunity for 

The Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications Division 

Flight Research Program

408 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Letters of Intent Due October 1, 1993

Proposals Due December 1, 1993

[“Table of Contents” not included]

[2]

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES-4, NEUROLAB

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE OPPORTUNITY

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in collaboration with its

domestic and international partners, announces the opportunity for participation in

scientific investigations in the weightless environment of the Space Shuttle. This

Announcement of Opportunity is soliciting life sciences investigations in the

neuroscience disciplines that will use hardware described in Appendix B [not included].

The specific instructions and regulations governing the proposal format, submission, and

evaluation, and the selection of life sciences flight investigations for support by NASA and

its partners are defined in this Announcement.

This spacelab [sic] mission, dedicated to the neurosciences, is being carried out as a

cooperative effort between NASA and various domestic and international agencies.

Domestic partners include several Institutes at the National Institutes of Health including

the Division of Research Grants, the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on

Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, and the National Institute of

Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of

Naval Research. International partners are the Canadian Space Agency; the French Space

Agency, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales; the German Space Agency, Deutsche Agentur

fur Raumfahrtangelegenheiten; the European Space Agency; and the National Space

Development Agency of Japan.

The President of the United States declared the 1990's as the "Decade of the Brain" with

the primary goal to maximize human potential by advancing and applying scientific

knowledge related to the brain and the nervous system. This Spacelab mission, titled

"Neurolab," has been established as an essential part of NASA's activities in the "Decade of

the Brain." The purpose of this Announcement is to offer the global science community

the opportunity to propose distinct and innovative approaches requiring the unique

environment of space flight to address the study of neuroscience. The specific areas of

neuroscience research being solicited are described in Section III (page 4). Such

investigations should be capable of being carried out on a Shuttle/Spacelab flight of two

to three weeks' duration. NASA is particularly interested in investigations that use space

flight to address fundamental questions in the neurosciences and those that are related to

ensuring that a permanent human presence in space can be realized and sustained. NASA

intends that investigations selected as a result of this Announcement be accommodated on

Neurolab, but other modes of accommodation are possible and will be used if appropriate.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 409
NASA has developed and maintains a number of special facilities and an inventory of

standard and specialized Life Sciences Laboratory Equipment (LSLE) to facilitate

research in space. International hardware and facilities are also available to be utilized for

research in accordance with agreements established with NASA. The crew for Spacelab

missions consists of highly trained research scientists as well as career astronauts.

This Announcement does not constitute an obligation on the part of the Government to

carry any proposed effort to completion, flight assignment, or actual flight in space. [3]

Tentative selection of a proposal for flight does not guarantee a flight assignment. This

opportunity is dependent on the availability of funds. Participation in this program is

open to all categories of domestic and foreign organizations, including educational

institutions, industry, non-profit institutions, NASA Centers, and other Government

agencies.

II. BACKGROUND

Space flight affords the unique opportunity to study and characterize basic biological

mechanisms in the absence of gravity, one of the fundamental forces that shapes life on

Earth. Neurolab provides a laboratory in which to explore the role of gravity on the

function and behavior of the nervous system. In addition, space flight presents unique

environmental stressors to the nervous system, and study of responses to these stressors

will provide new insights into neurologic function and behavior. It is anticipated that the

scientific data from Neurolab will result in improvements in the health of people on

Earth. Neurolab represents a singular opportunity to conduct studies that will provide a

foundation on which to build future space flight research efforts in the brain and

behavioral sciences. The overall goals of Neurolab are to:

• Use the unique environment of space flight to study fundamental neurobiological

processes

• Increase understanding of the mechanisms responsible for neurologic and

behavioral changes that occur in space flight

• Further life sciences goals in support of human space flight

• Apply results from space studies to the health, well-being, and economic benefit

of people on Earth.

During the early years of NASA's manned space flight program, efforts in the life sciences

were driven by operational medicine and biomedical support of short duration missions

such as the Mercury and Gemini flight series. During these missions, no significant

problems arose regarding sensory system function. However, during the Apollo missions,

a number of astronauts reported mild to severe motion sickness symptoms, and in the

early 1970's NASA initiated studies directed at understanding the basic etiology of space

motion sickness. In addition, studies were undertaken to develop tests that would predict

susceptibility and enhance development of suitable countermeasures.

410 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Over the past two decades, NASA's efforts in the neurosciences have included extensive

research directed at understanding neurovestibular and sensorimotor system function

(Space Physiology and Medicine, 2nd. edition, Nicogossian, Huntoon, Pool [eds.] Lea &

Febinger, 1989; Experimental Brain Research, 62[2], 1986). More recently, it has been

realized that attention must be devoted to other physiological and behavioral changes that

occur as a result of exposure to space flight. This includes the study of molecular, cellular,

and systemic mechanisms involved in changes that occur during the process of adaptation

to altered gravity and that may have implications for readapting on return to a

gravitational environment.

The Spacelab Life Sciences 4 (SLS-4) Neurolab mission will be the fourth in a series of

Spacelab missions sponsored by the Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications

Division that are dedicated to life science space research. The first three missions, SLS-1,

SLS-2, and SLS-3, each has its own specific research focus. The SLS-1 (June 1991) and SLS2 (September 1993) missions have been designed primarily to study the mechanisms

involved in the acute cardiovascular and metabolic responses to microgravity and

readaptation to Earth. The SLS-3 mission (February 1996) is primarily focused on [4]

understanding the effects of microgravity on the musculoskeletal system and on

performance. The Neurolab mission, SLS-4, is dedicated to neuroscience research.

The investigations to be selected from proposals in response to this solicitation will be

conducted on the SLS-4 Neurolab mission planned for the last quarter of 1997 or the first

quarter of 1998. This mission will probably be two to three weeks in duration. The

experiments on this mission will be conducted primarily in the Spacelab module with

limited use of the Shuttle Middeck. The Spacelab module is a pressurized laboratory

facility located in the Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay and attached to the orbiter cabin by a

pressurized transfer tunnel. The Spacelab module will be configured to provide the

resources required to conduct the selected neuroscience investigations. Implementation

of investigations on this mission is limited by the Spacelab/Shuttle environment, available

facilities and hardware (Appendix B) [not included], animal housing facilities, and

utilization of crewmembers as experimental subjects or operators. These constraints are

further defined in Section VI (page 11) [not included].

Potential investigators are urged to become familiar with relevant neuroscience spacerelated research prior to submitting a formal proposal to NASA. Some references are

provided in Section III and an additional partial bibliography of space flight related

neuroscience research is presented in Appendix A [not included]. More complete

bibliographies can be obtained by writing to:

Neurolab Program Scientist

Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications Division

Code UL

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, D.C. 20546

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 411
III. ANNOUNCEMENT OBJECTIVES

Proposals submitted in response to this Announcement must address neuroscience

questions that require the unique characteristics of space flight. These characteristics

include: 1) microgravity and a changing G load during launch, flight, and reentry; 2)

increased radiation; 3) altered temporal cues; 4) isolation and confinement; and 5)

physiological and psychological changes associated with space flight and exposure to the

space craft environment. Studies are being solicited in the following research areas:

• Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology

• Developmental Neurobiology

• Sensory and Motor Systems

• Nervous System Homeostasis and Adaptation

• Behavior, Cognition, and Performance

Proposed investigations should require the unique research environment provided by the

Space Shuttle, defined in Section VI (page 11) [not included]. The major candidate

hardware that is planned to be available for this mission is included in Appendix B [not

included]. The specific objectives include, but are not limited to, the major areas

described below.

A. CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY

The goal of this research is to provide information about space flight induced changes

in nervous system cellular populations and the effects such changes have on

information processing and normal nervous system function. The information [5]

derived will also provide a better understanding of basic cellular mechanisms on

Earth. Various changes in diverse types of cells ranging from bacteria to mammalian

cells have been observed during exposure to space flight (In Vitro, 14:165-173, 1978;

Aviat. Space Environ. Med., 53:370-374, 1982; Science, 225:228-230, 1984; Appl.

Micrograv. Tech., 1:115-122, 1988; Exp. Geront., 26:247-256, 1991). Significant

alterations in cell proliferation, cell growth, differentiation, metabolism, membrane

properties, electrolyte concentration, and cytoplasmic streaming have been reported.

The environmental conditions during space flight may produce a variety of changes

in the function, morphology, biochemistry, and metabolism of cells in the nervous

system. Alterations in the transcription and translation of neuronal proteins may

occur. Another important area of investigation is understanding changes related to

ionic balance, membrane structure, and regulation of neurotransmitters, receptors

and trophic factors that can affect cell-to-cell interactions and functional activity. Also,

examination of possible effects on intracellular transport mechanisms and the ability

of cells to survive and regenerate in a microgravity environment are of interest.

Suggested Specific Areas for Space Flight Investigation

• Cellular function, metabolism, and biochemistry

• Gene expression and differentiation, and protein synthesis

412 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
• Synthesis, motility, and organelle trafficking

• Cell-cell interactions

• Survival and regeneration

B. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROBIOLOGY

Research in this area will examine nervous system development in microgravity. The

goal is to discern what role gravity plays, and how crucial it is, in normal nervous

system development. Only a few studies have been conducted on the effects of space

on nervous system development (USSR Space Life Sciences Digest, 14:130-21, 1987;

15:42-44, 1988; 17:31-34, 1988; 21:89-93, 1989). Results from a study on the Russian

Cosmos biosatellite demonstrated that the brains of 18-day rat fetuses whose

embryonic development from day 13 to day 18 occurred in space flight showed signs

of insufficient tissue oxygenation, trends toward delayed cell migration in the cortex,

and delayed differentiation of hypothalamic neurosecretory cells (The Physiologist,

28:S81-S82, 1985; Kosmicheskaya Biologiya I Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina, 21:16-22,

1987). The cell differentiation rate returned to normal during continued

embryogenesis after return to 1 G. These preliminary results indicate that exposure

to space flight can affect the normal development of the nervous system. Proposed

studies could examine the nature and magnitude of any such alterations on cellular,

morphological, systems, and functional aspects of the developing nervous system. A

main goal of this research would be to study the effects of space flight on the

mechanisms and patterns of neuronal birth, differentiation, and death that underlie

the formation of the nervous system. Also, the effects of exposure to altered gravity

and other features of the space environment on the morphology and physiology of

neuronal connectivity, and the functional consequences, is another area of interest.

From a systems viewpoint, experiments should examine epigenetic factors, such as

neuronal activity and environmental factors during pre- and postnatal development

under conditions of altered gravity and space flight.

[6] Suggested Specific Areas for Space Flight Investigation

• Regulation of neurogenesis including neuronal migration and differentiation

during embryogenesis

• Process outgrowth, axonal guidance and pathway formation

• Formation and specificity of synapses

• The timing and duration of sensory and motor "critical periods"

• The development of oscillatory events such as circadian rhythms and sleepwake cycles

• The effect of postnatal exposure to altered gravity on the morphology and

physiology of neuronal connectivity

• Functional consequences of space flight induced alterations

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 413
C . SENSORY AND MOTOR SYSTEMS

The goal of this research is to better understand the effects of space flight on sensorymotor processing and integration. Sensory perception, sensory-motor

transformations, and motor performance are all affected by conditions of space flight

(Space Physiology and Medicine, 2nd. edition, Nicogossian, Huntoon, Pool [eds.]

Lea & Febinger, 1989; Experimental Brain Research, 62(2), 1986; J. Clin. Pharm.,

31:904-910, 1991). Much of this research has been devoted to examining

neurovestibular and sensory-motor adaptation to microgravity, readaptation to 1 G,

and the underlying mechanisms of space motion sickness. Observations range from

cellular alterations to changes in human motor performance during and after flight.

For example, changes in various cellular parameters (e.g. striatal muscarinic

receptors [Brain research, 593:291-294, 1992], reticular neuron dendritic

morphology [The Physiologist, 33:S12-S 15, 1990], number and activity of ventral

horn cells [J. of Appl. Physiol., 73 {Suppl.}: 107S-111S, 1992], and synapses of Type II

otoconia hair cells [preliminary results, SLS-1 mission]) have been observed in rats

exposed to space flight. In all cases these changes are thought to be due to

compensatory mechanisms related to altered vestibular input as evidenced by the

observation of an increase in gain of vestibular nerve fiber activity in monkeys

exposed to microgravity (J. of Appl. Physiol., 73[Suppl.]: 112S-120S, 1992).

Functionally, this altered otolith input to the central nervous system may contribute

to the changes in vestibulo-ocular reflexes in monkeys (J. of Appl. Physiol.,

73[Suppl.]: 121S-131S, 1992) and disrupted postural control in humans observed

upon return to Earth (The Amer. J. Otology, 14:9-17, 1993). Studies of interest in this

area would involve examination of sensory systems on the single system or multisystem

level, in both human and animals, and emphasize research that would serve to

advance the understanding of how the nervous system integrates information, carries

out sensory-motor transformations, and functions under normal conditions as well as

under the special conditions imposed by space travel.

Suggested Specific Areas for Space Flight Investigation

• The structure and function of sensory systems

• The organization and coordination of standing posture, locomotion, flight,

swimming, and other volitional movements

• Sensory-motor adaptation to microgravity and readaptation to 1 G

• Sensory-motor mismatch and space motion sickness

• Central cortical and subcortical representation of three-dimensional space

• Multisensory integration and spatial orientation

[7] D. NERVOUS SYSTEM HOMEOSTASIS AND ADAPTATION

The goal of this research is to provide information about space flight induced changes

in the homeostasis of the nervous system and of nervous system regulation of other

systems. Such changes in homeostatic mechanisms during space flight have been

414 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
reported (Space Physiology and Medicine, 2nd. edition, Nicogossian, Huntoon, Pool

[eds.] Lea & Febinger, 1989; ( J. of Appl. Physiol., 73[Suppl.], 1992). Specific findings

include observations of autonomic changes, such as altered baroreceptor reflex

function, which contributes to post-flight orthostatic dysfunction (J. Clin. Pharm.,

31:951-955, 1991), and neuroendocrine changes, such as lowered growth hormone

and prolactin secretion in cultured pituitary cells (J. of Appl. Physiol., 73[Suppl.]:

151S-157S, 1992) and diminished mRNA for other hormones in hypothalamic cells (J.

of Appl. Physiol., 73[Suppl.]:158S156S, 1992). Research should focus on two areas:

(1) Experiments related to effects of space flight on the endocrine, autonomic, and

immunological systems and the central nervous system control of these; and (2)

Experiments that would evaluate the capability of the nervous system to adapt to

changes in the organism or in the external environment caused by space flight.

Suggested Specific Areas for Space Flight Investigation

• Autonomic aspects of nervous system function (e.g. vascular control, intracranial

pressure)

• Hypophyseal-pituitary axis, neuro-endocrine and neuro-immune interactions and

their consequences for adaptive responses

• Changes in CNS homeostasis and correlated CNS functional changes

• CNS activity (e.g., EEG, evoked potentials) and other dynamic changes in the

brain, including their psychological correlates

• Circadian rhythms and sleep cycles

• Consequences of environmental factors (e.g., noise and vibration) on the nervous

system

E . BEHAVIOR, COGNITION, AND PERFORMANCE

The goal of this research is to provide information about the effects of space flight on

behavior and cognition and on how such changes can affect task performance.

Normal motor function, perception, spatial memory, alertness, sleep, and higher

cognitive functions of the crew are all of major concern for successful space flight

operations. Actual space flight data in this area are limited. Available accounts of

behavioral capabilities in space related to perceptual, cognitive, and psychomotor

performance and the capacity to do work suggest that with few exceptions decrements

in performance have been transitory, occurring early in the mission (J. British

Interplanetary Soc., 43:475-488, 1990; USSR Space Life Sciences Digest, 15:58, 1988;

29:52-53, 1991). Many of the reported problems are related to learning new

perceptual and motor skills required for functioning in weightlessness and to the

spatial disorientation and space sickness that occur early in a mission. The stress

associated with space flight (Space Biol. and Aerosp. Med., 17:30-33, 1983; Acta

Astronautica, 11:149-153, 1984) and the sleep disturbances, which are common on

space missions (Space Physiology and Medicine, 2nd. edition, Nicogossian, Huntoon,

Pool [eds.] Lea & Febinger, 1989), may also have an impact on behavior and

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 415
performance. This research will consist of experiments related to the effects of space

flight on cognition, behavior, and human performance.

[8]

Suggested Specific Areas for Space Flight Investigation

• Higher cognitive function, learning, memory, reasoning, and associated

physiological and neural mechanisms

• Effects of space flight associated stress on behavior and performance

• Motor performance and coordination

• Alertness, sleep, circadian rhythms, and their effects on performance

• Evaluation of human performance (e.g. crew factors, selection and training, and

collective decision making; complex skill acquisition, retention, and transfer; and

reaction time and inspection time).

• Small group dynamics

• Perception of time

Document III-25

Document Title: Memorandum from Dr. Harry C. Holloway, Associate Administrator for

Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, to the Director of Life and Biomedical

Sciences and Applications, “Implementation of Revised Life Sciences Peer Review

Policy,” September 1993. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the NASA life sciences program came under external criticism

from the science community regarding the quality of the scientific peer-review process and the

management of grants by the Life Sciences Division. In response, a thorough review and revision of

policy and process was put into effect. An annual NASA Research Announcement (NRA), reflecting

the advice of the National Academy research strategy reports, was put into place. Policies on conflict

of interest with respect to peer reviewers were enforced, and the segregation of intramural and

extramural budgets were abolished so that scientists from both communities could compete openly and

fairly in the same arena.

[no page number]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, DC

20546

416 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
TO: UL/Director, Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications

FROM: U/Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

SUBJECT: Implementation of Revised Life Sciences Peer Review Policy

1. All NASA intramural life sciences programs will be externally peer reviewed in fiscal year

1994. This will initiate a new review process in which all new intramural life sciences

investigations will be initially externally peer reviewed prior to being funded, and all

ongoing intramural life sciences investigations will be externally peer reviewed at least every

three years. The review process will be conducted in conjunction with a revised, annual

Research and Technical Operating Plan (RTOP) process. RTOPs will be developed by NASA

Centers in response to requirements set by the NASA Headquarters Life and Biomedical

Sciences and Applications Division. The RTOP plan will require written research proposals

for every new investigation proposed and progress reports for every on-going investigation.

2. All intramural and extramural research projects and programs, including

operationally oriented programs like the Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Program, the

Biomedical Monitoring and Countermeasures Program, and the United States-Russian

Shuttle-MIR program, whether funded through NASA Announcements of Opportunity

(AOs), NASA Research Announcements (NRAs), or RTOPs, will be reviewed to the same

standards by qualified scientists not associated with the particular program being reviewed.

Peer review panels will be composed primarily of scientists from outside the NASA scientific

community. Formation of peer review panels will be coordinated by an extramural,

independent support contractor (such as American Institute for Biological Sciences or

Universities Space Research Association), which will ensure absence of conflicts of interest

of panel members and assure that panel members have no affiliation with, or other conflict

of interest regarding the particular program and project being reviewed.

[2]

3. NASA life scientists who are actively involved in research in a specific discipline will not

manage extramural research grants in that particular field. Technical and management

oversight of both extramural and intramural research will be the responsibility of the

appropriate NASA Headquarters program scientists. The management of all intramural

and extramural research will be carried out in such a way as to avoid any conflict of interest

or the appearance of conflict of interest. Field Center life sciences managers will submit a

plan for accomplishment of these directives at their respective Centers by October 1, 1993.

4. You will immediately direct all field installations involved in life sciences research to

implement the above policy and assure that it is adhered to. Provide Dr. Earl W. Ferguson,

my Special Assistant for Research and Operations, quarterly reports of progress and

accomplishments in implementing these requirements for the first three years of its

implementation.

[signed]

Harry C. Holloway, M.D.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 417
Document III-26

Document Title: Letter from Robert A. Whitney, Jr., Deputy Surgeon General, to Dr.

Harry C. Holloway, Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and

Applications, and the attached report, “Special Study Panel Concerning Animal

Research,” 14 September 1993. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

The issue of using laboratory animals such as mice, rats, and primates as experimental subjects in

space experiments and of having to kill them (not primates) in order to achieve experimental success

has always been politically sensitive for an agency like NASA that operates in the public eye. As it

anticipated flying a number of rats on the second Space Life Sciences Spacelab mission, NASA asked

the Office of the Surgeon General to carry out an independent review of its experimental procedures

and justifications.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Office of the Surgeon General

Rockville MD 20857

[no page number]

September 14, 1993

Harry C. Holloway, M.D.

Associate Administrator for Life and

Microgravity Sciences and Applications

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear Dr. Holloway:

As Chairperson of the Special Study Panel Concerning Animal Research, it is my pleasure

to forward the enclosed report of our findings and recommendations.

As you requested, we undertook a thorough review of the overall process, justification,

and oversight of the experimental protocols requiring animals on the SLS-2 Mission, and

assessed the level of sensitivity that exists within NASA and its Field Centers to issues

related to conducting animal research in space.

418 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Our panel found the NASA scientific and animal care review process superb. The high

level of refinement of the protocols reduces the number of animals required, and the

NASA management staff we interviewed were obviously quite sensitive to all of the issues

surrounding the use of animals in this type of research.

On behalf of the Panel, I wish to express our thanks for the extensive documentation and

background information you provided and for the excellent cooperation we received

from NASA staff. If you wish to discuss our findings and recommendations, please give me

a call at (301) 443-4000.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Robert A. Whitney, Jr.

Deputy Surgeon General

Enclosure

[1]

SPECIAL STUDY PANEL CONCERNING

ANIMAL RESEARCH

REPORT

September 14, 1993

Introduction

This study panel was formed on August 30, 1993 by Harry C. Holloway, NASA’s Associate

Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications to provide him with an

assessment of the level of sensitivity that exists within NASA and its Field Centers to issues

related to conducting animal research in space, particularly to the kind of research

planned for the Spacelab Life Sciences 2 (SLS-2) Mission and to recommend ways to

improve on NASA’s current approach to planning and communications regarding the use

of animals in NASA research. Attachment A [not included] to this report lists the panel

membership and Attachment B [not included] contains the charge that was provided the

panel at its inception.

The panel held two meetings to carry out its charge. The first, on Tuesday, September 7,

1993, focused on clarifying the issues that led to the formation of the panel by Dr.

Holloway and on determining the course of action that the panel should take. The second

meeting, on Friday, September 10, 1993 was primarily a fact-finding meeting to obtain

information on the actual scientific experiments to be carried out on SLS-2, and to discuss

the issues related to animal research in general and to research on SLS-2 in particular with

the NASA personnel responsible for managing and carrying out the animal research

program. Attachment C [not included] lists the attendees at these two meetings.

Following the fact-finding portion of the second meeting, the panel met in executive

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 419
session to consider its findings and develop its recommendations. This report contains

those findings and recommendations.

The panel was briefed on the 14 primary scientific experiments on the SLS-2 Mission. Of

these, six require laboratory rats:

• Regulation of Blood Volume During Space Flight, C. P. Alfrey, M.D., Baylor College

of Medicine; 

• Effects of Zero Gravity on Biochemical and Metabolic Properties of Skeletal Muscles

in Rats, K. M. Baldwin, Ph.D., University of California at Irvine; 

• Bone, Calcium, and Space Flight, E. M. Holton, Ph.D., NASA Ames Research

Center;

• [2]Regulation of Erythropoiesis in Rats During Space Flight, A. T. Ichiki, Ph.D.,

University of Tennessee Medical Center;

• Effects of Microgravity on the Electron Microscopy, Histochemistry, and Protease

Activities of Rat Hind Limb Muscles, D. A. Riley, Ph.D., Medical College of

Wisconsin; and

• A Study of the Effects of Space Travel on Mammalian Gravity Receptors, M. D. Ross,

Ph.D., NASA Ames Research Center.

Four of these experiments (Alfrey, Ichiki, Riley, and Ross) require inflight decapitation

and autopsy of a total of five (or six if the crew can maintain an optimistic schedule for

completing this activity) rats from among a total of 48 rats onboard. Detailed information

was provided to the panel (see Attachment D [not included]) concerning the actual

protocols of each of the six experiments involving rats and on the scientific rationale for

carrying out these investigations. The protocol provided to the panel describing Dr. Ross’

experiment is not an accurate description of the planned SLS-2 activity.

Findings 

1. The panel found that the experimental protocols in question have been properly

reviewed by appropriate review groups through 15 years of preflight preparation. The

most recent scientific body to review these experiments (in 1993) was the

independent, external Committee on Space Biology and Medicine of the National

Academy of Sciences’ Space Studies Board. NASA’s animal care and use review of the

proposed research is in full compliance with NASA Management Instruction 8910.1,

“Care and Use of Animals in the Conduct of NASA Activities,” which is based on the

Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. All

proposed research activities involving animals adhere to the U.S. Government

Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing

Research, and Training.

2. NASA has applied a remarkable level of engineering to assure the well being of the

rats involved. A high degree of refinement of animal use has been embedded in the

experimental protocols, requiring that only five or six animals undergo euthanasia in

space. This appears to be an extraordinarily small number of animals to achieve the

inflight requirements of four extensive research projects.

420 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
3. The level of sensitivity to proper animal care and use practices among all NASA

personnel interviewed by the panel was high. These are [3] personnel directly

connected with managing and carrying out the animal research program. NASA Ames

Research Center should be commended for having hired an individual with the

background and training required to focus on the public affairs issues related to

animal experimentation, and for the development of specific public affairs materials

and Agency briefings related to raising the level of awareness of NASA management

and personnel on this subject.

However, two issues related to the subject of sensitivity are of concern. First, it is clear

that NASA has not made full use of the material that it has developed to educate its

own employees and the public concerning the wise use of animals in space research.

The panel learned that NASA’s three background papers (The Use of Laboratory

Animals in NASA-Sponsored Research; NASA’s Animal Care and Use Policy; and

Alternatives to Animal Use in Research) have not been distributed to all NASA

personnel associated with projects involving the use of animals. The panel

additionally learned that these materials have not been distributed to principal

investigators in the NASA program.

Second, additional educational efforts by NASA are required to more fully sensitize

all NASA employees, including higher levels of management, to the general public’s

views surrounding the use of animals in research. It is apparent that NASA’s

educational efforts to date have not fully sensitized employees to the views of those in

the public who are not necessarily opposed to animal research, but who are naive

regarding the rigorous requirements NASA imposes prior to animal use in space

research.

4. The inflight decapitation of five rats is justified in the proposed protocol by the

following statement: “It is necessary that the decapitation procedure be carried out in

the absence of anesthesia because there is evidence that anesthetic agents acceptable

for use in the Spacelab produce changes in the neural tissue under investigation.”

Recommendations

1. NASA should distribute its three fact sheets on animal research to all NASA employees

and to those members of the extramural scientific community who participate in

NASA’s life sciences research program.

2. NASA should augment its educational efforts regarding animal care and use in NASA

activities, directing such efforts to all levels of NASA. Particular emphasis should be

placed on attempting to increase [4] the awareness of NASA employees of the wide

diversity of views held by the general public regarding the use of animals in research.

Only through an awareness of these views will it be possible for NASA spokespersons

to appreciate that their statements may be interpreted in a context different from that

intended.

3. The panel recommends that all press interviews connected or potentially connected

with animal research be scheduled through NASA’s public affairs office. It further

recommends that NASA have a public affairs representative attend any such personal

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 421
or telephone interview session to assure that the results of that session are portrayed

accurately. This practice has enjoyed widespread success in limiting bias in the

reporting of interviews in other Federal agencies.

List of Attachments

A. PANEL MEMBERSHIP

B. CHARGE TO PANEL

C. ATTENDEES AT PANEL MEETINGS

D. MATERIAL PROVIDED TO PANEL

Document III-27

Document Title: Presentation, William Berry, Ames Research Center, to France Cordova,

NASA Chief Scientist; Wes Huntress, Associate Administrator for Space Science; Bill

Townsend, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science; and Dr. Harry Holloway,

Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences, NASA Headquarters, 29

March 1995.

Source: Archives, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

As NASA conducted a “Zero-Base Review” in 1995, the Ames Research Center perceived itself at risk

of being closed or having its activities significantly diminished. Reacting to this situation, Ames

managers came up with the idea of focusing the Center’s activities on a “Life in the Universe” theme.

Dealing with space science, this presentation by Bill Berry of the Ames staff to NASA Headquarters

senior staff was influential in getting that focus accepted, but, at the suggestion of Associate

Administrator for Space Science Wes Huntress, with the designation of “Astrobiology” rather than

“Life in the Universe.” 

RE-INVENTING AMES SPACE - ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

COLLABORATION

"The new NASA will of necessity be more reliant on...the private sector than the old NASA.”

Excerpt from NASA Federal Laboratory Review (Feb. 1995)

• PROBLEM STATEMENT/SOLUTION

• MISSION

422 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
• FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS [not included]

• APPROACH 

• CONCLUSION

[no slide number]

PROBLEM STATEMENT

NASA is anticipating a significant budget decrease in (~ 20%) over the next five years.

The challenge is to preserve a viable Agency science program and to maximize science

return from missions.

• Preserve and enhance core competencies, meet current commitments, enable new

programs, and improve the quality of products with a downsized workforce and lower

total program cost

SOLUTION

• Redefine ARC Space roles to focus on Life in the Universe across NASA Strategic

Enterprises to make maximum use of Ames' proven multidisciplinary strengths.

• Streamline bureaucracy (NASA/Center commitment)

• Meet existing commitments, enable new work, improve R&D, and acquire new

talent through innovative use of cooperative agreements and outsourcing

• Downsize civil servant workforce in functions that do not require civil servant

implementation.

[no slide number]

AMES SPACE MISSION

Lead Center for Life in the Universe

"NASA should develop mechanisms to promote multidisciplinary research between programs of the

Scientific Research Enterprise and the MTPE Enterprise." - Excerpt from NASA Federal Laboratory

Review (Feb. 1995)

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 423
Life in the Universe is the fundamental science theme that unites all the NASA Strategic

Enterprises, yet there is no center or HQ element that is responsible for making the

necessary linkages among Enterprises and organizations. This is a unique Ames strength

that can be amplified at no additional cost to better serve NASA's needs.

• Implement multidisciplinary Life In the Universe program of ground

research, technology development, platform aircraft, and space fight

missions to explore:

* The origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe; 

* The relationship of gravity and life [sic]

* The evolution, evaluation, and protection of living planets; 

* The expansion of life from Earth into space.

• Lead Advanced Studies

NASA must link the strategic plan in terms of accomplishing the NASA Strategic

Plan elements. In maintaining global leadership, NASA must also couple the

strategic plan with a process that permits new and competing ideas to be

developed and evaluated.” – Excerpt from NASA Federal Laboratory Review

(Feb. 1995)

• Transfer knowledge and technologies across Strategic Enterprises

• Maximize use of NASA ground and flight resources by external community

• Promote the national goals to ensure a scientifically and technically educated

citizenry.

• Transfer knowledge and technologies for public sector benefits.

[four slides, “Function Analysis: National Core Functions, R&D, Facilities and Technical

Support, and Administration and Management,” omitted]

[no slide number]

APPROACH

Support the best people to do the highest quality work in the most efficient manner with

the fewest bureaucratic barriers

• Life In the Universe Center located at ARC

424 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
• Code S Directorate, Division, Branch, and budget management will be

performed by civil servants or by IPAs.

• Life In the Universe cooperative agreement with major university(s)

according to the authority of 31 U.S.C. 6301 to 6308.

“There is great appeal in terms of coupling NASA Research Capabilities with the

expertise and intellectual resources of a university or consortia of

universities...NASA should consider a Space Act Agreement or similar contractual

arrangements with a university at one or more of its Centers...The new NASA will

of necessity be more reliant on...the private sector than the old NASA.” Excerpt

from NASA Federal Laboratory Review (Feb. 1995)

"Cooperative agreement is an agreement that provides funds to an educational

institution or other non-profit organization to accomplish a public purpose of

support or stimulation authorized by Federal Statute. Substantial technical

involvement between NASA and the recipient is expected and will be identified

in the agreement.” NASA Handbook 5800.1C

• Novate all contract work to single prime with gradual phasedown of CS in

support functions.

[no slide number]

APPROACH (continued)

• NASA Ames Civil Service R&D workforce to conduct research, development

planning, selection, advanced studies in collaboration with universities and

industries.

• Civil servants will be maintained and recruited to preserve core competencies

necessary to ensure a productive and dynamic space program.

• In implementing national functions, (e.g., lead roles) consortia would be

composed of participants across the nation.

• Technology transfer and education programs would be the responsibility of

the non-NASA partners with strong NASA volunteer participation.

• CS personnel who perform support functions will not be replaced by CS

when they leave the government. These functions will be taken over by the

industry/university/consortia partners.

• Dollar savings and quality enhancements result from:

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 425
- CS Workforce downsizing via attrition or reassignment into product tasks 

- Minimization of unproductive reviews, paperwork, reporting 

- More efficient execution of support functions by businesses

- More efficient procurement (less downtime, faster completion of projects)

- Contracted rapid prototyping/fabrication vs. maintenance of in-house staff

- Skill mix adjustments on an “as needed” basis from university/industry

specialists rather than permanently employed personnel.

[no slide number]

CONCLUSION

• This approach will enhance R&D, provide an important integrating function

for NASA, meet current commitments, and enable new programs while

meeting necessary cost reductions.

- Life In the Universe provides a focus that unites all of NASA's Enterprises.

- Cooperative agreement, consortia and single prime contractor approach offers

superior cost savings over status quo, transfer of programs to other Centers or

privatization of all of Code S, and - -

* Strengthens NASA science, technology, and flight programs

* Offers maximum flexibility in skill mix

* Guarantees an infusion of new people and new ideas

* Provides opportunities for existing civil service staff to return to the core work

* Allows downsizing without program terminations

* Trains the next generation

* Provides an exciting opportunity to make the national community true

hands-on partners in the space program

- Legal mechanisms are already in place.

[slide, “Backup: Programs,” omitted]

426 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Document III-28

Document Title: NASA Policy Directive 8020.7E, “Biological Contamination Control for

Outbound and Inbound Planetary Spacecraft,” 19 February 1999. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.

This is the most recent NASA policy directive related to measures for avoiding forward and back

contamination during solar system exploration.

[no page number]

NASA Directive: NPD 8020.7E

POLICY Effective Date: February 19, 1999

DIRECTIVE Expiration Date: February 19, 2004

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responsible Office: S/Office of Space Science

Subject: Biological Contamination Control for Outbound and Inbound Planetary

Spacecraft

1. POLICY

The conduct of scientific investigations of possible extraterrestrial life forms, precursors,

and remnants must not be jeopardized. In addition, the Earth must be protected from the

potential hazard posed by extraterrestrial matter carried by a spacecraft returning from

another planet or other extraterrestrial sources. Therefore, for certain space-mission/targetplanet combinations, controls on organic and biological contamination carried by

spacecraft shall be imposed in accordance with directives implementing this policy.

2. APPLICABILITY

a. This directive applies to NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers, including

Component Facilities, and to NASA contractors where specified by contract.

b. The provisions of this directive cover all space flight missions which may intentionally

or unintentionally carry Earth organisms and organic constituents to the planets or

other solar system bodies, and any mission employing spacecraft which are intended

to return to Earth and/or its biosphere from extraterrestrial targets of exploration.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 427
3. AUTHORITY

42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1), Section 203(c)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of

1958, as amended.

4. REFERENCES

a. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to which the United States is a party,

states in part that "...parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including

the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid

their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the

Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary,

shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose..." ("Treaty on Principles

Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,

Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" entered into force October 10, 1967.

18 U.S. Treaties and Other International Agreements at 2410-2498.)

b. NPG 8020.12x, Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions.

[no page number]

5. RESPONSIBILITY

a. The Associate Administrator for Space Science, or designee, is responsible for overall

administration of NASA's planetary protection policy. This includes the following:

(1) Maintaining the required activities in support of the planetary protection policy at

NASA Headquarters.

(2) Assuring that the research and technology activities required to implement the

planetary protection policy are conducted.

(3) Monitoring space flight missions as necessary to meet the requirements for planetary

protection certification.

b. The designee for managing and implementing this policy is the Planetary Protection

Officer, who is responsible for the following:

(1) Prescribing standards, procedures, and guidelines applicable to all NASA

organizations, programs, and activities to achieve the policy objectives of this directive.

(2) Certifying to the Associate Administrator for Space Science and to the Administrator

prior to launch; and (in the case of returning spacecraft) prior to the return phase of the

mission, prior to the Earth entry, and again prior to approved release of returned

materials, that--

(a) All measures have been taken to assure meeting NASA policy objectives as established

in this directive and all implementing procedures and guidelines.

428 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
(b) The recommendations, as appropriate, of relevant regulatory agencies with respect to

planetary protection have been considered, and pertinent statutory requirements have

been fulfilled.

(c) The international obligations assessed by the Office of the General Counsel and the

Office of External Relations have been met, and international implications have been

considered.

(3) Conducting reviews, inspections, and evaluations of plans, facilities, equipment,

personnel, procedures, and practices of NASA organizational elements and NASA

contractors, as applicable, to discharge the requirements of this directive.

(4) Keeping the Associate Administrator for Space Science informed of developments and

taking actions as necessary to achieve conformance with applicable NASA policies,

procedures, and guidelines.

c. The Associate Administrator for Space Flight and the Associate Administrator for Life

and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, or designees, will ensure that applicable

standards and procedures established under this policy, and detailed in subordinate

implementing documents, are incorporated into human space flight missions. Any

exceptions will be requested and justified to the Administrator through the Asociate [sic]

Administrator for Space Science.

d. Program Managers, through their respective Center Director, are responsible for the

following:

[no page number]

(1) Meeting the biological and organic contamination control requirements of this

directive and its subordinate and implementing documents during the conduct of

research, development, test, preflight, and operational activities.

(2) Providing for the conduct of reviews, inspections, and evaluations by the Planetary

Protection Officer, pursuant to this directive.

6. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

None.

7. MEASUREMENTS

Specific constraints imposed on spacecraft involved in solar system exploration will

depend on the nature of the mission and the identity of the target body or bodies. These

constraints will take into account current scientific knowledge about the target bodies

through recommendations from both internal and external advisory groups, but most

notably from the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The most

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 429
likely constraints on missions of concern will be a requirement to reduce the biological

contamination of the spacecraft, coupled with constraints on spacecraft operating

procedures, an inventory of organic constituents of the spacecraft and organic samples,

and restrictions on the handling and methods by which extraterrestrial samples are

returned to Earth. In the majority of missions, there will also be a requirement to

document spacecraft flyby operations, spacecraft impact potential, and the location of

landings or impact points of spacecraft on planetary surfaces or other bodies. Specific

requirements (reviews, documentation, and levels of cleanliness) are detailed in

implementing procedures and guidelines, primarily NPG 8020.12x, "Planetary Protection

Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions," and will be used to measure adherence

to this directive.

8. CANCELLATION

NMI 8020.7D dated December 3, 1993.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Daniel S. Goldin

Administrator

Document III-29

Document Title: Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, “A Strategy for

Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century,” 28 November 2000. 

Source: Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

This report from the Space Studies Board represents the assessment of space life sciences by the scientific

community at the turn of the century and its recommendations for future research priorities.

[1]

A Strategy for Research in Space Biology

and Medicine in the New Century

Executive Summary

The core of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) life

sciences research lies in understanding the effects of the space environment on human

physiology and on biology in plants and animals. The strategy for achieving that goal as

originally enunciated in the 1987 Goldberg report, A Strategy for Space Biology and

Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s,1 remains generally valid today. However, during

the past decade there has been an explosion of new scientific understanding catalyzed by

advances in molecular and cell biology and genetics, a substantially increased amount of

430 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
information from flight experiments, and the approach of new opportunities for longterm space-based research on the International Space Station. A reevaluation of

opportunities and priorities for NASA-supported research in the biological and

biomedical sciences is therefore desirable.

The strategy outlined in the Goldberg report had two main purposes: “(1) to identify

and describe those areas of fundamental scientific investigation in space biology and

medicine that are both exciting and important to pursue and (2) to develop the

foundation of knowledge and understanding that will make long-term manned space

habitation and/or exploration feasible.”2To achieve these purposes, the Goldberg report

identified four major goals of space life sciences:

“1. To describe and understand human adaptation to the space environment and

readaptation upon return to earth.

“2. To use the knowledge so obtained to devise procedures that will improve the

health, safety, comfort, and performance of the astronauts.

“3. To understand the role that gravity plays in the biological processes of both plants

and animals.

“4. To determine if any biological phenomenon that arises in an individual organism

or small group of organisms is better studied in space than on earth.”3

These goals remain valid and form the basis of the present report.

Both the Goldberg report and the 1991 follow-up assessment, Assessment of Programs

in Space Biology and Medicine 1991,4emphasized basic research and the importance of

vigorous ground-based programs aimed at addressing the fundamental mechanisms that

underlie observed effects of the space environment on human physiology and other

biological processes. The present report strongly reemphasizes that strategy and calls for

an integrated, multidisciplinary approach that encompasses all levels of biological

organization-the molecule, the cell, the organ system, and the whole organism- and

employs the full range of modem experimental approaches from molecular and cellular

biology to organismic physiology.

The sections that follow summarize the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine’s

priorities for NASA-supported research, its recommendations for high-priority research in

individual disciplines, and its recommendations for overall priorities for NASA-sponsored

research across disciplinary boundaries. The final section outlines significant concerns in

the program and policy arena and offers related recommendations.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 431
PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH

Taking into account budgetary realities and the need for clearly focused programs,

the highest priority for NASA-supported research in space biology and medicine in the

new century should be given to research meeting one of the following criteria:

1. Research aimed at understanding and ameliorating problems that may limit

astronauts’ ability to survive and/or function during prolonged spaceflight. Such studies

include basic as well as applied research and ground-based investigations as well as flight

experiments. NASA programs should focus on aspects of research in which NASA has

unique capabilities or that are underemphasized by other agencies.

2. Fundamental biological processes in which gravity is known to playa direct role. As

above, programmatic focus should emphasize NASA’s capabilities and take into account

the funding patterns of other agencies.

A lower priority should be assigned to areas of basic and applied research that are

relevant to fields of high priority to NASA but are extensively funded by other agencies,

and in which NASA has no obvious unique capability or special niche.

HIGH-PRIORITY DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC RESEARCH 

Because the recommendations for research, and research priorities, in the disciplinespecific chapters cover a wide range of fields relevant to space biology and medicine, the

committee chose not to reproduce all of those recommendations in full in this executive

summary. Instead the committee sought to capture the essence of what is recommended

in Chapters 2 through 12, an approach that was best served by condensation, full

quotation, or [2] addition of supplemental detail as seemed useful to preserve the intent

of the recommendations in their full form and context. The recommendations are

numbered only in instances in which the committee considered that there was a clear

priority order. [This section (pp. 2-8) not included.]

CROSSCUTTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES

This section summarizes the committee’s recommendations for the highest-priority

research across the entire spectrum of space life sciences. In the near term, until the

research facilities of the International Space Station come online or an additional

Spacelab mission is provided, NASA-supported research will necessarily be directed

primarily toward ground-based investigations designed to answer fundamental questions

and frame critical hypotheses that can later be tested in space. Indeed, as this report

emphasizes, understanding the basic mechanisms underlying biological and behavioral

responses to spaceflight is essential to designing effective countermeasures and protecting

astronaut health and safety both in space and upon return to Earth. For these reasons, the

following recommendations for high-priority areas of crosscutting research place

emphasis on ground-based studies.

432 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Physiological and Psychological Effects of Spaceflight

Priority should be given to research aimed at ameliorating problems that may limit

[9] astronauts’ health, safety, or performance during and after long-duration spaceflight.

The committee emphasizes that specific priorities may shift to a significant degree

depending on the types of missions to be carried out in the future, particularly as related

to long-term human exploration of space. For this reason, the recommended areas of

research are not given an order of priority.

Loss of Weight-bearing Bone and Muscle

Bone loss and muscle deterioration are among the best-documented deleterious

effects caused by spaceflight in humans and animals. Exercise has been only partially

successful in preventing muscle weakness and bone loss. Development of effective

countermeasures requires advances in several areas of research:

• Research should emphasize studies that provide mechanistic insights into the

development of effective countermeasures for preventing bone and muscle deterioration

during and after spaceflight.

• Ground-based model systems, such as hindlimb unloading in rodents, should be used

to investigate the mechanisms of changes that reproduce in-flight and postflight effects.

• A database on the course of microgravity-related bone loss and its reversibility in

humans should be established in preflight, in-flight, and postflight recording of bone

mineral density.

• Hormonal profiles should be obtained on humans before, during, and after

spaceflight. The relationship between exercise activity levels and protein energy balance

in flight should be investigated.

Vestibular Function, the Vestibular Ocular Reflex, and Sensorimotor Integration

During the transitions in gravitational force that occur going into and returning from

spaceflight, the vestibular system undergoes changes in activity that can result in

debilitating symptoms in astronauts.

• The highest priority should be given to studies designed to determine the basis for

the adaptive compensatory mechanisms in the vestibular and sensorimotor systems that

operate both on the ground and in space.

• In-flight recordings of signal processing following otolith afferent stimulation

should be made to determine how exposure to microgravity affects central and peripheral

vestibular function and development.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 433
• Motor learning should be investigated in spaceflight and the results compared with

findings obtained in ground-based studies of this process.

Orthostatic Intolerance Upon Return to Earth Gravity

Orthostatic hypotension, present since the very earliest human spaceflights, still

affects a high percentage of astronauts returning from spaceflights even of relatively

short duration and is an even greater problem for shuttle pilots, who must perform

complex reentry maneuvers in an upright, seated position. The problem remains despite

the use of extensive antiorthostatic countermeasures by both U.S. and Russian space

programs. Studies should focus on determining physiological mechanisms and

developing effective countermeasures.

• Current knowledge of the magnitude, time course, and mechanisms of cardiovascular

adjustments should be extended to include long-duration exposure to microgravity.

• The specific mechanisms underlying inadequate total peripheral resistance

observed during postflight orthostatic stress should be determined.

• Appropriate methods for referencing intrathoracic vascular pressures to systemic

pressures in microgravity should be identified and validated, given the observed changes

in cardiac and pulmonary volume and compliance.

• Current antiorthostatic countermeasures should be reevaluated to refine those that

offer protection and eliminate those that do not. Priority should be given to interventions

that may provide simultaneous bone and/or muscle protection.

Radiation Hazards

The biological effects of exposure to radiation in space pose potentially serious health

effects for crew members in long-term missions beyond low Earth orbit. High priority is

given to the following recommended studies:

• Determine the carcinogenic risks following irradiation by protons and high-atomicnumber, high-energy (HZE) particles.

• Determine if exposure to heavy ions at the level that would occur during 

deep-space missions of long duration poses a risk to the integrity and function of the

central nervous system.

• Determine how the selection and design of the space vehicle affect the radiation

[10] environment in which the crew has to exist.

• Determine whether combined effects of radiation and stress on the immune system

in spaceflight could produce additive or synergistic effects on host defenses.

434 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Physiological Effects of Stress

The immune system interacts closely with the neuroendocrine system. Results

indicate a close association between the neuroendocrine status of the host and host

defense systems.

• The role that the host response to stressors during spaceflight plays in alterations in

host defenses should be determined.

Psychological and Social Issues

The health, well-being, and performance of astronauts on extended missions may be

negatively affected by many stressful aspects of the space environment. Mechanisms of

response to physiological and psychosocial stressors encountered in spaceflight must be

better understood in order to ensure crew safety, health, and productivity.

• Highest priority should be given to interdisciplinary research on the

neurobiological (circadian, endocrine) and psychosocial (individual, group,

organizational) mechanisms underlying the effects of physical and psychosocial

environmental stressors. Cognitive, affective, and psychophysiological measures of

behavior and performance should be examined in ground-based analogue settings as well

as in flight.

• High priority should be given to evaluation of existing countermeasures (screening

and selection, training, monitoring, support) and development of effective new

countermeasures.

Fundamental Gravitational Biology

Mechanisms of Graviperception and Gravitropism in Plants

Plants respond to changes in the direction of the gravitational vector by altering the

direction of the growth of roots and stems. The gravitropic response requires (1)

perception of the gravitational vector by gravisensing cells; (2) intracellular transduction

of this information; (3) translocation of the resulting signal to the sites of reaction, i.e.,

sites of differential growth; and (4) reaction to the signal by the responding cells, i.e.,

initiation of differential growth.

• Studies of graviperception should concentrate on three problems:

- The identity of the cells that actually perceive gravity;

- The intracellular mechanisms by which the direction of the gravity vector is

perceived; and

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 435
- The threshold value for graviperception (this will require a spaceflight

experiment. [sic]

• Studies of gravitropic transduction should focus on the nature of the cellular

asymmetry that is set up in a cell that perceives the direction of the gravity vector.

• Studies on the translocation step should concentrate on the nature and mechanism

of the translocation of the signals that pass from the site of perception to the site of reaction.

• Studies on the reaction step should focus on the mechanism(s) by which gravitropic

signals cause unequal rates of cell elongation, and on the possible effects of gravity on the

sensitivity of these cells to the signals.

Mechanisms of Graviperception in Animals

It is known that in several systems sensory stimulation plays a role in the development

of the neural connections necessary for normal processing of sensory information. The

potential role of gravity in the normal development of the gravity-sensing vestibular system

of animals is therefore an important area for ground- and space-based research.

• Ground-based studies should identify the critical periods in vestibular neuron

development before initiation of experiments on the effects of microgravity on vestibular

development.

• Pre- and postflight functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies should be

conducted with astronauts to determine the effects of microgravity on neural space maps.

Effects of Spaceflight on Reproduction and Development

To determine whether there are developmental processes that are critically dependent

on gravity, organisms should be grown through at least two full generations in space.

• Key model animals should be grown through two life cycles; the highest priority

should be given to vertebrate models. If significant developmental effects are detected,

control experiments must be performed to determine whether gravity or some other

element of the space environment induces these developmental abnormalities.

• [11] An analogous experiment should be carried out with the model plant

Arabidopsis thaliana to confirm results obtained on Mir with a preliminary experiment

using Brassica rapa.

PROGRAMMATIC AND POLICY ISSUES

Although NASA has responded effectively to many of the programmatic and policy

issues raised in the 1987 and 1991 reports,7, 8 significant concerns in the program and policy

436 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
arena remain unresolved. These concerns focus on issues relating to strategic planning and

conduct of space-based research; utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) for life

sciences research; mechanisms for promoting integrated and interdisciplinary research;

collection of and access to human flight data, specifically; publication of and access to space

life sciences research in general; and professional education.

Space-based Research

Development of Advanced Instrumentation and Methodologies

Future life sciences flight experiments on the ISS will depend on the availability of

advanced instrumentation to carry out the measurements and analyses required by the

research questions and approaches described in this report. In addition, facile data and

information transfer between space- and ground-based investigators are crucial.

• NASA should work with the broad life sciences community to identify and catalyze

the development of advanced instrumentation and methodologies that will be required

for sophisticated space-based research in the coming decade.

• NASA should take advantage of advanced instrumentation developed in other

countries.

• The capability for direct, real-time communication between space-based

experimenters and principal investigators at their home laboratories should be a highpriority objective for the ISS. 

Utilization of the International Space Station for Life Sciences Research

Issues relating to the design and use of the ISS are a major concern of the

committee. These issues include (1) changes in the design of the ISS, (2) the diversion

of funds intended for scientific facilities and equipment into construction budgets, (3)

the adequacy of power and transmission of data to and from Earth, (4) the availability of

crew time for research, and (5) an extended hiatus in flight opportunities for life

sciences research owing to delays in ISS construction. These issues have alarmed the life

sciences communities.

• To better ensure that the ISS will adequately meet the needs of space life sciences

researchers, NASA should continue to bring the external user community as well as NASA

scientists into the planning and design phases of facility construction.

• NASA should make every effort to mount at least one Spacelab life sciences flight in

the period between Neurolab and the completion of ISS facilities.

• NASA should determine whether continuation of shuttle missions for short-term

flight experiments after the opening of ISS would be economically and scientifically sound.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 437
Science Policy Issues

Peer Review

The Division of Life Sciences initiated a universal system of peer review in 1994 for all

NASA-supported investigators. The new process has the committee’s strong support.

• Responsibility for the establishment of peer review panels and for funding decisions

should remain a function of the Headquarters Division of Life Sciences.

• NASA should regularly evaluate the composition of scientific review panels to

ensure that the feasibility of proposed flight experiments receives appropriate

expert evaluation.

Integration of Research Activities

• Principal investigators of projected flight experiments should be brought together

with NASA managers and design engineers at the beginning of the planning process to

function as an integrated team responsible for all phases of the planning, design, and

testing. This integration should continue throughout the life of the project.

• NASA should regularly review and evaluate the NASA Specialized Centers of

Research and Training (NSCORT) program to determine whether this mechanism

provides the best way to foster interdisciplinary research and increase the scientific value

of the life sciences research program.

• NASA should regularly review and evaluate the performance of the National Space

Biomedical Research Institute and the impact of its funding on the overall life sciences

research [12] budget and program.

Human Flight Data: Collection and Access

The disciplinary chapters of this report repeatedly stress the need for improved,

systematic collection of data on astronauts preflight, in space, and postflight.

• NASA should initiate an ISS-based program to collect detailed physiological and

psychological data on astronauts before, during, and after flight.

• NASA should make every effort to promote mechanisms for making complete data

obtained from studies on astronauts accessible to qualified investigators in a timely

manner. Consideration should be given to possible modifications of current policies and

practices relating to the confidentiality of human subjects that would ethically ensure

astronaut cooperation in a more effective manner.

438 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Publication and Outreach

An essential outcome of scientific research is publication (dissemination of results to

the scientific community at large [sic]. The record of peer-reviewed publication,

especially of spaceflight experiments, by funded investigators in NASA’s life sciences

programs needs to be improved, as does the usefulness of the Spaceline Archive to the

scientific community.

• NASA should provide funding for data analysis and publication of flight

experiments for a sufficient period to ensure analysis of the data and publication of the

results.

• NASA should insist on timely dissemination of the results of space life sciences

research in peer-reviewed publications. For investigators with previous NASA support, the

publication record should be an important criterion for subsequent funding.

• NASA should take as a high priority the completion of data entry into the Spaceline

Archive and should ensure that access to the archive is simple and transparent.

Professional Education

NASA should make every effort to ensure the professional training of graduate

students and postdoctoral fellows in space and gravitational biology and medicine.

• NASA should take as high priority the support of a small, highly competitive

program of postdoctoral fellowships for training in laboratories of NASA-supported

investigators in academic and research institutions external to NASA centers.

REFERENCES

1. Space Science Board, National Research Council. 1987. A Strategy for Space Biology

and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

2. Space Science Board, 1987, A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the

1980s and 1990s, p.xi.

3. Space Science Board, 1987, A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the

1980s and 1990s, p. 4.

4. Space Studies Board, National Research Council. 1991. Assessment of Programs in

Space Biology and Medicine 1991. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

5. Space Science Board, National Research Council. 1987. A Strategy for Space Biology

and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 439
6. Wilson, J.W., Cucinotta, F.A., Shinn, J.L., Kim, M.H., and Badavi, F.F. 1997. Shielding

strategies for human space exploration: Introduction. Chapter 1 in Shielding Strategies

for Human Space Exploration: A Workshop (John W. Wilson, Jack Miller, and Andrei

Konradi, eds.). National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

7. Space Science Board, National Research Council. 1987. A Strategy for Space Biology

and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

8. Space Studies Board, National Research Council. 1991. Assessment of Programs in

Space Biology and Medicine 1991. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

440 LIFE SCIENCES IN SPACE
Chapter Four

The Evolution of Earth Science

Research from Space: NASA’s 

Earth Observing System

by John H. McElroy and 

Ray A. Williamson

The detailed observation of Earth from space is one of the notable scientific and

technological achievements of the space age. The discipline of Earth observations

encompasses scientific research, national security, government operational, and

commercial activities. The technologies used in Earth observations have extended from

small, handheld cameras to very large Earth-directed intelligence-gathering sensors and

telescopes. The latter are the predecessors to the Hubble Space Telescope. The beginnings

of these efforts in civilian research are described elsewhere in the Exploring the Unknown

series.1 This essay traces the history of one aspect of Earth observations from space, the

evolution of NASA’s Earth science program between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s, a

period of significant growth and change in NASA’s efforts to study and understand the

many structural elements and interactive processes that make up planet Earth. During that

period, NASA restructured its program focus, moving Earth-related research out of the

space science program into a distinct, separate program. It is also a period when the

political implications of Earth science research become apparent to policymakers.

Early work in Earth observations was often exploratory, descriptive, disciplinespecific, and qualitative, as researchers and operators learned the capability of the new

tools. By the 1970s, quantitative analyses became increasingly important, and scientists

developed sensors incorporating increased geometric and radiometric accuracy and

enhanced spectral and spatial resolution. The infusion of techniques and analytical

approaches developed for planetary exploration also enriched Earth observations.

Large-scale international programs, in which NASA participated, brought new

understanding about Earth’s interactive biogeochemical systems that linked the land,

atmosphere, oceans, and ice cover.

By the beginning of the 1980s, the new quantitative capabilities anchored an ambitious

scientific effort soon dubbed the “Mission to Planet Earth” (MTPE). The quantitative

capabilities also underpinned a new perspective termed “Earth system science” that sought

a new synthesis of the Earth sciences with special emphasis on the interactions and

441

1. Pamela E. Mack and Ray A. Williamson, “Observing the Earth from Space,” in John M. Logsdon, ed.,

Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume III: Using Space

(Washington, DC: NASA, 1998), pp. 155–384.
feedback mechanisms among the traditional disciplines. Universities offered courses on

Earth system science and devoted research laboratories to the subject. The new synthesis

offered the possibility for an organized examination of global environmental change, and

this effort became the core activity of NASA’s Earth science research.

In a very real sense, NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise of the early twenty-first century

began with the start of NASA’s programs in 1958. In that year, NASA’s scientists and

engineers assumed responsibility for work on TIROS-1, the world’s first Earth-observing

satellite. The TIROS-1 project began under the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1957

and then was transferred to the new space agency upon NASA’s formation. Launched in

1960, TIROS-1 gave the world the first comprehensive images of clouds and other aspects

of Earth’s weather as seen from the vantage point of Earth orbit.

These images, together with the visually powerful photographs of the whole Earth as

seen from the orbit of the Moon, gave the public as well as scientists an entirely new

perspective on Earth and sowed the seeds of the perception of our planet as an interactive

system of physical and biological subsystems. However, it was not until the early 1980s that

this conceptual framework took hold as the basis of a focused research effort.

Between the early 1960s and the development of MTPE in the mid-1980s lay more

than two decades of Earth science research from space, focusing on understanding

different aspects of the solid Earth, weather and climate, oceans, land, and ice cover. Such

research developed the basis for beginning to understand the interactions among these

realms. This important research formed the essential groundwork for the scientific

concepts that have guided the development and execution of NASA’s MTPE and ESE

programs. Over about a decade and a half, NASA articulated and began to execute a

coordinated program based on the concept of Earth as a deeply interrelated system of

systems and the related social and political goal of global habitability. In part because of

the potential social and political consequences of the research, that struggle involved not

only NASA and NASA-supported scientists, but also the National Research Council, the

NASA Advisory Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress.

Three primary themes emerged from an examination of this period in NASA’s

history: NASA’s role in the development of Earth science; the high costs of developing and

maintaining the global perspective allowed by satellite systems; and NASA as a focal point

for a debate on the pursuit of Earth science and public policy. The history of this period

illustrated the important role of scientific advisory committees in setting the agenda for

Earth science and in defending that agenda in the political process.

The Early Period

The notion that observations from space would likely further the understanding of

how Earth’s multiple physical systems function was accepted early. Just how this might

work was not known. Hence, during the period from 1960 to 1980, NASA scientists

explored the basic feasibility of making useful Earth observations from space. At the

outset, it was not evident what could be seen from space, how precisely a particular

environmental phenomenon could be measured, or who would find the data sufficiently

useful to pay for them with government or private funds. This period also tackled the

442 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
fundamental question of whether space systems could be made sufficiently reliable for

continuing use.2 In essence, this period first explored and developed the relationships

among science, space engineering, and political objectives in Earth science. Space systems

were of particular interest for exploring and monitoring Earth’s makeup because they

provided broad-scale, synoptic data that could be verified by observations conducted in

situ or from ground-based instruments. 

As the feasibility of making useful observations became established, the research

community called for increasingly sophisticated and longer-term measurements. For

example, the Landsat series of satellites, which began in 1972 with the relatively lowresolution multispectral sensor (80 meters), was upgraded by the early 1980s with the

medium-resolution thematic mapper (30 meters), which carried more spectral

bands. Nimbus-7, which was launched in 1978 to gather meteorological and ocean

data, was particularly important in stimulating the demand for further

measurements.3 This satellite’s launch occurred at the same time as the international

scientific community was paying increasing attention to climate change, e.g., as in a

major international conference that the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization

(WMO) hosted in 1979.4

In many respects, Nimbus-7 was a major influence in shaping the Earth sciences

program that followed. The long-lived satellite provided “the first satellite views of the

Antarctic ozone hole, the first global view of oceanic primary productivity [ocean color],

and early measurements of the Earth’s radiation budget and stratospheric chemical

species and aerosols.”5 Nimbus-7 also began the systematic production of monthly average

sea-ice measurements in the polar regions. Many of the satellite’s instruments (Table 1)

remained operational for more than a decade and a half, contributing to a growing

archive of environmental data.

Table 1. Nimbus Instrumentation

Instruments Functions

Coastal Zone Color The CZCS collected ocean color data from November 1978

Scanner (CZCS) to June 1986. CZCS acquired nearly 68,000 images, each

covering up to 2 million square kilometers of ocean

surface. Imagery from CZCS provided the first view of the

distribution and abundance of phytoplankton over the

global oceans, and demonstrated the ability to monitor

how these patterns change in time and space. (1)

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 443

2. Abraham Schnapf, ed., Monitoring Earth’s Ocean, Land, and Atmosphere from Space—Sensors, Systems, and

Applications, Vol. 97: Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics (New York: AIAA, 1985). 

3. I. S. Haas and R. Shapiro, “The Nimbus Satellite System: Remote Sensing R&D Platform of the 1970s,”in

Schnapf (1985), pp. 71–95; see also H. F. Eden, B. P. Elero, and J. N. Perkins, “Nimbus Satellites: Setting the

Stage for Mission to Planet Earth,” EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 74(29 June 1993): 281–285.

4. World Climate Conference, Proceedings of the World Climate Conference: A Conference of Experts on Climate and

Mankind, Geneva, 12–23 February 1979, WMO Series, no.537 (Geneva: Secretariat of the World Meteorological

Organization).

5. Eden, et al., op. cit.
Earth Radiation The ERB experiment recorded data between 16 November

Budget (ERB) 1978 and 20 June 1980. The principal products are nine

years of global albedo, outgoing longwave, and net

radiation, plus continuing solar irradiance measurements.

Chief uses of the data include studies in regional energy

heat budgets, the improvement of climate- and weatherprediction models, interannual climate variations,

shortwave bidirectional reflectance from Earth

atmosphere scenes, and solar physics. (2)

Limb Infrared LIMS mapped the vertical profiles of temperature and the

Monitor of the concentration of ozone, water vapor, nitrogen dioxide, and

Stratosphere (LIMS) nitric acid in the lower to middle stratosphere range, with

extension to the stratopause for water vapor and into the

lower mesosphere for temperature and ozone. (3)

Stratospheric Aerosol The SAMS II instrument aboard Nimbus-7 obtained polar

Measurement (SAM-II) Arctic and Antarctic aerosol profiles. It measured

attenuation of solar radiation by aerosol particles during

sunsets and sunrises. (4)

Stratospheric and SAMS made global atmospheric measurements of carbon

Mesospheric dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide,

Sounder (SAMS) methane, and nitric oxide. (5)

Solar Backscatter TOMS measured ozone indirectly by comparing ultraviolet

Ultraviolet and light emitted by the Sun to that scattered from Earth’s

Total Ozone atmosphere back to the satellite. The TOMS instrument

Mapping mapped in detail the global ozone distribution, including

Spectrometer the Antarctic “ozone hole,” which forms September

(SBUV/TOMS) through November of each year. TOMS measured sulfur

dioxide released in volcanic eruptions. (6)

Scanning SMMR observed Earth’s microwave emission between 6.6

Multichannel and 37 gigahertz in 10 channels from November 1979 to

Microwave September 1987. This data set provided an important time

Radiometer (SMMR) series of Earth’s microwave signature. With the proper

calibration, the measured radiances can be converted into

estimates of near-surface wind speed, columnar water

vapor, and liquid water of clouds and rain. (7)

Temperature THIR measured surface and cloud-top temperatures, as

Humidity Infrared well as the water vapor content of the upper atmosphere

Radiometer (THIR)

444 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
1) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Satellite Ocean Color, http://seawifs.gsfc.

nasa.gov/SEAWIFS/CZCS_DATA/DOC/CZCS_BACKGROUND.html, accessed on 

23 May 2002.

2) NASA, Nimbus-7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) Langley DAAC Project/

Campaign Document, http://charm.larc.nasa.gov/GUIDE/campaign_documents/

nimbus7_project.html, accessed on 23 May 2002.

3) National Space Science Data Center, Limb Infrared Monitor of the Stratosphere,

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1978-098A&ex=1, accessed on

23 May 2002.

4) The British Atmospheric Data Center, http://www.badc.rl.ac.uk/data/sam2/,

accessed on 28 May 2002.

5) Oxford University, Department of Physics, http://wwwatm.physics.ox.ac.uk/group/

nimbus/radiometers.html, accessed on 28 May 2002.

6) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/toms.htm, accessed on

23 May 2002.

7) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NIMBUS-7 SMMR Ocean Products: 1979–1984, http://

podaac.jpl.nasa.gov:2031/DATASET_DOCS/smmr_wentz.html, accessed on 23 May 2002.

The early period of civil Earth observations was dominated by the development of

electro-optical imaging sensors, utilizing spatial resolutions ranging from low (1–50

kilometers) to moderate (10–30 meters), with varying spectral characteristics and

resolutions.6 Scientists obtained low spatial resolution imagery from instruments on the

TIROS polar-orbiting and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES),

and moderate resolution imagery from the Landsat series. They also deployed sounding

instruments designed to produce vertical profiles of atmospheric parameters on both

polar-orbiting and geostationary weather satellites, but only slowly integrated these data

into weather-forecasting models. The TIROS and GOES series of satellites were

developed by NASA, with input from the Weather Bureau, and later transferred to

operational status within NOAA, which was created in October 1970 by the Weather

Bureau and other agencies.7

The secret reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. yielded first

photographic and later electro-optical data of enhanced spatial resolution, but these data

were not offered for most civilian uses until the mid-1990s. First, the federal government

released photographic data from the Corona series through 1972.8 In 2002, NIMA

released thousands of frames of imagery from the KH-7 and KH-9 reconnaissance

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 445

6. Pamela E. Mack and Ray A. Williamson, “Observing the Earth from Space,” op. cit.

7. Eileen L. Shea, “A History of NOAA, Being a Compilation of Facts and Figures Regarding the Life and

Times of the Original Whole Earth Agency,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1987,

http://www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/noaahistory.html, accessed May 2003.

8. Albert D. Wheelon, “Corona: The First Reconnaissance Satellite,” Physics Today (February 1997): 24–30;

Philip J. Klass, Secret Sentries in Space (New York: Random House, 1971); William E. Burroughs, Deep Black: Space

Espionage and National Security (New York: Random House, 1986); Dwayne A. Day, John M. Logsdon, and Brian

Latell, eds., Eye in the Sky: The Story of the CORONA Reconnaissance Satellite (Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press, 1998).
satellites.9 Sensors aboard the commercial high-resolution satellites, which were first

launched in the late 1990s and early 2000s, provided multispectral and panchromatic data

of higher resolution than the early reconnaissance satellites.10

Through the 1970s and early 1980s, NASA pursued a variety of research programs in

cooperation with NOAA and the international community. Among others, these

international efforts included the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), the

GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE), and the Monsoon Experiment (MONEX).

The multidisciplinary GARP, which began in the 1960s, was a joint effort between the

International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and the WMO, and was the forerunner

of the current World Climate Research Program. GATE was conducted in 1974 and was

focused, in part, on understanding the interactions between convective activity and largescale weather systems, and how issues of scale affected these interactions. The 1979

MONEX campaign was part of the Global Weather Experiment (GWE) and was the first

comprehensive experiment on the Asian monsoon, focused mainly on meteorological

disturbances related to the onset of monsoons and their short-term variability. 

In the 1980s, NASA also participated in observing ozone depletion in the upper

atmosphere and in determining the cause of that harmful phenomenon. Specifically, it

took part in the first field experiment focused on ozone—the National Ozone Experiment

(NOZE)—and led the 1987 Airborne Antarctic Experiment (AAOE).

NASA’s role in these research efforts helped to establish NASA’s scientific credibility

in the international community and demonstrated its commitment to working with other

national and international agencies. Such research also provided the background data

and scientific understanding for the next step in integrating research from all aspects of

planet Earth.

Calls for an Integrated Program of Global Observations

In the early 1980s, in response to a growing consensus in the scientific community, the

initiative dubbed “global habitability” emerged within NASA. This call for new Earth

observations programs was explicitly tied to emerging scientific and public policy

concerns related to global change in general, and global climate change in particular. The

scientific aspects of these concerns were forcefully articulated in the following three major

reports published by NASA and the National Academy of Sciences.

Global Change: Impacts on Habitability

The first of these reports contained the results of a workshop convened by NASA and

chaired by scientist Richard Goody. (See Document IV-2.) By the time this workshop was

446 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

9. Many of these images are available through the National Archives and through the U.S. Geological

Center’s EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD.

10. John C. Baker, Kevin O’Connell, and Ray A. Williamson, Commercial Observation Satellites: At the Leading

Edge of Global Transparency (Washington, DC: RAND and ASPRS, 2001).
held, the need to conduct detailed scientific studies of Earth from space was well accepted

as the most viable way to obtain global data sets, though questions remained regarding the

quality and depth of such observations. Some fifty scientists contributed to this report,

which called for a long-term program to accomplish the following:

. . . to document, to understand, and if possible, to predict long-term global changes

that can affect the habitability of the Earth. The major factor contributing to change

is human activity. The problem is urgent in the sense that situations are already being

created that can take decades to reverse . . . the need is urgent for a commitment to

proceed by the federal government. 

The program will include studies of the atmosphere, oceans, land, the cryosphere,

and the biosphere. On decadal time scales, these regimes and the cycles of physical and

chemical entities through them are coupled into a single interlocking system.11

Although the Goody report was not the first text to recognize the coupled nature of

Earth’s biophysical systems,12 by the early 1980s, scientists had gained sufficient

understanding of some critical interactions, such as those between the atmosphere and the

oceans, to lead to the outline of a comprehensive research program. Observations to support

broad-based research in the Earth sciences had always been a part of NASA’s efforts, but the

more comprehensive nature of both the desired observations and their underlying scientific

foundation had a character quite distinct from the previous efforts of the 1960s and 1970s.

The early work tended to be correlative and phenomenological rather than deeply analytical

and based on a comprehensive theoretical foundation. The Goody report assembled in one

document the principal scientific ideas that led to the eventual formation of NASA’s concept

of an MTPE. It was also the first major report to recognize explicitly the connection between

the scientific enterprise and mankind’s interest in maintaining a habitable planet.

The Goody report and the work that went into it raised awareness within the scientific

community to a point where it began to be noticed within the broader community of

science policy-makers. This awareness also led to a decision within NASA, supported by

the White House, to take the issue of global habitability to the United Nations Unispace

II Conference, held in Vienna in August 1982,13 where it was one of seven multilateral

initiatives put forward by the U.S. delegation. (See Documents IV-1, IV-3, IV-4, and IV-5.)

Global habitability, as proposed by the United States, was an international cooperative

research effort to obtain data from space and through other means on changes in the

environment that would affect Earth’s ability to sustain human life for the long term.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 447

11. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Global Change: Impacts on Habitability, A Scientific Basis for Assessment,

1982, report by the Executive Committee of a workshop held at Woods Hole, Mass., 21–26 June 1982, submitted

on behalf of the Executive Committee on 7 July 1982, by Richard Goody, chair.

12. See Charles Mathews, “ERTS-1: Teaching Us a New Way to See,” Astronautics and Aeronautics 11

(September): 36–40; and Marvin Holter, “Some Thoughts on Earth Observations,” in Symposium Proceedings,

Remote Sensing Applied to Energy-Related Problems (Ann Arbor, MI: Environmental Research Institute of

Michigan, 1974).

13. United Nations, Report of the Second United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer

Space, A/CONF.101/10, Vienna, 9–21 August 1982; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Unispace

’82: A Context for International Cooperation and Competition, OTA-TM-ISC-26 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, March 1983).
However, despite considerable scientific interest in a comprehensive international

program, global habitability did not immediately gain the political support within the U.S.

that was needed to create a funded international research program.

Toward an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program

Despite the lack of clear political support within the White House for such a program,

Goody and his collaborators continued to explore the issue. The following year, the

scientific concept of an interdisciplinary approach to Earth science had evolved and

strengthened, carrying on and expanding the themes of the Goody report in the report

of a National Research Council workshop chaired by Herbert Friedman. (See Documents

IV-6 and IV-7.) The following is an excerpt from this report:

The real connections that link the geosphere and biosphere to each other are

subtle, complex, and often synergistic; their study transcends the bounds of

specialized, scientific disciplines and the scope of limited, national scientific

endeavors. . . . If, however, we could launch a cooperative interdisciplinary program

in the Earth sciences, on an international scale, we might hope to take a major step

toward revealing the physical, chemical, and biological workings of the Sun-Earth

system and the mysteries of the origins and survival of life in the biosphere. The

concept of an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), as outlined in

this report, calls for this sort of bold, “holistic” venture in organized research—the

study of whole systems of interdisciplinary science in an effort to understand global

changes in the terrestrial environment and its living systems.

Nearly 50 scientists from universities, the government, and the boards of the NRC

participated in the formulation of the IGBP, which recommended greater emphasis on

international collaboration than did the Goody report. The Goody and Friedman

reports reflected a growing consensus in the scientific community for the systematic

investigation of Earth as an interacting, complex system. Together, they defined the

scientific basis for the MTPE.

The ESSC and the Bretherton Reports

The next influential step in the development of NASA’s MTPE was the publication of

two reports from the Earth Systems Science Committee (ESSC), formed under the aegis

of the NASA Advisory Council, the most senior of the NASA advisory committees. (See

Document IV-11.) This committee, chaired by climate scientist Francis Bretherton, was

charged with addressing the themes raised by the Goody and Friedman Reports. It

recommended a series of specific space missions, together with “an interdisciplinary

program of basic Earth system research and in situ measurements to be carried out by

NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other federal agencies.” It

also recommended “an advanced information system to process global data and to

448 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
facilitate data analysis, data interpretation, and quantitative modeling of Earth system

processes.”14

These two reports, to which more than 230 scientists contributed, laid out a specific

road map for what became NASA’s MTPE, and its primary component, the Earth

Observing System (EOS). The Bretherton reports envisioned a comprehensive design of

space missions of varied scope and size, including:

• continued and improved NOAA polar and geostationary satellite programs;

• new operational sensors and platforms;

• coordinated specialized space research missions to examine specific processes; 

• centralized Earth data and information system; and

• “Earth Observing System of polar-orbiting platforms planned as part of the U.S.

space station program.”

The ESSC reports envisioned a broad, inclusive program with the goal of obtaining “a

scientific understanding of the entire Earth system on a global scale by describing how its

component parts and their interactions have evolved, how they function, and how they

may be expected to continue to evolve on all timescales.”15 This remains a daunting task

today. Further, Earth system science had the challenge of developing “the capability to

predict those changes that will occur in the next decade to century, both naturally and in

response to human activity.”16 This vision was seminal in initiating a major new thrust in

Earth science, and led to a ten-year, $17-billion program to develop large polar-orbiting

platforms that would be launched on the Space Shuttle. It was also a major component in

the development of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a government-wide effort

to explore the changes taking place in Earth’s climate and other environmental systems.

The report then listed and categorized the measurements required in order to

achieve the report’s goals. Table 2 summarizes these variables, which shaped the program

that evolved from the ESSC reports. The list reveals the very wide range of measurements

that were needed (some of which were of uncertain feasibility at the time, and others of

which could not realistically be made using space-based observations). This list of variables

became the touchstone during each revision of the program during the 1990s. 

Equally ambitious was the proposed implementation of the space systems needed to

collect the required data. The report proposed using or developing the most advanced

technology available for the measurements.

The work of the ESSC portrayed a picture of the Earth sciences of remarkable breadth

and great scientific attractiveness. The material from ESSC reports quickly found its way

into textbooks and even more quickly into classrooms. Entirely new curricula evolved as

the participants in the ESSC returned to their academic institutions and spread the Earth

systems view. NASA employed its considerable presentation skills in publishing widely read

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 449

14. NASA Advisory Council, Earth System Science, Overview, A Program for Global Change, report of the Earth

System Sciences Committee, 1986a; NASA Advisory Council, The Crisis in Space and Earth Science, A Time for a New

Commitment, report of the Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee, 1986b.

15. NASA Advisory Council, Earth System Science: A Closer View, report of the Earth System Sciences

Committee, 1988.

16. Ibid.
documents espousing the new view. Unfortunately, as noted in a later section, the tie to

the human exploration program soon proved problematic.

Table 2. Summary of ESSC-Recommended Earth Science Measurements

External Forcing

• Solar Irradiance

• Ultraviolet Flux

• Index of Volcanic Emissions

Radiatively and Chemically

Important Trace Species

• CO2 • Stratospheric O3

• N2O • Stratospheric H2O

• CH4 • Stratospheric NO2

• Chlorofluoromethanes • Stratospheric HNO3

• Tropospheric O3 • Stratospheric HCL

• CO • Stratospheric Aerosols

Atmospheric Response Variables

• Surface Air Temperature • Tropospheric Water Vapor

• Tropospheric Temperature • Precipitation

• Stratospheric Temperature • Components of Earth Radiation Budget

• Surface Pressure • Cloud Amount, Type, Height

• Tropical Winds • Tropospheric Aerosols

• Extratropical Winds

Land-Surface Properties

• Surface-Radiating Temperature • Surface Characteristics (Albedo,

Roughness, Infrared, and Microwave

Emittance)

• Incident Solar Flux • Index of Land Use Changes (Broad

Classification of Vegetation Types)

• Snow Cover • Index of Vegetation Cover

• Snow Water Equivalent • Index of Surface Wetness

• River Runoff (Volume) • Soil Moisture

• River Runoff (Sediment Loading) • Biome Extent, Productivity, and

Nutrient Cycling

• River Runoff (Chemical Constituents)

Ocean Variables

• Sea-Surface Temperature • Incident Solar Flux

• Sea-Ice Extent • Subsurface Circulation

• Sea-Ice Type • Ocean Chlorophyll

• Sea-Ice Motion • Biogeochemical Fluxes

• Ocean Wind Stress • Ocean CO2

• Sea Level

450 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The Earth Observing System

Even before the publication of the Bretheron reports, NASA’s Earth Science and

Applications Division began planning for a major program in Earth science research by

assembling the Science and Mission Requirements Working Group for the EOS. This

twenty-member group, many of whose participants overlapped with the ESSC, developed

a two-part report17 that called for comprehensive observations of Earth according to the

following interlocking themes.

1. Research on fundamental processes within traditional disciplines—hydrologic

cycle, the biogeochemical cycles, and climate processes.

2. Employ operational capabilities ranging “from detailed in situ and laboratory

measurements to the global perspective offered by satellite-based remote sensing.”

3. Measure “a number of the parameters of the natural system . . . over time scales of

seasons to years, persistent observations of dynamic phenomena . . . to build data

records which stretch over a decade or more.”

4. Preserve key observations that already have been gathered and provide improved

access to them.

This working group developed specific goals for the cycles and processes they wished

to characterize (Box A) and derived from them a conceptual research payload consisting

of three groups of sensors and a data collection and location system (Box B). This

notional payload became the initial baseline of EOS and led to the development of a plan

for two large platforms, both in orbit at the same time (one in a morning-crossing Sunsynchronous orbit, the other in an afternoon-crossing orbit). Some instruments were to

fly on both platforms; others were to fly on only one.

BOX A—Earth Science Goals for the 1990s, as Stated by 

the EOS Science and Mission Requirements Working Group

Hydrologic Cycle

• Quantify the processes of precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, and

runoff on a global basis.

• Determine what factors control the hydrologic cycle.

• Determine the effects of sea and land ice upon the global hydrologic cycle.

• Quantify the interactions between the vegetation, soil, and topographic

characteristics of the land surface and the components of the hydrologic cycle.

Biogeochemical Cycles

• Understand the biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur,

and trace metals. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 451

17. Earth Observing System, Science and Mission Requirements Working Group Report, Volume I, Parts 1 and 2, NASA

Technical Memorandum 86129 (Greenbelt, MD: Goddard Space Flight Center, 1984).
• Determine the global distribution of biomass and what controls both its

heterogeneous distribution in space and its change over time. 

• Determine the global distribution of gross primary production and respiration

by autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms, and the annual cycle and year-toyear variation of these processes.

• Determine the transport of sediments and nutrients from the land to inland

waters and ocean.

• Quantify the global distribution and transport of tropospheric gases and

aerosols, and determine the strengths of their sources and sinks in the ocean,

land surface, coastal and inland waters, and upper atmosphere. 

• Understand the processes controlling acid precipitation and deposition.

Climatological Processes

• Determine the modes of large-scale and low-frequency variability (month-tomonth and year-to-year time scales) of meteorological variables such as wind,

pressure, temperature, cloudiness, and precipitation.

• Quantify the large-scale and low-frequency variability of net incoming solar

radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation and their relationships to

cloudiness.

• Determine the relationships between large-scale and low-frequency variability of

meteorological observables and the variability of sea-surface temperatures and

current systems.

• Quantify the influences of changes in land-surface evaporation, albedo, and

roughness on local and regional climate.

• Assess the influence of sea and land ice cover on global climate.

• Improve and extend knowledge of past climates.

• Determine the role of land biota as sources and/or sinks of carbon dioxide and

other radiatively important trace gases.

• Predict climate on a probabilistic basis.

Geophysical Processes

Atmospheric

• Understand the coupling of the chemical, radiative, and dynamic processes of

the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere.

• Determine the coupling between the lower and upper atmosphere.

• Improve the quantitative understanding of the variability of atmospheric ozone,

including the influence of anthropogenic perturbations.

• Improve the understanding of the mechanisms for the maintenance and

variability of atmospheric electric fields.

• Improve the accuracy of deterministic weather forecasting and extend the useful

forecast period.

Oceanic

• Measure the mesoscale to large-scale circulation of the ocean and acquire a

better understanding of the long-term variability in this circulation.

452 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
• Determine the global heat, mass, and momentum coupling between the ocean

and atmosphere.

• Understand the processes controlling the dynamics of sea ice and its interaction

with the underlying water.

• Determine the upper ocean response to thermal and atmospheric forcing,

including the effects of persistent horizontal variability.

• Characterize the exchange processes between surface and deep waters.

Solid Earth

• Determine the global distribution, geometry, and composition of continental

rock units.

• Understand the causes of the morphology and structure of the continental crust.

• Understand how episodic processes such as rainfall, runoff, dust storms, and

volcanism modify the surface of Earth.

• Understand the dynamics of inland ice sheets.

• Determine the relation between the factors of climate, topography, vegetation,

and the geologic substrata and the processes of soil formation and degradation.

• Understand the secular variation in plate velocities.

• Determine the platform, vertical structure, and time variation of mantle

convection.

• Measure the global gravity and magnetic fields to reveal with greater accuracy and

resolution the structure of the lower crust and upper mantle lithosphere.

• Explain secular variations, including reversals, in Earth’s magnetic field.

• Explain secular variations in Earth’s long wavelength gravity field in terms of the

viscosity structure of the mantle.

SOURCE: NASA (1984)

Box B—Conceptual Research Payload for EOS, 

as Described by the EOS Science and Mission Requirements Working Group

1. Data Collection

Advanced Data Collection and Location System (ADCLS)

2. Surface Imaging and Sounding Package (SISP)

Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS)

High-resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS)

High-resolution Multifrequency Mircrowave Radiometer (HMMR)

Laser Atmospheric Sounder and Altimeter (LASA)

3. Sensing with Active Microwaves (SAM)

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)

Radar Altimeter (RA or ALT)

Scatterometer (SCAT)

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 453
4. Atmospheric Physical and Chemical Monitor (APACM)

Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (LAWS)

Upper Atmospheric Wind Interferometers

Tropospheric Composition Monitors

SOURCE: NASA (1984)

Reports of the Committee on Earth Sciences

Concurrent with the NASA studies of the early 1980s, the Space Studies Board (SSB)

of the National Research Council (NRC) was conducting its own studies of what types of

space-based measurements were needed and how they should be integrated with other

Earth science research. The first of these studies (1982) examined research needs for the

solid Earth and the oceans;18 the second (1985) examined the atmosphere and its

interactions with the land, oceans, and biota. The second report identified three major

goals to accomplish the following.

1. Determine the atmospheric distributions and cycles of mass, energy, momentum,

and water vapor and/or chemical constituents important to climate and to the

maintenance of life.

2. Understand the physical and chemical dynamics of the atmosphere and its

interactions with the land, ice caps, oceans, and biota.

3. Understand the evolution of the atmosphere to its present states and predict its

future evolution on time scales less than 100 years, including the effects of

anthropogenic and natural perturbations.19

These reports strengthened the case for additional Earth science funding and

provided the basis for establishing a focused effort within NASA’s Space Science and

Applications Program. 

Mission to Planet Earth

In 1987, NASA released a report authored by former astronaut Dr. Sally Ride,

entitled Leadership and America’s Future in Space, which, among other programs,

suggested that NASA adopt a Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) as one of its four major

themes to take NASA into the twenty-first century.20 The overall report was an attempt to

454 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

18. Committee on Earth Sciences, A Strategy for Earth Science from Space in the 1980’s, Part I: Solid Earth and

Oceans (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982).

19. Committee on Earth Sciences, A Strategy for Earth Science from Space in the 1980’s and 1990’s, Part II:

Atmosphere and Interactions with the Solid Earth, Oceans, and Biota (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1985).

20. Sally Ride, NASA Leadership and America’s Future in Space: A Report to the Administrator, NASA, August

1987.
establish broad goals for continuing the U.S. leadership in space. The section on MTPE

(see Document IV-12) stressed the initiative’s “fundamental importance to humanity’s

future on this planet,” noting that it “directly addresses the problems that will be facing

humanity in the coming decades.”21 It also stressed the global nature of the science and

reminded readers that the very nature of the potential problems faced by humanity

demands international cooperation. The Ride report urged NASA to take a clear

leadership role in this endeavor. 

NASA adopted the term Mission to Planet Earth as the name of its Earth science

program, a name that it retained until November 1997, when it was dropped in favor of

Earth Science Enterprise. (See Document IV-27.) Then NASA Administrator Dan Goldin

considered the latter name more reflective of the program’s overall focus.

EOS and the Space Shuttle

The very scope and ambition of EOS, the centerpiece of the early MTPE, became

somewhat of a liability in the budgetary process on Capitol Hill. The funding levels that

this ambitious program implied could not be sustained, and over the next decade the

program was repeatedly reduced in scale, in part because of circumstances within NASA

but unrelated to the envisioned EOS scientific program. 

For example, the inclusion of the large polar platforms reflected larger national

priorities in the early 1980s, which directed that the government’s expendable launch

vehicles (ELVs) should be phased out in favor of the Space Shuttle. National policy

envisioned that the Space Shuttle would become the only launch vehicle for

government launches. Although by the time of the Bretherton report, national policy

also allowed for the development of private ELVs, no company was willing to risk

competing for business with the Space Shuttle, which was offering launch services to

private customers as well as supporting government needs.22 Hence, despite the fact that

the Space Shuttle was capable of carrying only a limited payload to polar orbit, it was

the only launch vehicle that appeared to be available to the scientists. Further, because

of the major investment in the Space Shuttle and NASA’s interest in using it as often as

possible in order to reduce the cost per flight, proposing a series of polar platforms that

could be tended by humans operating from the Space Shuttle seemed a sensible

political move at the time.

The assumption that astronauts and payload specialists would be available to trade

instruments or repair them as needed, which was taken as a given by NASA officials,

affected scientific planning. Any reservations concerning the complexity and reliability of

the instrumentation on such large, complex payloads were moderated by the prospect

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 455

21. Ibid, p. 51.

22. John Logsdon and Craig Reed, “Commercializing Space Transportation,” in John M. Logsdon, Roger

D. Launius, and Stephen J. Garber, eds., Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil

Space Program, Vol. 4: Accessing Space (Washington, DC: NASA SP 4407, 1999), pp. 405–422; Ray A. Williamson,

“The U.S.-Europe Technology Gap in Space Transportation: The View from the United States,” Space Policy

(2000).
that onorbit repair and/or replacement would be available, as in the case of the Hubble

Space Telescope.23

This was despite the fact that most of NASA’s ambitious Earth-observation programs

could have been pursued more quickly using sensor technology and platforms already

available, and which did not require tending by astronauts. Some have argued that the

drive to put large, technically challenging instruments on astronaut-serviced platforms

actually set back Earth science research, especially for oceanic research.24

The subsequent loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on 26 January 1986 abruptly

changed the entire outlook for polar-orbiting Earth science platforms. When, in August

1986, President Reagan announced that henceforth the Space Shuttle would be limited to

payloads requiring its special capabilities, and that it would not be flown into polar orbit,

the science community was faced with a redesign of the EOS platforms. Satellites designed

for launch on the Space Shuttle required different configurations and attach points than

those designed for ELVs, and could not be configured to fly on both types of vehicles

without considerable expense. Further, because the only vehicle capable of carrying the

EOS polar platforms to orbit was the very expensive Titan IV,25 EOS scientists were forced

into a conceptual redesign of the entire EOS program, to place the platforms on an

intermediate capacity launch vehicle that had not yet been developed.

Fortunately for the EOS program, the Department of Defense also faced the same gap

in launch capacity and contracted for the development of the Atlas II ELV, capable of

lifting some 4,800 kilograms into low-Earth polar orbit. In December 1999, that vehicle

was used to launch Terra, the first satellite derived from the EOS planning for large polarorbiting platforms.

The Space Studies Board and the Twenty-First Century Study

In the late 1980s, the Space Studies Board, as part of its broad-based study of the

direction space science should take in the twenty-first century, formed a task group on

earth sciences to study NASA’s EOS proposal. It endorsed and extended the EOS proposal

using the term Mission to Planet Earth to frame the effort it envisioned.

“The task group therefore proposes a Mission to Planet Earth to include all

the program elements required to understand a planet with an atmosphere,

456 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

23. For the Hubble Space Telescope, repair and modification has proven expensive but highly successful.

However, Hubble orbits 600 kilometers above Earth in an orbit inclined at 23.5 degrees from the equator rather

than from polar orbit. Launching into polar orbit requires much more energy (and therefore fuel) and, for the

Space Shuttle, would have required a launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Attempts to

construct a Space Shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg were abandoned following the loss of Challenger. See Ray

A. Williamson, “The Space Shuttle” in John M. Logsdon, Roger D. Launius, and Stephen J. Garber, eds.,

Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Vol. 4: Accessing Space

(Washington, DC: NASA SP 4407, 1999), pp. 161–193.

24. Committee on Earth Sciences, Earth Observations from Space: History, Promise, and Reality (Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1995), p. 32.

25. Estimates of the cost of a Titan IV launch ranged between $180,000 and $250,000 .
hydrosphere, biosphere, solid crust, mantle, and solid-liquid core. The proposal

sets forth a concerted and integrated research program on the origin, evolution,

and nature of our planet and its place in the solar system.”

The study further urged a grand strategy with three primary measurement themes.

1. Global and Synoptic—We have learned that advances in Earth science derive from

the synthesis of new ideas that come from global synoptic observations.

2. Long-Term Continuity—The Earth as a system is energetic on many scales, from

microseisms to interannual El Niño, to ice ages. However, even if we restrict

ourselves to decadal time changes—the human time scale—statistics dictate that

measurements over many years will be required before we can make accurate

statements about the energetics of the system.

3. Simultaneity—This entails observations of different kinds of processes at the same

time. It includes study of the land, ocean, atmosphere, and biota as an interactive

system on a global scale. Earth sciences have tended to treat these components as

separate disciplines.26

The report recognized the poor match between the time periods required for the

observations it was urging and the political decision-making process, which tended to shift

its focus over relatively short time scales. The report suggested that “there is a need for a

national commitment to carrying measurements through the necessary time periods.”

Concern Over Mission Delays and Lost Opportunities: The Earth Explorers Study

Although the Space Studies Board’s Committee on Earth Science was firmly behind

the plan to develop and operate an EOS, many members of the scientific community felt

there were important gaps in NASA’s approach. For one thing, the EOS platforms were

not able to collect all the measurements that Earth scientists wanted. For another, many

scientists were unhappy with the lack of flexibility to take new measurements as new

knowledge was obtained.

Scientists especially worried that the large platforms would take many years to develop

and launch. Not only would the emphasis on the large platforms make it difficult for NASA

to respond quickly to scientific findings that suggested a different approach or new types

of measurements, or to fill gaps in the collection of important data such as ocean color (see

later section, “Small Spacecraft and Data Purchases”), the long lead times for new satellites

were making it difficult to attract graduate students or young faculty to the field. Further,

managing a large satellite program became more difficult because the operation of every

instrument depended on the slowest one in the development queue. Finally, the approval

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 457

26. Task Group on Earth Sciences, Space Science in the Twenty-First Century, Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to

2015—Mission to Planet Earth (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988a).
process for large missions, both within NASA and the Office of Management and Budget,

as well as within Congress, became much more complicated and lengthy.

At the same time, technological advances were making it possible to build smaller,

cheaper instruments that could be launched on a smaller satellite within a few years of

a decision to proceed with a new mission. Hence the CES began to examine specifically

the role small satellites might play in furthering the aims of an integrated Earth science

research program. Among other things, the CES report suggested the creation of an

Earth Explorer series of missions that would permit “the construction of two small

missions per year, or one moderate mission every three years.”27

The 1991 CES Assessment Report

The original configuration proposed in the ESSC activity involved the deployment of

an EOS made up of two large platforms, EOS-A and EOS-B, which were descendents of

the space station activities. EOS-A was to be launched into a morning orbit, and EOS-B

into an afternoon orbit. NASA planned to replace these platforms every five years with

identical copies in order to obtain a consistent fifteen-year data set. NASA distilled the

variables listed in Table 2 to a key group of twenty-four basic data sets (Table 3) to be

obtained from the mission, and NASA committed to obtaining these data for at least

fifteen years with consistency and continuity.

By 1991, the Committee on Earth Science was still expressing cautious optimism about

NASA’s Earth science research plans, feeling that with the expected modernization of

NOAA’s environmental satellite program, the United States would maintain its substantial

international leadership in Earth science research from space. The study noted that progress

was still needed in hydrology, land-surface geology and vegetation, and in understanding the

gravitational and magnetic fields. It complained that the high costs of obtaining Landsat or

SPOT data from the commercial suppliers had severely hampered research in hydrology and

land-surface geology and vegetation. The committee also expressed concern over the lack of

a synthetic aperture radar satellite and the High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS),

both of which were severely delayed under the EOS program.28

The optimism of this report and its support of EOS were soon undercut in part by

increasing congressional concern over the size and scope of NASA’s Earth science

ambitions. The size of the proposed EOS program ($17 billion over a ten-year period) and

its connection with studies of global warming caused congressional members already

skeptical about the use of Earth science data to support the concerns of the

environmental activist community to question this program closely. Further, the George

H. W. Bush Administration cut the proposed overall NASA budget, which had been rising.

This led to a sharp reduction in total funding for EOS ($11 billion for the same ten-year

period), forcing NASA to restructure its Earth science program.

458 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

27. Committee on Earth Sciences, Strategy for Earth Explorers in Global Earth Sciences (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1988b).

28. HIRIS was eventually dropped from NASA’s list of EOS instrumentation and the United States still has

no orbiting civilian synthetic aperture radar system.
Restructuring

NASA gave the task of helping to restructure MTPE to the EOS Engineering Review

Committee, chaired by Edward Frieman, then chairman of the National Research Council

Board on Sustainable Development. The committee’s report (see Document IV-13) cited

three main reasons for the study:

• the relatively high costs of EOS and its associated EOS Data and Information

System (EOSDIS);

• the long delay the existing EOS structure imposed on the provision of Earth

science information of interest to policy-makers; and

• alternate sensors and/or platforms might be preferred on scientific and technical

grounds.29

This report and the pressures that led to its production resulted in significant changes

in NASA’s plans for EOS. The committee concluded the following.

• EOS-A and EOS-B (the flagship satellites that were to lead the EOS armada of

satellites) can and should be completely reconfigured. Packages of sensors can

now be flown in smaller clusters whose choice should be dictated by the scientific

priorities set by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The resulting

program is both resilient and robust.

• The committee believes that [the planned] early missions can be of great

benefit in the overall drive to understand global climate change, and the

program of precursor missions should be strengthened and integrated into a

coherent plan.

• The committee recommends that [the Departments of Energy and Defense],

along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, be made an

integral part of the above coherent plan. Further, launches of small satellites

carrying high priority sensors should be carried out by this group by 1995. The

plan itself should be put under the aegis of the Committee on Earth and

Environmental Sciences of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science,

Engineering, and Technology for oversight.

• The committee recommends that NASA reexamine EOSDIS both as to its utility

in a redesigned program and on its merits in handling the data and information

needs of such a large component of the USGCRP.

• The committee recommends . . . that the overall USGCRP be reexamined with

the view of achieving proper balance between the space-based and nonspacebased components. Any needed restructuring should focus primarily on science

priorities and timeliness of data availability.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 459

29. NASA Advisory Council Report of the Earth Observing System (EOS) Engineering Review Committee,

1991.
The report further urged integrating the objectives of the Earth Probes series of

investigative sensors and spacecraft with EOS planning and declared that EOSDIS, the

distribution system for EOS data products, should be modified in parallel with changes in

EOS. It also urged consideration of a smaller, “intermediate launch vehicle,” the

Lockheed Martin Titan IIAS, for launching EOS-A and EOS-B. This change would require

NASA to lighten the satellite by removing some instruments that were to fly together to

accommodate simultaneity of data collection. The committee felt that the need to achieve

simultaneity of some measurements could be satisfied by orbiting the necessary sensors in

formation on small spacecraft.

Finally, the Frieman Committee noted that a fifteen-year time horizon was

unrealistically short and that to follow the sometimes-subtle long-term changes of climate

would require a longer commitment. The committee’s decision on this point was driven

in part by its realization that the world would face “a steadily increasing list of physical and

chemical problems in the global environment.”

This report led to the first of several efforts to restructure EOS and to shift its focus

to an emphasis on global climate change. This change of emphasis meant a reduction or

delay in NASA’s research on stratospheric chemistry and its effects on ozone depletion, as

well as the study of the physics of the solid Earth. It also meant making some compromises

in meeting scientific requirements, such as simultaneous measurements and reductions in

the quality of some measurements.30

The Frieman Committee report and other pressures led NASA to develop a

restructuring plan that it delivered to Congress in the spring of 1992. (See Document 

IV-15.) Congress held several hearings to examine NASA’s plans and heard from both

supporters and critics of its plans. In general, however, most scientists supported the

increased program flexibility that the Frieman Committee report urged, though certain

science areas were slighted. (See Document IV-14.)

Rescoping

The restructuring process was only underway for a short time when NASA

Administrator Goldin levied an additional reduction of 30 percent in the EOS runout

budget through 2000, a funding decrease from $11 billion to $8 billion. The EOS Payload

Advisory Panel (see Document IV-17), which had been appointed to recommend the best

path for rescoping the program, recommended “reducing the amount of contingency

held to handle unexpected problems in instrument development,” while also

acknowledging that this would lead to a loss in future flexibility in the program.31 The

panel acknowledged that the United States increasingly would have to rely on its

international partners to supply some of the desired data. This also meant “relinquishing

460 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

30. EOS Investigators Working Group (EOS IWG), Payload Advisory Panel Recommendations (Washington,

DC: NASA, 1991).

31. EOS Payload Advisory Panel, Adapting the Earth Observing System to the Projected $8 Billion Budget:

Recommendations from the EOS Investigators, Berrien Moore III and Jeff Dozier, eds. (Washington, DC: NASA,

1992).
to international partners the development of new advanced technologies in laser and

active microwave remote sensing.”

The resulting rescoping of EOS initially assumed the availability of the Atlas IIAS

intermediate launch vehicle for the spacecraft that were to follow EOS-A and EOS-B. In

December 1992, NASA allowed industry contracts to study the design of a common

spacecraft for these later missions. Yet, shortly after the presentation of these results in the

fall of 1993, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin directed a repeat of the studies under the

assumption that the spacecraft would be launched on the smaller capacity Delta II launch

vehicle. This necessitated the development of smaller, lighter spacecraft and a further

reduction of the scientific scope of EOS.

Rebaselining

Congressional pressure to make MTPE more relevant to policy-makers and to

increase the timeliness of the program’s results to the decision-making process, as well

as a realization that the rescoping attempt had left too little reserve in the EOS

program, led to another fiscal scrub of the program. In the spring of 1994, NASA began

an internal review with three teams (the Project, Core Science, and Review teams),

complemented by twenty-six subteams. The results of this effort led both the Payload

Advisory Panel and the independent Senior Review Group to conclude that the

rescoping effort had added significant risk to the program and affected future science

measurements adversely.32

Reshaping

Dissatisfaction with aspects of the rebaselined program within both the administration

and Congress resulted in NASA undertaking a new set of program studies. At about the

same time, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) within the White House

initiated a broad study of ways in which to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

federal R&D. The Interagency Federal Laboratory Review examined the various

laboratories of the Departments of Defense and Energy, and NASA. Administrator Goldin

charged the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) with the task of responding for NASA, and

NAC convened a NASA Federal Laboratory Review (NFLR) task force for the purpose.

That report noted “the task force found little evidence of advanced technology

development for and infusion into MTPE.” Further, “thorough searches at each of the

Centers involved in the MTPE Enterprise led the task force to conclude that, while there

is excellent science being pursued within MTPE, there is a lack of definition of scientific

milestones and need dates that will provide the national policy process with the necessary

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 461

32. Angelita Castro Kelly, “The Evolving Earth Observing System (EOS) Mission Operations Concept: Then

and Now,” Fourth International Symposium on Space Mission Operations and Ground Data Systems, ESA-SP-394, vol. 1,

1996, pp.106–113.
information to make decisions in a timely manner.”33 As a result of this study, NASA

pursued another internal study, which focused on reducing program costs and examined

issues concerned with inserting new technologies into the program after 2000. 

In March 1995, NASA also began a study that addressed the need for closer

collaboration between NASA and NOAA on MTPE-related issues in order to reduce EOS

costs and assist in the transition to operational instruments in NOAA’s environmental

satellite program. As part of that effort, NASA examined the transition of technology it

developed for EOS into the National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite System

(NPOESS). NPOESS was a joint effort of the Air Force, NOAA, and NASA to develop and

operate a single polar-orbiting environmental system in cooperation with Eumetsat, the

European meteorological satellite program.

Overall, these and other studies were focused on lowering program costs by reshaping

MTPE with modifications in EOSDIS and redesigning the EOS satellites that were to

follow EOS-A and EOS-B. The NPOESS study reflected an increasing realization that one

way to obtain a long-term data set was to develop operational instruments returning data

of sufficient quality to serve scientific as well as operational needs. 

Additional Congressional Reviews

The previous reviews, though informed by congressional concerns, were driven

primarily by administration efforts, first within the administration of President H. W.

George Bush and then that of President Bill Clinton, to reduce NASA’s budget. In part

because NASA’s Earth science program is the largest single component of the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP), congressional critics often focused their concerns

about the direction of the USGCRP at MTPE, raising questions about the scientific focus

and validity of the satellite program that would support USGCRP research. 

For example, on 6 April 1995, Congressman Bob Walker, chairman of the House of

Representatives Committee on Science, sent a letter to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin

asking a series of questions about MTPE, such as “Is the science that is being conducted as a

part of the MTPE/EOS program fully justified on strictly scientific terms? Has it been fully peerreviewed?” (See Document IV-19.) Separate letters on the same day to the National Academy of

Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering requested that the National Research

Council (the operating arm of the Academies) Board on Sustainable Development review the

scientific progress of MTPE and USGCRP. (See Document IV-20.) Congressman Walker also

asked the Academies to assess the role of NASA’s EOS within the USGCRP. These letters

reflected the views of some members of the Science Committee that NASA’s direction may have

been verging away from carrying out the best scientific research in favor of supporting

particular theories about global warming. The letters also reflected some dissatisfaction within

the scientific community that NASA was building a program that had too little flexibility and

could not respond quickly and efficiently to new scientific findings that might arise.

462 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

33. NASA Advisory Council, NASA Federal Laboratory Review Report, 28 February 1995, submitted to the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
The National Research Council referred Congressman Walker’s request to the Board

on Sustainable Development and its Committee on Global Change Research. In March

1996 testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Dr. Edward

Frieman, chairman of the Board on Sustainable Development, reported on the results of

a workshop that the Board and the Committee held in July 1995. This workshop was part

of a continuing review of USGCRP and its principal component (in program funding),

NASA’s EOS.34 The testimony specifically reported on EOS in the context of the USGCRP

and listed several specific recommendations for NASA with respect to EOS.

The National Research Council was generally very supportive of NASA’s direction with

EOS and its integration with the USGCRP, stating “science is the fundamental basis for the

USGCRP and its component projects, and that fundamental basis is scientifically sound.”35

It also stressed that EOS was developed in response to scientific needs and was generally

on the right course, but further improvements were needed. Specifically, Frieman’s

testimony on behalf of the NRC urged that NASA “maintain a science-driven approach to

observational and information management technology.”36 Noting that revolutionary

spacecraft technologies are likely to reduce future spacecraft costs, Dr. Frieman urged that

NASA focus on developing advanced technologies to reduce the costs of continuing

observations essential to the needs of the USGCRP. He also pointed out the need for

NASA to enhance in situ observation programs, process studies, and large-scale modeling

activities in support of its satellite observations. The testimony also addressed the use of

data from commercial high-resolution satellites in global change studies, noting that such

data can be very useful, but they also have severe limitations in covering many of the data

types needed for such studies. In a personal statement, Dr. Frieman said “let me state

again my conviction that the USGCRP and NASA’s MTPE and EOS are fundamentally

sound scientific programs of immense importance to the future welfare of our country

and our world.”37

In 1997, NASA released the results of an internal study,38 the first of a planned series

of MTPE biennial reviews, which underscored NASA’s intention to maintain as much

flexibility as possible in designing second- and third-generation EOS satellites to take

advantage of the latest scientific results and most advanced technologies available. This

study was assessed by an independent review panel and continued in the same direction

as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences studies. It stressed the need to

infuse more new technology into upcoming missions and to use as much off-the-shelf

spacecraft and subsystems as possible. The review also supported the NASA Earth System

Science Pathfinder program, with its approach of encouraging Principal Investigators to

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 463

34. National Research Council, A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and NASA’s Mission to

Planet Earth/Earth Observing System (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1995), available at

http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/LaJolla/cover.html

35. Dr. Edward A. Frieman, Chairman, Board on Sustainable Development, National Research Council,

statement before the Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives, 6 March 1996. Dr. Frieman stressed

that his testimony also reflected subsequent input from the National Research Council’s extensive review process

subsequent to the July 1995 workshop.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. NASA Office of Mission to Planet Earth, Mission to Planet Earth Biennial Review (Washington, DC:

NASA, 1997). 
assist in developing new missions in tackling new science questions of interest to the

global change research community.

EOS Data and Information System

In designing the Earth Observing System, program scientists met the challenging

issue of how to collect and distribute the massive amounts of data that the EOS satellites

were to generate by developing a concept for a centralized EOS Data and Information

System (EOSDIS). EOSDIS had the capability to command and control the EOS satellites

and their instruments, and provided archiving, distribution, and information

management for all of NASA’s Earth science data, including data from in situ studies and

non-EOS satellites. EOSDIS was based on an “open” computing architecture that allowed

the system to evolve with new computing advances and networking technology. It was a

comprehensive system, designed to serve the needs of scientists performing integrated,

interdisciplinary studies of Earth’s systems.

In the early stages of the development of EOSDIS, all functions were to be carried out

at a central location at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Seen from a budget and

management standpoint, this arrangement seemed preferable to MTPE managers.

However, potential users of EOS data complained that this arrangement limited their

input to system development and unnecessarily constrained flexibility as new scientific

findings suggested the need to develop new data-processing algorithms or new data

products. In a 1989 report, the EOSDIS Science Advisory Panel of the EOS Investigators

Working Group (IWG) underscored the importance of establishing a series of “Active

Archives,” chosen with “(1) demonstrated experience in and institutional commitment to

responsibilities of Active Archives, particularly in the area of satellite data processing and

archiving; and (2) critical mass of in-house science expertise in the analysis of the type of

EOS and other satellite data to be located in the Active Archive.”39

A 1990 IWG report suggested that NASA should build on existing capabilities within

the Earth science community, rather than creating entirely new data centers. “The data

panel believes that it is important to build EOSDIS, starting from the real systems of today,

into a system capable of handling data from the EOS instruments planned for the end of

the decade. The challenge is to gain from experience already bought and paid for—

successes as well as failures . . . [and to] select existing sites with expertise in maintaining

data collections and scientific use of these products.”40

Thus in 1990, NASA, in collaboration with other federal agencies and private

institutions, created a system of Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs), each of which

has a specific Earth science focus (Table 4). This structure enables the development of

centers of expertise in the use of EOS data and in the integration of these data with other

Earth science data sets. NASA required each of the DAACs to identify DAAC User Working

Groups to assist in setting data standards and requirements within their disciplines.

464 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

39. Science Advisory Panel for EOSDIS, Initial Scientific Assessment of the EOS Data and Information System

(EOSDIS) (Washington DC: NASA, 1989).

40. EOS IWG, 1990.
Table 4. EOSDIS Distributed Active Archive Centers

• Alaska SAR Facility (ASF), NASA

• GSFC Earth Sciences (GES), Goddard Space Flight Center

• Global Hydrology Resource Center (GHRC), Marshall Space Flight Center

• Land Processes (LP), Langley Research Center

• Atmospheric Sciences Data Center, Langley Research Center

• National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

• Physical Oceanography (PO)

• Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)

The DAACs were set up as part of the plan to develop EOSDIS Version 0 by July 1994.

As Version 0 was to be in place prior to the launch of any of the flagship satellites, the data

products in Version 0 were developed from satellite data already collected that could serve

as prototypes of the data NASA expected to gain from the EOS satellites. This

development approach relied upon guidance from DAAC User Working Groups and

active participation of scientists who tested the data products and their delivery

mechanisms to ensure that the resulting products would meet user needs. Version 0 was

declared operational in August 1994.

EOSDIS was seen as an essential component of the EOS program, as this system was

the interface between NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise and the scientific community

that use the data, in large part to support the USGCRP. The importance of this

connection is stressed in an April 1992 interim NRC report on EOSDIS. “If EOSDIS fails,

so will the Earth Observing System and so may the U.S. Global Change Research

Program.” (See Document IV-16.) Hence, the recommendations of this report stressed

the need to maintain flexibility and reliability of EOSDIS in order to support not only

NASA-supported scientists, but also the much broader scientific community involved in

USGCRP.

Nevertheless, concerns persisted throughout the development of EOSDIS over the

cost and functionality of the data system. In 1994, the NRC issued its final report, which

elaborated on the interim report, stressing the need for EOSDIS to achieve wide usage of

data from EOSDIS throughout the scientific community.41

In 1995, the Congressional General Accounting Office published a report requested

by the House Science Committee that commended NASA’s efforts to respond to the

NRC’s 1994 EOSDIS report by making EOSDIS more open, distributed, and flexible, but

noted “the significant risks inherent in this large, technically complex project.”42 In

particular, the report expressed concern that NASA needed to gain a better knowledge of

its projected user base for the EOSDIS data products and to find the appropriate balance

between the needs of near- and long-term system development.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 465

41. National Research Council, Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans, Final Report (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1994).

42. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Earth Observing System: Concentration on Near-term

EOSDIS Development May Jeopardize Long-term Success,” GAO/T-AIMD-95-103, 1995.
A 1994 study by the Committee on Global Change Research of the Board on Sustainable

Development within the NRC resulted in a complementary report, underscoring the need

for “the community of researchers and users . . . [to] take the lead in making key decisions.

. . . The system must encourage innovation and creativity through broad participation of the

scientific, public, and private sectors.”43 The report also recommended that “responsibility

for product generation, publication, and user services should be transferred to a federation

of partners selected through a competitive process open to all.”44

NASA accepted this recommendation. The DAACs are now part of the broader

Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIPs) that were established by NASA.

Partners include government agencies, national laboratories, universities, nonprofit

organizations, and commercial businesses, which have collaborated to ensure better

development and distribution of scientific data and information.45

Small Spacecraft and Data Purchases

Throughout the history of the Earth science program, the apparent commercial value

of some Earth observations data has created tensions between some policy-makers who

suggest that the private sector should provide Earth science data and many scientists who

worry either that commercial objectives will lead to data of much less scientific value or

that required data will not be provided at all. The troubled history of the Landsat program

illustrated well how difficult it was to find the right balance between satisfying commercial

and scientific objectives.46 Publicly funded science programs generally had to satisfy a

variety of national objectives, one of which was to rely on the private sector for systems and

data (beyond contracting with commercial firms) whenever there is a commercial

potential for contributing to the national economy in doing so.

Such arrangements, even while imbued with laudable social goals, generally

complicated the development of new systems, because they often required the

development of new institutional arrangements that had not been tried before. The

experience with the periodic attempts to provide ocean color data provided an instructive

example of the complexities and subsequent delays that the attempt to meet multiple

societal objectives may engender in the delivery of useful data for science and applications.

The color of the ocean, as seen from space, indicates its biological activity and

potential productivity. Ocean color data reveal the interactions of physical processes with

the ocean’s biological communities, particularly phytoplankton, which produces organic

carbon through the process of photosynthesis. NASA first developed the Coastal Zone

Color Scanner (CZCS) for Nimbus-7 (Table 1); this was an instrument designed to collect

precise measurements of the intensity of radiation reflected from the ocean in different

466 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

43. National Research Council, A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and NASA’s Mission to

Planet Earth/Earth Observing System (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995), p. 23.

44. op. cit, p. 24.

45. See the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners at http://www.esipfed.org/ for more

information about the ESIP federation.

46. See Ray A. Williamson, “The Landsat Legacy: Remote Sensing Policy and the Development of

Commercial Remote Sensing,” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing (July 1997), pp. 877–885.
parts of the spectrum. Areas rich in phytoplankton appear green because they contain

chlorophyll, the pigment that enables them to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into

organic matter. Areas of high phytoplankton productivity are likely to contain schools of

plankton-eating fish.

The data also reveal the interaction of ocean currents with the phytoplankton,

imparting further information of value to shipping and fisheries. The success of the CZCS

aboard Nimbus whetted scientists’ interest in gaining further ocean color data in order to

study and understand biophysical processes in more detail. It also suggested that an

operational sensor would be of economic value to the Navy (for improved navigation and

lower ship operational costs), commercial shipping, and fisheries.

After several attempts to include an ocean color sensor on multisensor satellites, such

as the National Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS), the NOAA POES series, the French

SPOT satellite, or Landsat 6 (each of which failed in different ways), scientists at NASA

Goddard Space Flight Center proposed to fly a sensor called the Sea-viewing Wide Fieldof-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) aboard a small satellite in 1990.

During the late 1980s, improvements in materials, circuitry, and satellite design made

possible smaller and lighter satellites, thereby reducing the needed size and cost of launch

vehicles for some applications. This engineering development led to a broadly based drive

to place some instruments on small spacecraft.47 SeaWiFS was an excellent candidate for

such a proposal. A dedicated ocean color sensor that would orbit in a Sun-synchronous

polar orbit could cover the entire world at about 1 kilometer of resolution, providing

scientifically important data about ocean productivity, ocean currents, and other

biophysical ocean phenomena.

The drive to build SeaWiFS also coincided with a private sector interest in providing

scientific data on a commercial basis, an interest that gained firm support in Congress.

Under pressure from Congress to support commercial purchases of scientific data, NASA

issued a Request for Proposal for an ocean color data purchase; Orbital Sciences

Corporation won the competition. Orbital offered to build a spacecraft to carry the

SeaWiFS sensor if NASA would fund most of the spacecraft and sensor development. In

return, Orbital would deliver SeaWiFS data to NASA for its scientific needs and would

market the data to shipping companies, fisheries, and other commercial users. In accepting

this proposal, NASA in effect became an “anchor tenant” in the deal, allowing Orbital to

borrow its share of the development and operational costs from the financial community.

Orbital created Orbimage, Inc. in order to market data from Orbview 2, the satellite

that carried the SeaWiFS instrument.48 In August 1997, more than six years after OSC

signed the contract with NASA, Orbimage successfully orbited the SeaWiFS sensor and

shortly thereafter began delivering imagery to NASA scientists and to the commercial

community. As of the spring of 2003, Orbview 2 was still delivering high-quality ocean

color imagery to data users.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 467

47. It also led to exaggerated claims that small satellites would revolutionize the satellite world and lead to

much lower costs. However, smaller satellites are not necessarily cheaper than larger ones. See U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment, Affordable Spacecraft: Design and Launch Alternatives, background paper

(Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990), available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/

48. Orbimage is also developing a series of high-resolution satellites from which the company also plans to

market high-resolution data on a commercial basis.
Table 5 summarizes the many steps in the development and deployment of a

successor to the CZCS.49

Table 5. Ocean Color Measurements

1978: The Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) is launched on Nimbus7. Its objective was to provide a one-year test of the experimental

instrument.

1979: Planning began for the successor to CZCS.

1979–81: CZCS included in plans for the National Oceanic Satellite System

(NOSS). Instrument cost was estimated at $11.6 million.

1982: The Marine Experiment (MAREX) specified requirements for

the ocean color instrument.

1982–83: The Ocean Color Instrument (OCI) was studied by Ball Corp. for

flight on the NOAA H-I-J POES series. The project was descoped

to $7.6 million, and then canceled when NOAA could not fund

integration costs.

1984: NASA EOS Science and Mission Working Group published

description of follow-on ocean color measurements for EOS

program.

1984–85: A joint French-U.S. Science Working Group proposed a revised

OCI on the SPOT-4 satellite. The cost to U.S. was $14.5 million,

with launch and integration costs provided by France. Planned

launch date was 1989. NASA cancelled the mission in a costcutting move.

1986: The Bretherton Committee included a CZCS follow-on in its

program for Earth system science.

1986: EOSAT conducted a market survey for commercial OCI data.

1986: MODIS Instrument Panel issued a report incorporating ocean

color measurements in MODIS-T.

1987: NASA-EOSAT joint Science Working Group specified Sea-viewing

Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) performance; NASA

Goddard studied in-house Explorer-class spacecraft.

1987: EOS Science Steering Committee issued its science strategy for

EOS, citing need for ocean color measurements.

1988: NASA Goddard designed the SeaWiFS program, including

ground system, data processing and archive, instrument

calibration, algorithms and verification, and global science.

Instrument was planned for Landsat-6, with an expected launch

date of 1991. (When Landsat-6 was launched in 1993, SeaWiFS

had been replaced by ballast to balance spacecraft mass.)

468 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

49. National Research Council, Earth Observations from Space: History, Promise, and Reality (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1995); National Research Council, The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth

Observation Programs (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000).
1989: EOSAT withdrew from project, considering it financially

unattractive. Santa Barbara Research Center (SBRC), the

instrument supplier, continued efforts. Estimated cost was $24

million. SBRC finished instrument design to produce a sensor for

a $14-million fixed-price cost. New design was endorsed by

science community.

1990: NASA Goddard studied in-house mission with estimated cost of

$56 million using a SeaWiFS/CZCS/MODIS-T engineering

model, small Explorer-class spacecraft, and Scout launch vehicle.

1990: Orbital Sciences Corp. (OSC) assumed lead role. NASA proposed

to buy data for the research community in request for proposals

on December 15.

Mar. 1991: NASA signed $42-million data purchase contract with OSC, with

a specified launch date of 29 August 1993.

April 1992: NASA Goddard issued research announcement soliciting

proposals for science team members. Twenty-seven members are

selected from sixty-seven proposals.

1991–92: NASA restructured EOS program and deleted MODIS-T, added

SeaWIFS II data purchase in 1998 (also termed EOS-Color).

Jan. 1993: First meeting of the SeaWiFS science team.

April 1993: OSC announced launch delays resulting from stray light problem

in sensor.

June 1993: OSC contract modified for June 1994 launch.

Early 1994: OSC announced SeaWiFS launch would not be earlier than 29

September 1994; required the Pegasus-XL launcher, which was

still under development.

Mid-1994: NASA rebaselining review recommended termination of EOSColor, in part due to delays in SeaWiFS.

Mid-1994: OSC announced launch would not be earlier than December 1994.

January 1995: OSC requested that NASA and the Air Force rank the seven

Pegasus-XL missions they had scheduled to begin in April 1995.

March 1995: OSC declared that a launch in 1995 was subject to the

uncertainties of the Pegasus-XL launch manifest, tentatively set

for September 1995.

June 1995: NASA announced that a launch of SeaWiFS could not occur

before November 1995 and was likely to occur no sooner than

early 1996.

1 August 1997: SeaWiFS was successfully launched. Excellent results were being

obtained from the mission, and a time series of ocean color

measurements has been provided since October 1997. OrbImage

continues to sell data and analysis from the system to private

sector customers.

Throughout the above period, participants worked hard to obtain the kinds of ocean

color data that had first been obtained in 1978. Numerous compromises were sought, and

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 469
private companies, government agencies, and researchers made numerous attempts to

launch a successor to the CZCS first flown on Nimbus-7, using several different funding

and institutional mechanisms. The difficulties and delays encountered illustrate the

sometimes tortuous process of funding a system that most involved agreed was of value to

science, private industry, and, ultimately, the U.S. taxpayer.

International Cooperative Programs and the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites 

For both practical and political reasons, international cooperation has long been a

thrust of NASA’s programs. Indeed, international cooperation is explicitly identified as a

NASA focus in its originating legislation.50 In Earth science, NASA has established bilateral

cooperative programs with many individual countries and cooperated within a

multilateral framework. A full account of the history of NASA’s international Earth science

programs is beyond the scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, cooperative research has

played an important part in the development and execution of NASA’s EOS.

By the mid 1980s, the ability of Canada, Europe, and Japan to field sophisticated

Earth observing systems made them especially important potential partners in global

Earth science studies. These space programs not only had developed extensive research

capabilities, but also had orbited operational environmental space systems designed to

contribute to weather observations and forecasts. The proliferation of satellite systems

raised the concern that redundant global systems would waste scarce resources. Hence,

in 1984, during the Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations, the United States

proposed the formation of an international committee to coordinate scientific and

operational missions to collect data about Earth and its systems. Other nations agreed

and formed the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites (CEOS). (See Documents 

IV-8, IV-9, and IV-10.)

Members of CEOS are government agencies or international organizations with

funding and program responsibilities for satellite observations and data management.

Membership also includes Associate Members, agencies or international organizations

that have significant program activity (e.g., ground segments) that support the goals of

CEOS. Members must agree to provide “nondiscriminatory and full access to data that will

be made available to the international community.”51

CEOS has proved highly effective in coordinating the various global Earth

observation programs and in serving as a platform for keeping each country and

organization active in Earth observations aware of what other members are

contemplating. Its technical committees developed international protocols and standards

for data distribution and use.

470 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

50. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 calls for “Cooperation by the United States with other

nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results,

thereof,” Public Law 85-568, 72 Stat., 426; See John M. Logsdon, Linda J. Lear, Jannelle Warren-Findley, Ray A.

Williamson, and Dwayne A. Day, eds., Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space

Program, Volume I: Organizing for Exploration, Document II-17 (Washington, DC: NASA, 1995), pp. 334–345.

51. See http://www.ceos.org/, accessed January 2003.
One of the major initiatives to grow out of CEOS was the International Global

Observing Strategy (IGOS) (see Documents IV-22, 23, and 24), which was first proposed

by U.S. delegates to CEOS. U.S. officials originally named their proposed initiative the

International Global Observing System. However, after meeting concern from other

CEOS members that the term “system” implied developing an expensive new

organization, new satellites, and their attendant ground-based infrastructure, the name

was changed to the current one, which was more reflective of the goals originally

envisioned for the initiative. These goals included the broader involvement of the world’s

scientific community in global Earth science research and the merging of local and

regional in-situ data sets with global satellite data. Accomplishing the former assisted in

meeting the latter.

Following formal adoption of the IGOS concept by CEOS at its plenary meeting in

1996, CEOS delegates formed a Strategic Implementation Team to develop the concept

in more detail and to select prototype projects within which to test the IGOS concept and

make it productive. Data from NASA’s EOS and other satellites, from POES and GOES,

and the Earth observation satellites of Europe, Japan, and in situ sources have been

integrated into the following six prototype demonstration projects focused on

contributing to the global public good.

• Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE)

• Upper Air Measurements 

• Long-Term Continuity of Ozone Measurements 

• Global Observation of Forest Cover 

• Long-Term Ocean Biology Measurements 

• Disaster Management Support

In the spring of 2003, these projects were still receiving support from the international

research and applications community.

NASA’s MTPE and (later) the Earth Science Enterprise program have especially

benefited from bilateral projects such as the highly successful TOPEX/Poseidon and

Jason missions undertaken with France’s Centre Nationale Étude Spatiale (CNES) and

the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), developed, launched, and operated in

cooperation with Japan’s NASDA. (See Document IV-26.)

TOPEX/Poseidon, launched in 1992, has provided precise measurements of the

changing heights of the world’s oceans, crucial information for following El Niño and the

Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and predicting their future development. Such information

was especially important to alert climate-sensitive industries to future potential variations in

weather and climate.52 The considerable success of this important project led to the

development and launch of a follow-on cooperative satellite, Jason-1 (launched in

December 2001). Operating the two satellites together has produced a wealth of scientific

data about ocean dynamics and valuable information about the progress of ENSO.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 471

52. Ray A. Williamson, Henry R. Hertzfeld, Joseph Cordes, and John M. Logsdon, “The Socioeconomic

Benefits of Earth Science and Applications Research: Reducing the Risks and Costs of Natural Disasters in the

USA,” Space Policy 18: 57–65, 2002.
TRMM carried five instruments, including the Precipitation Radar (PR), the TRMM

Microwave Imager (TMI), and the Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIS), designed to

collect precipitation and other data over the tropics, areas that were generally poorly

covered by in situ measurements. To improve the repeat cycle of the instruments, the

satellite flew in an inclined orbit of 35 degrees, rather than in the more usual Earth

observation polar orbit of 90 degrees. TRMM has proved particularly effective in

improving the predictive paths of tropical cyclones and in estimating rainfall over the

mid latitudes. Data from this satellite were incorporated into ongoing weather forecast

models. NASA has been planning a much more ambitious Global Precipitation Mission

(GPM) to follow TRMM and provide global precipitation data.

Conclusion

As matters now stand in the Earth science program, the first one of the planned EOS

satellites, EOS AM-1 (now dubbed “Terra”) is in orbit and performing well. The previous

EOS PM-1 has been split into two smaller satellites (AQUA and AURA). Launched on 4

May 2002, AQUA is successfully delivering data to researchers. AURA is scheduled for

launch in early 2004. These spacecraft make up the first round of EOS measurements.

The second and later rounds of measurements and the means by which they are to be

obtained are yet to be defined at this time, but will certainly involve smaller satellites

within a constrained program budget.

As an important part of the evolution of the program, NASA also has built and orbited

a series of small satellites in order to fill in needs for data not covered by the larger

flagship satellites. For example, Quikscat was launched in June 1999 in order to gather

important data on surface wind fields over the oceans. Some of these satellites, for

example, the New Millennium Program Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) satellite, which carries

three advanced imaging instruments, has served as a test bed for new technologies and

data-gathering methods. 

As currently structured, the program attempts to answer five basic questions about

Earth and the influence of human activities upon it.53

• How is the global system changing?

• What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?

• How does the Earth system respond to natural and human-induced changes?

• What are the consequences of change in the Earth system for human civilization?

• How well can we predict future changes in the Earth system?

Although the program cannot avoid some measure of controversy because it attempts to

collect and analyze data that could have enormous economic and political consequences,

it is on a much more settled course than was the case in the mid-1990s. 

The history of NASA’s MTPE and its successor, the Earth Science Enterprise, is a

mixed one. On the one hand, as noted, the effort has produced some very important

472 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

53. See http://gaia.hq.nasa.gov/ese_missions/
scientific results and will contribute to improved predictions of weather and climate, and

to a much better understanding of “spaceship Earth.” Ultimately, these scientific results

could result in better management of Earth’s biological systems. However, the program’s

history also illustrates the extent to which political winds, both those blowing in the

narrow politics of science and the broader national political scene, can sway the slender

reed of science decisions, rendering the process through which this science has been

accomplished tortuous and overly costly. 

Since the early 1980s, several billion dollars have been spent on the MTPE and the

Earth Science Enterprise, all too much of it on rescoping, rebaselining, and reshaping

the program from its original conception in the early and mid-1980s. Though the

overhead costs have been high, in many respects the program is now more flexible and

capable of responding to new directions in Earth science than the program originally

conceived in the early 1980s. By any standard, the Earth Observing System being

deployed by NASA is a major contribution to the Earth sciences. The program is not

that which was originally proposed, but change was inevitable. The constraints imposed

on the program within an agency engaged in the financially even more ambitious

undertakings in human spaceflight are severe. Whether the technology-driven cost

savings will permit the full goals of the Earth sciences program to be achieved is

uncertain and—based on NASA’s record over the past two decades—deserving of

skepticism. However, if a shortfall results in the Earth sciences program against its stated

goals, any disappointment will stem from the lofty goals that were set when the program

was established.

Additional Information

The NASA Earth Science Enterprise Web site contains a great deal of useful

information not only regarding current plans, but also the history of past missions

(http://www.earth.nasa.gov). Additional details regarding U.S. and other international

instruments and their capabilities can be found on the Committee on Earth Observation

Satellites (CEOS) Web site (http://www.ceos.org).

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 473
Document IV-1

Document Title: Memorandum from Kenneth S. Pedersen, Director of International

Affairs, to Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, “Global

Habitability as a U.S. Initiative at UNISPACE 82,” 1 July 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This memorandum to Associate Administrator Dr. Burton Edelson describes how NASA might use the

opportunity afforded by the United Nations-sponsored Unispace ’82 conference to NASA’s advantage,

demonstrating not only NASA’s interest in conducting global-scale Earth studies, but also its interest

in international scientific collaboration. The memo reveals insights into NASA’s skeptical views about

internationally managed programs, a skepticism that the Reagan administration certainly shared.

[stamped “rec’d in Code E Jul 2 1982”]

NASA Routing Slip to:

E/Dr. Edelson

Keller

Raney

Rosendhal

EE/Tilford

[italics indicate handwritten note on routing slip]

I think this paper outlines a positive approach to Unispace on this issue. I would appreciate hearing

your views before the 7/7 meeting if possible.

Ken

Kenneth S. Pedersen

7/1/82

**********

[no page number]

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

20546

Reply to attn of: LID-18

TO: E/Associate Administrator

for Space Science and Applications 

474 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
FROM: LI-15/Director of International Affairs

SUBJECT: Global Habitability as a U.S. Initiative at UNISPACE 82

Following up on our discussion Monday, I offer some thoughts as to how we ought to

play Global Habitability as a UNISPACE initiative and what mode of international

collaboration would be preferable from the NASA point of view.

My understanding regarding the Global Habitability program is that it is to be a

major thrust involving the clustering of several OSSA programs, with UNISPACE viewed

as a target of opportunity to increase the chances of success with OMB. Aside from such

strategy considerations, there is also—so far as I have been able to ascertain—genuine

NASA program office interest in pursuing such a program on a global scale. A program

that is truly global in scope would indeed require international collaboration.

As you know, we have raised the prospect of a UNISPACE Global Habitability

initiative with Ambassador Helman of the State Department who is coordinating U.S.

preparations for UNISPACE. Helman has discussed the idea at some length with Hans

Mark and is enthusiastic about pursuing an initiative, given the successful conclusion of

the Woods Hole Summer Study effort, if we get a NASA front office go-ahead.

In considering how best to play Global Habitability at UNISPACE, it appears to me

that the program should be cast as a broad scale, highly integrated, timely and relevant

NASA scientific research program, into which international participation will be

welcomed. There are a variety of means by which international participation culd [sic] be

integrated into the program including: AO’s; AN’s; bilateral agreements; multilateral

coordination with programs of other space nations; exchange of space data for ground

truth from program-targeted areas (including many LDC’s). Our experience with

international cooperation has demonstrated that such approaches allow us to maintain

control over the scientific integrity and [2] research thrust of the particular program. I

anticipate that other countries will be attracted because of the excellent reputation for

openness that NASA has built on the basis of international participation in Landsat and

other cooperative programs.

There are good reasons to avoid consideration of recasting the program to make it

an internationally organized/managed effort. The arguments for confining such a

program to research and to single-agency direction in the U.S. would seem to be all the

more compelling on the international front. An international management apparatus

could be unwieldy and it might serve to restrict and even dilute the science objectives of

the program. It would run the risk of treading on the well-established turf of international

agencies with already well-defined global environmental objectives. Further, such an

apparatus would be subject to the type of political divisions that currently plague so many

international programs no matter how meritorious their objectives.

Of course, the program will need to draw upon the unique capabilities of such

existing international organizations as UNEP, WMO, FAO, etc. We should be able to

characterize our program as contributing to their programs. We can indicate willingness

to correlate our research with the research aims of these agencies and to engage in joint

projects, in data exchange and in joint efforts to disseminate the results of our research.

Within such guidelines, the details of our working with international organizations can be

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 475
worked out after we present the initiative and are in a better position to work out mutually

beneficial arrangements.

A possible scenario for UNISPACE might include the following:

• having Jim Beggs announce Global Habitability as a major U.S. (read NASA)

initiative in his speech as U.S. Representative scheduled for August 10;

• featuring of Global Habitability in the U.S. multimedia presentation scheduled for

the evening of August 10;

• a possible poster session the following day to elaborate on programmatic aspects and

modes of potential collaboration;

• a possible press briefing on Global Habitability and distribution of a package of

materials to the press and to UNISPACE delegations;

• inclusion of our plans for the program in the NASA presentation at John Houghton’s

informal WMO/ICSU meeting on August 11.

• [3] discussion of our plans, as appropriate, with the representatives of other space

agencies at UNISPACE.

During all of these presentations, we need to emphasize the NASA lead role and

guard against any efforts to create a UN management role for this program.

With regard to the mode of international collaboration for a NASA-managed

Global Habitability Program, I am quite pleased with the language in the draft chapter

on National/ International Considerations produced last week at Woods Hole. Brent

Smith of my staff worked with your people and with a representative of the State

Department in drafting the international section. Attached is a copy of the draft

International Collaboration subsection which, I feel, underscores many of the points I

have made above.

[signature]

Kenneth S. Pedersen

Attachment

cc:

L/Bob Allnutt

**********

[4]

4. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

Fundamental to the success of the Global Habitability Research Program will be the

participation of individual experimentors [sic], scientific organizations and governmental

agencies worldwide. To ensure collaboration that is truly global in scope, NASA will:

476 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
• encourage and invite broadscale participation of experimentors [sic] in the

development of instrumentation, acquisition of comparative observations to

corroborate satellite-obtained information, and in the analysis and interpretation of

data. Investigators will be selected through Announcements of Opportunity and

Announcement Notices. Unsolicited proposals will be considered. Collaboration will

also take place at the scientist-to-scientist level based on agreements with national

and international agencies.

• contribute through this program to the ongoing environmental research efforts of

the WMO, the FAO, UNEP and other regional and international agencies. NASA will

correlate its research with the research aims of these bodies and will engage in data

exchange, co-sponsorship of specific projects, and in joint efforts to acquaint

national publics and policymakers with results and prognoses.

• [5] consult and coordinate its plans with those of prospective satellite operating

agencies to encourage the development of compatible and complementary

spaceborne instrumentation and thereby maximize the effectiveness of global

measurements. Such coordination should result in cost savings, avoid duplication of

effort, and minimize the prospect of incompatible national systems.

• provide for significant program involvement by developing countries in areas such

as ground-based observations and the exchange of data that can assist individual

countries and regions [to] manage their resources and better deal with changes

affecting habitability—e.g., deforestation, desertification, agricultural productivity.

Through such collaboration, both NASA and the individual countries will obtain

vital information beyond that obtainable using only a single tool of measurement.

Document IV-2

Document Title: Richard Goody, Chairman, Workshop Executive Committee, “Global

Change: Impacts on Habitability, A Scientific Basis for Assessment,” 7 July 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This report, which was requested by NASA, established the initial scientific basis for conducting an

integrated study of Earth’s systems, incorporating physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the

planet, centered on global change. It raised the important question of how human activities might be

altering these systems and affecting Earth’s habitability.

[title page]

Global Change: Impacts on Habitability

A Scientific Basis for Assessment

A Report by the Executive Committee of a Workshop held at Woods Hole,

Massachusetts, June 21-26, 1982

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 477
Submitted on behalf of the Executive Committee on July 7, 1982, by Richard Goody

(Chairman)

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California

[iii]

Executive Summary

The earth is a planet characterized by change, and has entered a unique epoch when

one species, the human race, has achieved the ability to alter its environment on a global

scale. This report outlines a scientific strategy that would offer a basis for the difficult

choices that lie ahead and for the complex decisions that must be made now to protect

the integrity of the earth.

NASA could play a central role in this task. The unique perspectives of space

observational systems, the ability to manage complex interdisciplinary science programs

realized in two decades of planetary exploration, and the overall technical expertise of

NASA are essential to the success of the endeavor.

This report is directed to issues that arise on a relatively immediate basis: the time

horizons of people now alive. We are concerned with matters that relate to the production

of food adequate to the needs of a growing population and with subtle interactions that

might affect the planet’s ability to sustain and renew the quality of air and water and the

integrity of the global chemical cycles essential for life. We approach the task in a spirit of

optimism. but with a clear recognition of the magnitude of the challenge.

Needs of the past could be met by the expansion of frontiers, by land clearance, by

application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, by irrigation, and by intensive

application of energy resources harvested from the sun by the biosphere in years past.

Now, however, humanity is being confronted by the finite dimensions of its world. In the

twentieth century, humanity has become a factor in the global cycles of carbon, nitrogen,

phosphorus, and sulfur and can affect global and regional air quality and climate; even

control of the powerful hydrological cycle is within its grasp. An understanding of the

overall system is essential if the human race is to live successfully with global change.

The magnitude and complexity of the scientific issue are prescribed by the choice of

time scale. On time scales of a decade or so, the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere

function as an integrated system. Physical, chemical, and biological processes are coupled,

and progress in understanding them will require an interdisciplinary science research

program of broad scope and content. Such a program would require space observations

to provide a global perspective; investigations of specific ecosystems both on the ground

and from space to deepen scientific understanding of the overall function of the

biosphere; studies of representative estuarine and coastal systems to define the transfer of

materials from land to ocean; studies of horizontal and vertical motions in the ocean,

478 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
recognizing the importance of these motions for climate and their role in regulating the

flow of materials to the depths of the ocean; studies of the atmosphere and its chemistry,

physics, and motions; and theoretical and laboratory investigations to synthesize new

information and to serve as a guide for acquiring new data.

A group of some 50 scientists, including physicists, chemists, and biologists, met

recently at Woods Hole to consider these matters and arrived at the following general

conclusions. A program of research can be implemented that would respond to the

overall concern regarding the future habitability of the planet. Some elements of the

program are already in place or can be carried out with a modest redirection of available

scientific, administrative, and financial resources. Other elements can be defined now,

while some will require further consideration. The investigation of interconnections

between land, [iv] ocean, and atmosphere is crucial and the view from space is necessary

for integration on a global scale. The task is urgent. Because the human race has reached

the point of being able to change the earth significantly on a time scale of mere decades,

its ability to mount countermeasures, should it wish to, is restricted in many cases to a time

scale that is similar or longer. A commitment by the United States Government is essential

to further progress and there is an obvious need for international cooperation. We can see

no better use for the mastery of near space than the acquisition of the body of knowledge

essential to the future well-being and prosperity of humanity.

[v]

Contents

I. Introduction 1

II. Impact 3

III. Some Science Issues 5

IV. Some Program Elements 9

The Atmosphere 9

The Ocean 9

The Cryosphere 10

The Land 10

The Sun 11

Interactions 11

Data Sets 12

V. National and International Considerations 13

National Programs 13

The International Aspects 13

Other International Programs 13

International Collaboration 13

Appendix 15

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 479
[vi]

Abstract

This report addresses the feasibility of a major NASA research initiative to document,

to understand, and if possible, to predict long-term (5-50 years) global changes that can

affect the habitability of the earth. The major factor contributing to change is human

activity. The problem is urgent in the sense that situations are already being created that

can take decades to reverse. The appropriate science community is available to support

such a research program, and the need is urgent for a commitment to proceed by the

Federal Government.

The program will involve studies of the atmosphere, oceans, land, the cryosphere, and

the biosphere. On decadal time scales, these regimes and the cycles of physical and chemical

entities through them are coupled into a single interlocking system. Some part of this system

can be studied in a straightforward manner (the atmosphere) and some with great difficulty

(the biosphere). A new emphasis for NASA would be to design and carry through studies of

the complex interactions. A major effort to involve new scientific talent would be necessary,

particularly from biology. New management approaches by the agency would be required.

The program would be large, comparable in size and scope to other major activities

of NASA such as the Physics and Astronomy Program and the Planetary Exploration

Program. It would require support for at least a decade. The program would involve

international collaboration, although the U.S. initiative should be unambiguous and

managerially independent. Space systems would be emphasized, but in situ observations

would also be required. A large theoretical and laboratory program is essential.

Detailed studies exist of some of the space systems needed to execute this program,

e.g., the Ocean Topography Experiment, the upper Atmospheric Research Satellite, and

the imaging radar for cryospheric studies. The early funding of such projects and studies

of advanced systems is a cornerstone for the ultimate success of the program.

[1]

Global Change: Impacts on Habitability

A Scientific Basis for Assessment

I. Introduction

This report responds to a request by the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for the establishment of a group to discuss the viability of a major research

initiative in the area of global habitability, specifically addressed to the question of

changes, either natural or of human origin, affecting that habitability. The program

should be one of research, which we interpreted to mean a concern with the foundations

of knowledge needed for enlightened policy decisions. It should be responsive to human

needs. It should be urgent in the sense that it needs to be undertaken now, and not in a

few years. The changes in habitability discussed should be of significance within a human

life span (50 to 100 years), with less emphasis on short terms of a year or two. And finally,

we were asked to consider why this program might be appropriate for a NASA initiative.

480 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Following an organizational meeting in April 1982, a workshop was convened for the

week of June 21 through 26. Those present at the workshop are listed in the Appendix.

The membership of the workshop covered an unusually wide range of disciplines. We

examined science issues and possible research programs to the extent necessary for

responsibly answering the basic question: can a program be formulated that responds to

the requirements, that could be rationally developed from the theme of global

habitability, and that NASA could successfully carry out? We took the discussion to the

point of concluding that the answer to the question is “yes,” but not to the point of

identifying the optimum programs. That step remains to be taken. This paper presents a

selection of scientific issues and program elements developed by the executive committee,

without any claim to completeness.

The responsiveness of the program to human needs and the issue of urgency are

discussed in Chapter II. Chapter III discusses some scientific issues concerning the

problem of global habitability and Chapter IV discusses some of the programs that could

lead to substantial increases of knowledge in the foreseeable future. These two chapters

together establish the validity of the program and its feasibility. Here, we will briefly cover

some general issues that arose during our discussions.

A research program concerned with changes in global habitability would contain

some familiar elements and some that are less familiar. The familiar elements involve

current activities in atmospheric, oceanic, and land-surface research. The coupling

between the ocean and atmosphere for time scales longer than a few years is also a familiar

concept, but when we introduce, additionally, biological activity in the sea and on land,

the couplings become even more complex. On the decadal time scale the atmosphere, the

ocean (the top 500 meters), the biosphere, and the physical properties of the land surface

are linked in a fascinating but exasperating symbiosis

[2]Is it possible to design effective programs for investigating a system of such

complexity? Some have argued that analytic approaches are usually simplistic and that, on

the other hand, the full complexity is beyond existing comprehension. If we were to

accept this dichotomy it would be difficult to argue that a program of research

appropriate to NASA can be defined. On the contrary, we believe that important aspects

of the global problem can usefully be isolated and subsequently integrated into general

ecological themes at the appropriate time and space scales. We had no difficulty in

identifying major areas in which scientific issues and effective research programs could be

for-mulated. A specific example is the nutrient cycle involving nitrogen, carbon,

phosphorus, and sulphur. These elements cycle through the atmosphere, ocean, and land

biosphere. We have little certain knowledge about them and productive re-search

programs can be designed. Some aspects of the cycles, e.g., the carbon dioxide problem,

have already emerged as stimulating research areas with significant consequences for

public policy.

To break the ecological problem down into manageable elements or, alternatively, to

emphasize the complexity of the entire system—these represent different approaches that

will continually emerge, because both are valid. Their existence, however, emphasizes the

need for the highest quality of scientific leadership for NASA’s program. Judgments must

be made that require scientific credibility and sophistication from both management and

the science community. We make no proposals regarding program management, but

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 481
scientific leadership and the appropriate program structure within NASA are crucial to

the success of the program.

While much needs to be done if the program is to succeed, we believe that there is

enough strength in some of its parts and enough potential competence in others for a

successful outcome. A sine qua non, however, is a firm national commitment to a research

program in global habitability. Given this commitment and the appropriate leadership,

the scientific side of the government-science partnership can be counted upon; but it

cannot proceed further without an explicit Federal undertaking to carry through the

program for a period of at least one decade.

Why should NASA be responsible for this program? The short answer is that NASA

can do it and no other Federal agency can. We are proposing a research program that

would be global in extent and decadal in time scale. This does not fall fully within the

terms of any other single agency. The global character of the problem virtually demands

a space capability, and where space systems are not required the problems involve high

technology, for which NASA often has appropriate skills. In addition, NASA has no direct

operational, service, or regulatory responsibilities, which allows NASA to undertake

difficult research programs unimpeded by short-term requirements. NASA has a

responsibility for research as part of its mandate under the National Aeronautics and

Space Act of 1958. In the pursuit of its responsibilities in space science, NASA has learned

how to work with the outside science community as an equal partner. Finally, NASA has

experience with interdisciplinary project management of the kind required for this program (Project Viking and the Upper Atmospheric Research Program provide two

examples of successful interdisciplinary efforts).

In addition to the appropriateness of the task to the agency, NASA stands to benefit

from undertaking it. The agency has developed tools of revolutionary importance for the

earth sciences, but the responsibility for the programs has rested with other agencies (the

Upper Atmospheric Research Program is the notable exception). This has resulted in split

responsibilities that have inhibited the rapid development and utilization of space tools.

This contrasts sharply with projects such as Apollo, the Shuttle, and High Energy

Astrophysics, for which NASA had overall responsibility, and which were superbly

executed. The global habitability program can provide NASA with a mission responsibility

in the earth sciences that, properly handled, could lead to outstanding advantages for the

earth sciences as a whole.

In summary, our workshop deliberations led us to conclude that a valid program can

be developed involving global investigations of changing conditions affecting habitability;

and that its development is urgent. We concluded that the long time scales (5 to 50 years)

and the global character of the problem define the necessary thrust of the program and

that the interactions between land, sea, and air on the one hand, and biology, chemistry,

and physical processes on the other, provide some of the crucial aspects of the tasks. We

found that a commitment by the Federal Government was essential to further progress

and that there are exceptionally difficult questions in science and program management.

It has been suggested from many sides that this program might be announced as a

U.S. initiative at Unispace 82 to be held in Vienna in August, 1982. While we are conscious

of the great difficulties in effective execution, we nevertheless believe that the step is

appropriate for reasons both of feasible science and of good international polity.

482 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[3] II. Impact

The human race lives on a planet characterized by change. Change is evident on all

space and time scales, from the very large and very long—the hundreds of millions of

years associated with rearrangement of the continents—to the very short and relatively

local—the day-to-day variations of weather. This is a unique time, when one species,

humanity, has developed the ability to alter its environment on the largest (i.e., global)

scale and to do so within the lifetime of an individual species member. This report is

concerned specifically with changes that may affect the habitability of the earth: the ability

of the planet to support communities of plants and animals, to produce adequate supplies

of food, and to sustain and renew the quality of air and water and the integrity of the

chemical cycles essential for life.

While life has persisted on the earth for more than 3.5 billion years, its course has

been threatened many times during the history of the planet. Volcanic eruptions and

advancing ice sheets have altered the temperature and circulation patterns of the

atmosphere and ocean, leading to great change in local areas. Species have become

extinct and others have evolved to take their place. Most species of animals have survived

for periods of the order of 10 million years or so and then disappeared, mainly for reasons

related to the destruction of habitat. Food, water, air, and climatic conditions changed

gradually but inexorably beyond the ability of species to survive.

The human species faces a similar challenge. In contrast to its less successful

predecessors, however, humanity has the ability to manage its resources, to plan

intelligently for its future, and to preserve the necessary elements of its habitat. On the

other hand, if the human race is to be successful in this endeavor it must take steps now

to develop the body of knowledge required to permit wise policy choices in the future.

The task is urgent.

Humanity has been accustomed in the past to respond to changes as they occurred:

to move to the next valley when local resources were impaired or to substitute energyintensive technology for the natural course of resource renewal. But the next valley is now

occupied. Humanity is being confronted increasingly and rapidly with limitations

imposed by the finite nature of its habitat. The human race is now a major direct and

indirect influence on the chemistry of the atmosphere and on the allocation of resources

on land, and is increasingly an influence on the ocean. That its influence can be subtle is

illustrated by recent concerns regarding the potential vulnerability of stratospheric ozone.

It has become apparent within the last decade that humanity has developed the

ability to alter ozone and thus to change the level of harmful ultraviolet radiation

penetrating to the ground. The direct injection into the stratosphere of the exhaust gases

of high-flying aircraft, the release of chlorinated gases used as aerosol propellants, as

industrial solvents, and as refrigeration-system working fluids, and the creation of

complex perturbations within the global nitrogen cycle can all lead to such a change.

However, while these activities lead for the most part to a reduction in ozone, they are

offset to some extent by thermal disturbances, due to enhanced levels of carbon dioxide,

that cause a rise in ozone. Humanity’s assessment of its own impact is hampered by its lack

of understanding of the underlying physical, chemical, and biological influences

regulating ozone in the natural state, and humanity’s assessment is forced to proceed in

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 483
parallel with a research program designed to provide this fundamental body of

knowledge. The matter assumes urgency because the gases responsible for changes in

ozone—human-made chlorocarbons and biologically formed nitrous oxide—have

lifetimes ranging from 50 to 200 years. The self-cleansing function of the atmosphere

proceeds slowly and human effects today will persist for centuries.

Carbon is the largest single waste product of modern society. Humanity has added,

by burning fossil fuel, over 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide

since the industrial revolution, with perhaps a quantity of similar magnitude transferred

from the biosphere to the atmosphere over this same period as a consequence of land

clearance for agriculture. The increase in the burden of atmospheric carbon dioxide is

readily detectable. Approximately half of the carbon added to the system remains in the

atmosphere and the remainder is presumed to have been taken up by the ocean and

transported to the depths of the oceanic abyss.

Massive engineering programs are being initiated to alter the course of major rivers—

Soviet plans for three of the ten largest rivers in the world are an example—the consequences

of which on ocean physics and therefore on climate would be continental if not global in

scale. The increasing pressure on fisheries from humanity and from atmospheric variability

has led to decreases and often elimination of traditional protein sources in many parts of the

world. The consequences of chemical change can be detected in the coastal waters of all the

developed nations. These are no longer isolated problems; taken together, they affect the

habitability of that part of the earth most exposed to population pressures.

Changes brought about by human activity must be monitored and assessed and the

science community must be prepared to recommend responses when necessary. Changes

involve soil erosion, loss of soil organic matter, desertification, deforestation, overgrazing,

diversion of freshwater resources, rising levels of air pollutant, and acid rain. On the

decadal time scale, land, sea, and atmosphere operate as a coupled system not only in

their physical interactions, but also through chemical and biological processes. Water in

the upper layers of the ocean has a residence time of a few decades and the cycling time

for carbon and nitrogen through the terrestrial biosphere is on the [4] same scale. Physics

cannot be separated from chemistry and biology by considering them consecutively. Nor

can problems in the ocean be treated in isolation from those on the land or in the

atmosphere. The necessary questions relate to the inter-action of land, sea, and

atmosphere. Activities on land alter the atmosphere, which in turn affects the physical and

chemical dynamics of the ocean. The total effect at decadal time scales depends on the

response of the ocean, the flywheel for these interacting components. The habitability of

the earth depends not only on the presence of the great mass of water in the ocean, but

also on its dynamics. The transport of heat in the ocean helps to determine continental

climate; the ocean controls the ex-change of water through the hydrological cycle and

determines the long-term balance of carbon and other essential chemicals. To understand

this total system, the physical dynamics of the upper layers of the ocean and the exchange

from these layers to the atmosphere above and the deeper ocean below must first be

understood. Then this knowledge must be used to determine the consequences of change

upon the chemistry and biology of the whole system.

This program requires greater knowledge of each of the three components—land,

sea, and air, on regional to global scales—-but the study of their interactions must

484 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
particularly be emphasized. One such interaction concerns the direct connection between

land and sea. Not only is population increasing rapidly, and not only is this increase most

marked at the coastlines of all the continents, but also cumulative human-imposed changes

in coastal waters are taking the problems beyond their previous terms of reference.

While it has reached the point of affecting the global system significantly within a few

decades, humanity’s ability to introduce countermeasures, should it wish to, is on the

same time scale or longer. There are inherent dangers that must be anticipated when

changes are imposed more rapidly than humanity’s ability to achieve control. Steps must

be taken now to develop the necessary scientific base. In the past the study of global

habitability has been scattered among several independent disciplines, such as

atmospheric physics, biology, oceanography, etc. The attempt to isolate problems that are

tractable is the nature of scientific investigation. As the knowledge in each discipline has

grown, so have the boundaries of investigation. We have now reached the point where the

boundaries of each discipline are overlapping, and the next step forward can only come

from an interdisciplinary research program. Such a program requires dedicated scientists,

sophisticated tools using advanced instruments, computer and satellite technology, and

strong managerial leadership.

The ultimate goal of the research program proposed here is that it should provide a

scientific basis that can aid in policy decisions. It should be stressed that this cannot be put

together in a single predictive model. Only studying the natural environment,

understanding its varied processes, and showing that this knowledge can be distilled into

the form of several comprehensive models will provide confidence in the utility of models

for forecasting future events.

Fortunately, through satellites, computers, and modern communications humanity

has the scientific tools to carry out the required research. At the same time the theoretical

tools have advanced to the point where the integrated study of the global system is

becoming feasible. If both are carried forward, the future may be manageable.

[5] III. Some Science Issues

The problem of global habitability leads directly to some of the most interesting and

difficult scientific problems that have emerged in recent decades. In this chapter we

consider a few of these in order to illustrate our view that their importance is great and

that their intrinsic interest is such as to ensure enthusiastic participation by the research

community. We should emphasize, however, that we have made no attempt at

completeness.

Global changes that impact the earth’s habitability are principally of two kinds: those

relating to biological productivity and those affecting human health. Both involve the

cycling of energy, water, and essential chemicals through the atmosphere, land, and

oceans. The problem is complex and interactive. However, it is possible to identify several

crucial scientific questions that must be answered before future changes in habitability

can be effectively assessed. It is possible also to formulate a program to address them.

Biological productivity over land is paced by the availability of water, nutrients, and

light; in the oceans only the latter two are of concern. Changes in the global rainfall

distribution, intensity, and timing are critical for land productivity. The flow of nutrients

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 485
through the rivers to the coastal zone and their eventual mixing with deep ocean water

and similar transfers from land to ocean through the atmosphere are dominant factors for

productivity in the oceans. The problem of assessing these changes becomes more

complicated when it is realized that natural rainfall patterns over the globe are only

marginally predictable by current climate models and are now being perturbed by the

introduction of optically active gases, which are changing the temperature regime and

impacting the evaporation-condensation cycle. At the same time, other chemicals are

being added to the atmosphere, changing the acidity of rainfall, the level of toxic gases,

and the amounts of nutrients in the soils, rivers, and eventually on the coastal shelves.

They may even modify the intensity of near-ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth’s

surface. The objective then is to isolate the natural variability of biological productivity,

and then to assess the impact of human-induced changes in the global system. What needs

to be done to get at the problem?

One area of intensive research has to be the investigation of the global hydrological

cycle. Many phases of the hydrological cycle, from evaporation and evapotranspiration

through the vertical and horizontal transport of water vapor to cloud processes and

ultimately to precipitation, are coupled directly to the circulation of the atmosphere and

have important dynamic feedback mechanisms. The circulation is interactively linked to

the radiation budget through optically active gases or possible changes in the solar flux

and to the transport of minor constituent gases, including those that are chemically and

biologically active. It is, therefore, critical that the principal components of the

hydrological cycle be thoroughly understood.

Areas of major uncertainties are evapotranspiration over land, evaporation and

precipitation over oceans, and cloud formation and precipitation processes. Scientific

understanding of the vital role played by vegetation in the transfer of water from soil to

air must be improved and quantified. It is necessary to establish climatological

distributions of clouds, precipitation over the oceans, and evaporation from the ocean

surface; at the present time the last two are unknown by at least a factor of two.

Habitability questions are particularly sensitive to the variations in global climate.

The oceans provide the major regulatory mechanism, particularly on the decadal scales

where mixing of the upper few hundred meters acts as the flywheel determining the rates

of interaction with the atmosphere. The oceanic processes that drive this mixing are partly

horizontal and partly vertical, and the quantitative understanding of either is currently

inadequate. The horizontal component is related directly to wind stress, fresh-water

exchange, and heat budget, and so interacts closely with atmospheric changes. The

vertical component regulates the exchange of essential chemicals and organic matter with

the very long-term (1,000s of years) deep reservoir; it also determines the exchange of

gases, heat, and water through the sea surface. The overall effect on the atmosphere. and

hence on climate, is through the net flux of heat and mass through the sea surface, which

is closely linked to the underlying transports and is nonuniform over ocean basins and in

time. It is necessary to know how changes in ocean circulation alter exchanges with

deeper water and how they affect climate.

Another area of almost complete ignorance concerns the interaction between the

atmosphere and the land surface. It operates on time scales that range from days to

decades and it includes both gradual and abrupt changes. There is, at present, no

486 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
quantitative understanding of the coupling between the atmospheric and land systems.

Climatic models assume constant surface properties (albedo, heat capacity, soil moisture,

roughness, etc.). The exchange of radiative energy is governed by surface albedo,

atmospheric water content, and clouds. Transfer of latent heat is governed by soil

properties and land cover that may be irreversibly altered from grassland to desert or from

forest to farmland. Such changes profoundly alter the surface albedo, roughness, and

evapotranspiration, which may lead, in turn, to a change in climate and in the chemical

composition of the atmosphere.

Another largely unknown factor in the climatic system involves the role of snow and

sea ice. Snow has the highest albedo of any material abundant on the earth’s surface and

its areal extent is more variable than that of any other material. Its presence or absence,

therefore, drastically alters the surface radiation budget and, thereby, surface

temperature.

[6] Just as snow modifies the albedo of the land, sea ice, which covers up to 10% of the

world ocean, drastically modifies the albedo of the surface of the sea. In the “landlocked”

north, sea-ice extent doubles in the winter, with the expansion largely occurring in the

marginal seas of the subarctic. In the waters surrounding the Antarctic continent the

seasonal change in ice extent is much larger. Science lacks a quantitative understanding

of decadal change in global ice extent.

Sea ice serves as a deformable heat insulating layer of variable thickness. The heat

flux through the cracks in the ice (the leads) is two orders of magnitude larger than

through the ice itself. The occurrence of sea ice modifies the seasonal temperature cycle,

delaying temperature extremes through the release of its latent heat of freezing in the fall

and the uptake of heat for melting in the spring.

Finally, sea ice by its very nature is sensitive to small changes in the atmospheric and

oceanic heat fluxes, making it a useful indicator of climatic change. This is particularly true

in the southern hemisphere where the movement of the pack is unaffected by blocking

land masses (for instance at lat. 60° S, a 1° C change in mean air temperature correlates

with a 2.5° latitude decrease in maximum ice extent). A comprehensive program for

monitoring the cryosphere can illuminate some of the issues in climate change.

Questions about the availability of the nutrients related to biological productivity

again involve chemicals that cycle through the atmosphere, land, rivers, coastal zone, and

deep ocean. Removal of chemicals and organic matter across the shelf to the deep ocean

is a major pathway in the overall cycles of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Nutrient

addition from rivers is an increasing factor in shelf productivity and it is influenced by

human activities. The open ocean contributes significantly to the nutrient balance on the

shelf and changes in ocean circulation can also alter this balance. The shelf is a direct

source of food for humanity and pressures on this supply are increasing rapidly. The

mechanisms and processes that control the transport of these nutrients from terrestrial

sources to oceanic “sinks” are known only in the most qualitative way. It is therefore

critical to assess the fate of this excess anthropogenic nitrogen to determine its impact on

the shelves and coastal zones and ultimately its effect on the rate of fixation of carbon in

the open ocean.

At decadal scales ocean dynamics are inhomogeneous within and between basins.

There is an intimate relation between ocean circulation and biological production. The

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 487
scientific focus could be on the longer term consequences of these interactions between

physical and biological processes in the oceans. The consequences occur through the

exchange of essential or critical elements such as nitrogen and carbon through

intermediate depths (300 to 500 meters). These exchange rates can be measured through

specific experiments. To generalize these results, however, the processes must be linked to

the general circulation and productivity of the upper layers.

How do variations in vertical processes alter the rates of biological and chemical

cycles? These changes are driven by mixing over much of the ocean interior. In certain

regions, where there is significant net upward or downward movement, the chemical and

biological changes are magnified and can play a dominant role in the total exchange: for

example, the removal of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere probably involves

downwelling in the Norwegian Sea. How do changes in upwelling regions affect both

regional fish production and global chemical cycles? How are downwelling rates in the

high latitudes affected by changes in the general circulation and how, in turn, will these

affect the global balance of radiatively important gases? These are some of the questions

that need to be addressed on a global scale.

The cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur through the atmosphere is controlled

mainly by photochemical transformations in the troposphere. The sink processes, which

include wet and dry deposition and takeup by vegetation, can have important and

widespread effects on biospheric productivity, positive in some cases (deposition of sulfur

and nitrogen in nutrient states) and negative in others (excessively acidic rainfall with

attendant growth reduction and increases in exposure of vegetarian to ozone, SOx, and

NOx). Accompanying the major effects of global atmospheric chemistry on biological

productivity are other changes in the atmosphere such as visibility degradation.

Although the exact details of the global carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur atmospheric

chemical cycles are far from understood, some key issues are clearly defined. The major

challenge in understanding both nutrient (carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur) and toxic

(ozone, SOx, and NOx) atmospheric chemistry is to determine the concentration

distributions of these materials in the atmosphere, understand the relevant atmospheric

transformations, and delineate human inputs from natural sources.

There is a need to identify natural and human sources of hydrocarbons and to

understand the relevant oxidation mechanisms. Regional to global changes in the

hydroxyl and ozone concentrations are very important in determining the pace of

photochemical cycles. Tropospheric ozone appears to be increasing not only in polluted

air but in “clean air” regions of the troposphere. It is critical to determine the spatial

variation in the concentration of tropospheric ozone and other toxic gases remote from

industrial sources, especially over agricultural and vegetated regions, so as to isolate the

effects on primary productivity.

[7] The concern about human effects on stratospheric ozone has been mentioned

earlier and represents an important example of a widely recognized issue impacting

global habitability. An extensive effort is underway to improve scientific understanding of

the chemical and dynamical influences regulating ozone in both natural and perturbed

states. The program recognizes the importance of microbial reactions in mediating the

concentrations of gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and various halocarbons and

their effects on ozone.

488 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
A major scientific issue related to biological productivity and the carbon cycle is that

the total biomass of the earth’s surface is unknown to better than a factor of two and that

the extent to which the biomass changes in decadal time scales is also not known.

Complicating the issue is the fact that human disturbances of natural ecosystems over the

last 100 years, including the clearing of forests for agriculture, have changed the

vegetation and soil reservoirs by relatively large amounts. Better estimates of both the total

biomass on the earth’s surface and rate at which it is changing are needed before an

understanding can be achieved of how the primary productivity of the earth’s surface is

being altered by changes in land use, in climate, and in the supply of nutrients. A

concerted program using current capabilities for space and ground observation,

especially in tropical countries, can be mounted in order to provide information on the

extent of biomass change. This program, with related definitions of changing nutrient

cycles, climate, and available energies, can help bring about progress in understanding

several areas: the global carbon cycle; the interdependence of carbon with the cycles of

other nutrients; the recovery time of the earth’s biosphere after a major perturbation; and

the reasons for the changing productivity of the semiarid regions.

The scientific issues raised here are not all-encompassing. They provide an example

of the range of issues that must be addressed in a program of research motivated by the

question of habitability. The scientific expertise is available and rapid progress can be

expected in most areas. In others, the challenge is more formidable, and success will

require imaginative combinations of talents from different disciplines. The program

outlined in the next chapter shows the extent to which this may be achieved.

[9] IV. Some Program Elements

A new emphasis that appears in the global habitability program is on the interaction

between land, ocean, and atmospheric processes, with biological processes on land and in

the sea as a central concern. Programs can be identified that can contribute to the

solution of most of the problems posed in Chapter III. Some are already in existence (e.g.,

weather and climate), but for the most part these are missions of other agencies and are

funded at relatively low levels. Some are ready for execution, such as the Upper

Atmospheric Research Satellite and the Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX), and

they must be funded immediately if a global habitability program is to have meaning.

Finally, there are programs, particularly in the biological area, that may be feasible but for

which even advanced planning does not exist.

We discuss, in this chapter, only a few of the possible programs, with emphasis on

those that involve interactions between disciplines. This is where innovative and

interesting new approaches are possible, but it should be borne in mind that many of

NASA’s existing programs are also crucial for the successful execution of a global

habitability research program.

A NASA research program cannot concern itself with space systems alone. In each of

the following sections, therefore, we indicate the activities required for global

observations, for process studies (laboratory research, ground-based measurements), and

for theoretical research.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 489
The Atmosphere

NASA already has a well-conceived and productive program in stratospheric

chemistry research, mandated by Congress in 1976. The focus of this program is on

understanding the stability of the upper-atmospheric ozone layer and on examining

changes or threats posed by human activity.

A key new element in the upper-atmosphere program is the Upper Atmospheric

Research Satellite (UARS), planned for launch in 1988, which will study the coupling

between radiation, chemistry, and dynamics. An integrated program involves sets of global

UARS satellite measurements, in situ field measurements utilizing aircraft and balloon

measurements, laboratory studies, data analysis, and theoretical work (for details see JPL

Publication 78-54, Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite System).

A tropospheric research program, more extensive than that which NASA now has,

needs to be developed. The immediate aim would be to provide global data and

parameterizations of physical processes for incorporation in numerical models of

hydrological and biogeochemical cycles. These models are not ends in themselves: they

cannot substitute for careful thought and understanding, but they are helpful in

providing guidance to the important measurements and to the required precision of

measurement.

One physical process that is inadequately understood is that of cloud formation and

its influence on the planetary radiation fields. We have yet to document cloud climatology

on a global scale, a task well-suited to earth-orbiting systems. A large program has been

proposed to take place from 1983 to 1988 under the auspices of the World Climate

Research Program (see International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP):

Preliminary Implementative Plan, ICSU/WMO, January 1982). NASA can and should be

a major participant in this program. The agency should also undertake detailed cloud and

precipitation process studies using aircraft for observation platforms.

Knowledge of tropospheric chemistry lags behind stratospheric chemistry and, at this

time, the need is for measurements, from aircraft, over the full tropospheric altitude

range and over a range of conditions of the concentration (or flux if possible) of carbon

dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane and other hydrocarbons, ozone, ammonia,

chlorofluoromethanes, SOx, NOx, hydroxyl, aerosols, and other species. Laboratory and

field measurement techniques need to be developed for these studies. Global

measurements from space will eventually be required to provide a data base for global

tropospheric models.

The Ocean

Global measurements from space are ideally suited for providing improved

understanding of the ocean’s large-scale, low-frequency circulation, but such

measurements are inherently limited to features at or near the sea surface. Of prime

importance are measurements made from space of sea-surface elevation and global wind

stress, with complementary measurements made within the ocean. A global program

combining subsurface measurements with those from satellites can best be accomplished

by transmitting in situ data directly to one or more satellites.

490 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The United States has pioneered in the field of ocean observations from space, and

NASA must maintain an active program in those aspects relevant to its concerns with

global habitability. NASA is ready to proceed with an ocean topographic satellite

(TOPEX), which can greatly increase knowledge of the transport of heat and chemical

species in the oceans. The funding of this program is an early order of business.

The need to unify space and in situ measurements is particularly pressing in oceanic

research. A valuable and distinctive character could be given to the U.S. program by

making a major effort to integrate NASA’s activities with those of the oceanographic [10]

community, with its tried in situ methods. An immediate commitment by NASA to space

oceanographic missions is essential if the interest and involvement of U.S.

oceanographers is to be increased above its current low level.

Further steps concerned with research into the close coupling between the

atmosphere and ocean are under active consideration by many international groups. The

United States should participate in their efforts and collaborate in program execution.

Current planning by the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research

Program involves:

• A “Cage Experiment” to address the problem of estimating the annual mean

surface heat flux to the atmosphere on an ocean-basin scale.

• A “World Ocean Circulation Experiment” to address the problem of estimating

the rate of bottom water formation and to determine the dynamics of the slow,

large-scale components of the ocean circulation.

• An “Interannual Variability of the Tropical Oceans” program.

These programs fit, to varying degrees, within the objectives of a global habitability

program, and all contain major space elements.

An ocean biological productivity program should focus on one major theme: the

exchange of major chemicals between near-surface and deeper water. Distinctive regions

are the open ocean, centers of upwelling and downwelling, and the coastal zone; each has

markedly differing vertical exchange processes. The aim should be to determine physical

and chemical conditions and rates of biological processes from in situ measurements, so

that the information can be used together with remote sensing data to extend scientific

ideas in space and time. Physical programs to measure advection and diffusion should be

closely linked with measurements and experiments on dissolved and particulate

constituents. A key requirement for assessing the net long-term rates of removal of

carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus from the system is the measurement of sediment and

organic matter at the shelf edge prior to removal. New instrumentation for this purpose

is needed. To connect the physical changes with net chemical transports, the basic

biological dynamics that link these components must be understood. Several focused

experiments to study ocean productivity are outlined in the Satellite Ocean Color Science

Working Group Report (NASA, 1982). These include river-dominated, wind-upwelling,

western-boundary, and open-sea experiments.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 491
The Cryosphere

It is currently possible to measure snow extent using satellite imagery, but it is not

possible to obtain by remote sensing other physical data (depth, density, water

equivalence, free-water content, age, crystal size, type, etc.). Recent studies of microwave

systems have shown promise, and work should be initiated on systems to extend scientific

understanding of processes occurring within natural snowpacks.

The situation for sea ice is different in that there are a number of sensor systems that

have proven capabilities. The most valuable of these operate in the microwave range and

are not limited by either clouds or the absence of light. Of particular value is synthetic

aperture radar, which supplies high-spatial-resolution information on ice extent, type, and

roughness in a map-like format. Also of value are passive microwave radiometers (lowspatial-resolution information on ice extent and type), radar altimeters (ice extent and

topography), and scatterometers (ice extent, type, and surface roughness). In short, the

sensors are available; it is their deployment into suitable orbits and the utilization of

available data that have lagged behind.

Cryospheric research is an area of central importance to the coupling of the ocean

and the atmosphere. Several international and national programs are in progress or

under discussion. The role of space observations is crucial, and important contributions

are described in documents such as Guideline for the Cryospheric Processes Special

Study, (NASA, 1982). And yet, no synthetic aperture radar or other innovative

measurement has been authorized by the United States. Again, the ground for a globalhabitability thrust is thoroughly prepared.

The Land

We have identified the crucial importance of biology to processes in the

atmosphere and the ocean on the decadal time scale; the reaction of global processes

upon the biosphere in turn is not only the return path in a fully interacting system, but,

in addition, defines the social issue of importance to this study. More than 90% of the

global biomass is on or in the land surface but, despite the fact that humanity exists in

close contact with it and deploys considerable effort on agricultural and ecological

research, there are too few available data for allowing generalizations regarding the

global system and no demonstrated concepts upon which a large measurement program

can be based.

If resources are devoted, as they should be, to a global habitability program, the

greatest single need is to broaden the intellectual base in the area of land biology and to

evolve, virtually from first principles, useful measurements addressed to the problems

raised in Chapter III.

There is only limited experience to draw on. Landsat images have yielded some

interesting details, but there is no substantial reason to suppose that land biomass and its

changes (let alone soil biomass) can be reliably measured, on a global scale, with any

similar system.

[11] Studies have been made of space systems for measuring soil moisture. There are

some reasons for encouragement here, but there is a long path to travel before a credible

492 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
program can emerge (JPL Publication 80-57, Joint Microwave and Infrared Studies for

Soil Moisture Determination).

Studies of small ecosystems, monocultures, and other activities evolving from

chemical studies make continual progress, but they are difficult to relate, with confidence,

to global questions. Presumably, enough studies in enough detail would provide some

insight, but this only shifts the burden to the need for an intellectual synthesis of

extraordinary difficulty.

What achievement, then, can be hoped for in this area? The distribution of land

biomass and its natural and human-induced changes are primary targets for investigation.

Further efforts to use Landsat data in a quantitative fashion and attempts to define more

sophisticated measuring systems should continue.

Studies of new concepts in remote sensing, e.g., to measure soil moisture, should also

continue. The existing effort needs to be accelerated. Where the connection with global

change can be clearly demonstrated, studies of individual ecosystems should be

undertaken. Studies of toxicity can define the significant tropospheric chemical

parameters.

Generally speaking, the present choices for a directed program are severely limited,

but we believe that they can be increased in number and their quality improved. The key

is an able scientific community and the key to that, in turn, is an agency commitment to

the task. In the short term there are, fortunately, many related areas in oceanic and

atmospheric research where progress towards the overall goal is possible.

The parameterization of surface data to define thermal and moisture fluxes into the

atmosphere for global dynamical models is an area for which a feasible program exists.

Aircraft and in situ studies can be defined that can determine thermal and transpiration

boundary conditions for large ecosystems identifiable from space images. If this is

successful, one of the most important links between human activities and climatic change

may be understood in quantitative terms.

The Sun

Solar radiation at wavelengths less than 350 nanometers controls the production and

destruction of important stratospheric and mesospheric chemical species. Changes in the

solar ultraviolet spectral distribution can therefore change the vertical temperature and

species profiles in this region of the atmosphere, which may, in turn, change stratospheric

circulation patterns. 

In the ultraviolet region, intensity variations of several percent have been measured

over a period of a single solar rotation. Because of unsatisfactory calibrations in the past,

science does not yet have a long-term data set of solar spectral variability. Instrumentation

suitable to the task has now been developed for periodic Shuttle flights.

In terms of the total energy from the sun falling on the earth, only recently have

direct measurements become available with sufficient accuracy to establish the reality of

solar variations. These indicate changes over a few days on the order of a few parts per

thousand; small on the scale of phenomena that may affect habitability of the earth.

Changes of a few percent would, however, be important, and a long time series of

measurements is required to establish whether they occur. As a minimum, the total solar

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 493
irradiance should be measured over a full solar magnetic cycle to a precision of 0.05

percent or better.

Interactions

Many of the most interesting and least understood features of the global system

concern the interactions between land, sea, air, and life. In this section a few out of many

possible research directions concerning interactions are discussed.

For the hydrological cycle, NASA already has several active programs, but the balance

between evaporation and precipitation over the oceans is a neglected area. A combination

of infrared and microwave sounders with active and passive techniques for determining

surface stress offers some promise of yielding data on evaporation. Precipitation can

possibly be inferred from cloud forms and from altitudes of cumuliform clouds and from

radar reflectivities for stratiform clouds. A directed thrust to determine evaporation and

precipitation over the oceans appears to be justified.

The cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur across land, sea, and air boundaries is a

central problem. Some information comes from tropospheric chemical measurements,

but the more difficult features require in situ and aircraft measurements. It is necessary to

know more about microbiological activity, reservoirs of relevant species in the three

media, and transport between them, and it is necessary to integrate this knowledge with

coupled numerical models. Many aspects of this problem are feasible now.

Another surface chemical problem concerns the destruction of ozone at the land

and sea surface. We have signaled the importance of ground-level ozone but

heterogeneous destruction at the surface is poorly understood and a program of research

could be designed.

[12]Sensible heat fluxes at the ocean surface are required, together with water

fluxes, to define the heat transports in both the ocean and the atmosphere. This

important parameter can be obtained from infrared and microwave space soundings

under certain conditions, and a more active program should be undertaken.

The problem of desertification is one of interactions. We have discussed the

evapotranspiration cycle, and steps that could be taken to further understand it. But what

conditions led to irreversible changes on the land, perhaps even to the decay of earlier

civilizations? Space tools can, at the least, provide the monitoring of patterns of changing

land use. As the physical understanding of desertification increases, observational tools

can probably be devised to provide the needed data. 

Interactions between land surfaces and the oceans over decadal time scales are

changed primarily through runoff. Runoff provides a means for removal of chemical

species and organic matter from land and is the major source of fresh water to the oceans.

A general survey is required for several select estuarine systems and coastal environs to

trace export of various chemicals and organic matter from the terrestrial source to the

long-term oceanic sink and to establish a flow data set from which induced changes can

be assessed. These are, principally, in situ studies, but attempts must be made to relate to

measurements by color scanners and other space observations.

Studies need to be undertaken to understand how changes in biochemical transports

and the quantity of fresh water affect coastal productivity. A mixture of space and in situ

measurements here is essential to obtain a full representation in both space and time.

494 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Data Sets

Much has been written on the extraordinarily difficult problems involved in

handling global data sets so that they are useful for the purpose for which they were

gathered. It is often simpler to collect data than to use it. Examples of the destruction of

unique information for apparently extraneous reasons are growing. The problem will not

look after itself but requires a directed activity of high priority.

The nature of the problem is discussed in Guidelines for the Air-Sea Interaction

Special Study (JPL Publication 80-8, 1980), and a strategy is proposed around the

following conceptual elements:

• Understanding satellite signals.

• Instrument verification.

• Combining the capabilities of several different remote sensors with remote and in

situ capabilities to measure a given variable.

• Utilizing a directly sensed remote measurement as index of a climate change.

• Comprehensive data management to provide an easily usable data base.

Each appears deceptively simple, but requires, in practice, a major effort.

[13] V. National and International Considerations

National Programs

There is no national research program of the same overall scope as that proposed in

this report. However, the United States does have scientific programs and operational

systems that encompass elements of the proposed program—e.g., the National Climate

Program. NASA can work with other agencies and with industrial users through existing

relationships in order to make its data and findings available where needed.

The International Aspects

A global habitability program must be international in scope and requires the

cooperation of the international science community. No one nation could carry it out alone.

These considerations are recognized by scientists and policymakers around the world.

There are many areas of possible collaboration in different geographical regions at

different levels of effort. Such areas could, for example, include ground-based measurements

of major estuaries, coastal shelves, tropical forests, and oceanic upwelling regions.

The Global Atmospheric Research Program is a good example of an enterprise that

has achieved effective international cooperation between large and small nations in its

planning, its realization of the required observational system, its resource allocation, and

its analysis and interpretation of results.

Other International Programs

The major international programs relevant to the proposed global habitability

program fall under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP),

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 495
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Council of Scientific

Unions (ICSU), and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Although their definition and coordination are carried out by the appropriate

international bodies, these programs rely for their execution on national agencies and

resources and on scientists in individual countries.

Examples of these programs, all of which are supported by the United States, are:

• The Global Environmental Monitoring Systems, which are concerned with

monitoring a variety of environmental factors and are a part of Earthwatch, a

program coordinated by UNEP.

• The World Climate Program, with two major subprograms: an Impact Program,

which is the responsibility of UNEP and assesses the impact of possible climatic

changes on human activities such as agriculture, water supply, etc., and a

Research Program, which is the joint responsibility of WMO and ICSU and aims

to acquire scientific understanding of the climatic system.

• The Middle Atmosphere Program of ICSU, which aims to observe and

understand the middle atmosphere, especially the ozone layer.

• The global agricultural productivity activities of the FAO, which include the

regional desert locust project and soil-information and crop-statistic planningassistance efforts.

• The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, which

coordinates the research in some fifteen international research centers located in

various countries, mostly in the developing world.

International Collaboration

To ensure effective global collaboration, NASA can:

• Encourage and invite participation in the U.S. programs of experimenters from

all countries, to develop instrumentation, acquire comparative observations to

corroborate satellite-obtained information, and analyze and interpret data.

• Contribute to the environmental research efforts of WMO, FAO, UNEP, and

other regional and international agencies. NASA can correlate its research with

the research aims of these bodies and can engage in data exchange,

cosponsorship of specific projects, and joint efforts to publicize results and

prognoses.

• Consult with and coordinate its plans with other satellite- operating agencies.

[15] Appendix

List of workshop attendees, 21-26 June, Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Executive Committee

Richard Goody (Chairman)

Robert Chase (Executive Officer)

Wesley Huntress (Executive Officer)

496 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Moustafa Chahine

Michael McElroy

Ichtiaque Rasool

John Steele

Shelby Tilford (NASA Representative)

Attendees

James Baker Robert McNeal

Victor Baker Lynn Margulis

William Bishop Berrien Moore

Harry Blaney III Robert Murphy

Daniel Botkin James Pollack

Geoffrey Briggs Ronald Prinn

Wallace Broecker V. Ramanathan

Kenneth Carder Mitchell Rambler

Philip Chandler William Raney

Kenneth Coughlin Charles Robinove

Paul Crutzen Robert Schiffer

Robert Duce Brent Smith

Peter Eagleson Gerald Soffen

James Hansen Vern Soumi [sic]

Robert Harriss John Theon

Howard Hogg John Walsh

Donald Hornig Richard Waring

John Houghton Robert Watson

Robert Hudson Wilford Weeks

James Lawless Sylvan Wittwer

Robert MacDonald

Document IV-3

Document Title: James M. Beggs, Administrator, NASA, to George A. Keyworth II, Science

Advisor to the President, Proposal for “Global Habitability,” 14 July 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

By mid-July 1982, NASA Administrator James. Beggs had agreed to take the global habitability

initiative to Unispace ’82. This memorandum and attached program description and white paper

were NASA’s attempt to convince the President’s Science Advisor, Dr. George Keyworth, to agree to and

support the initiative. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 497
[no pagination]

[stamped “Jul 14, 1982”]

Dr. George A. Keyworth, II

Science Advisor to the President

Old Executive Office Building

Room 360

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Jay:

I would like to advise you of a new NASA Program, known as Global Habitability,

which I intend to present as a new U. S. initiative at the UNISPACE Conference the week

of August 9 in Vienna, Austria. The initiative primarily consists of inviting the

international community to join the U.S. under the leadership of NASA in a cooperative

research program to achieve a consolidated approach to understand changes which may

affect the habitability of earth. These activities include research on the atmosphere,

oceans, land, and biosphere and the requisite space and ground observations to support

them. The enclosed paper more fully describes this initiative.

Sincerely,

[signature]

James M. Beggs

Administrator

Enclosure

bcc:

A

AD

E/Edelson

E/Keller

E/Rosendhal .

E/Thome

AEM

**********

July 13, 1982

GLOBAL HABITABILITY PROGRAM

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is proposing a ten year

international cooperative research program to obtain a solid body of knowledge from

498 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
which policy decisions can be made addressing the questions of change, either natural or

of human origin, affecting the habitability of the earth. Called “Global Habitability,” the

program will focus on biological productivity and the water, chemical and energy cycles

which comprise the life support systems of the global habitat. The program will investigate

the interactions between land, sea and air on the one hand, and biological, chemical and

physical processes on the other. Much of the required effort is currently in process within

NASA, other federal agencies and the international community. However, some of the

current research would require a change in emphasis and in time additional areas of

research will be necessary. The total activities include research on the atmosphere, oceans,

land, and biosphere and the requisite space and ground observations to support them.

We live on a planet characterized by change, at a time when man has achieved the

ability to alter his environment on a global scale. Within the lifetime of our children the

population on the earth is predicted to double. Of concern are the production of food

adequate to the needs of this growing population, and the subtle interactions which might

affect the planet’s ability to sustain and renew the quality of air and water and the integrity

of the global chemical cycles essential for life.

Scientists believe that humanity has reached the point of being able to change the

Earth significantly on a time scale of mere decades, yet our ability to mount counter

measures, should we wish to, is restricted in many cases to a time scale which is similar or

longer. An understanding of the overall system is essential if we are to live successfully with

global change. Although the time scales for change are decadal, the need for the body of

knowledge is in this present decade if enlightened policy decisions are to be made.

Global changes which impact the habitability on the earth are principally of two

kinds: those which relate to biological productivity and those which affect human health.

Both involve cycles of energy, water, and essential chemicals through the atmosphere,

land, and oceans.

Biological productivity over land is paced by the availability of water, nutrients, and

light; in the oceans only the latter two concern us. Changes in the global rainfall

distribution, intensity and timing are critical for land productivity while the flow of

nutrients through the rivers to the coastal zone and their eventual mixing with deep ocean

water and similar transfer from land to ocean through the atmosphere are dominant

factors for productivity in the oceans. The problem of assessing these changes becomes

more complicated when we realize that natural rainfall patterns over the globe are only

marginally predictable by current climate models and are now being perturbed by the

introduction of optically active gases, changing the temperature regime and impacting

the evaporation-condensation cycle. At the same time other chemicals are being added to

the atmosphere, changing the acidity of rainfall, the level of toxic gases, and the amounts

of nutrients in the soils, rivers, and eventually on the coastal shelves. They may even

modify the intensity of near ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth’s surface. The

objective then is to isolate the natural variability and then to assess the impact of maninduced changes on the global system.

On time scales of a decade, the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere function as an

integrated system. Physical, chemical, and biological processes are coupled, and progress

in our understanding will require an interdisciplinary research program of broad scope

and content. The program will require space observations to provide global perspective;

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 499
investigations of specific ecosystems both on the ground and from space to enhance our

appreciation for the overall function of the biosphere; studies of representative estuarine

and coastal systems to define the transfer of materials from land to ocean; studies of

horizontal and vertical motions in the ocean, recognizing the importance of these

motions for climate and their role in regulating the flow of materials to the depths of the

ocean; studies of the atmosphere, its chemistry, its physics and its motions; and theoretical

and laboratory investigations to synthesize new information serving as a guide to the

acquisition of new data.

A global habitability program should be international in scope and be performed

with the cooperation of the international science community. There are many areas of

possible international collaboration in different geographical regions and at different

levels of effort: These include ground-based measurements of major estuaries, coastal

shelves, tropical forests, and oceanic upwelling regions, satellite measurements, data

analysis and laboratory research. It can thus involve both the large and the small nations.

Consideration is being given to introducing the Global Habitability Program at the

UNISPACE 82 Conference in Vienna in August 1982, with the U. S. representative inviting

other nations to join in this effort for the benefit of all mankind.

**********

UNISPACE WHITE PAPER

July 13, 1982

GLOBAL HABITABILITY PROGRAM

The United States of America, through its National Aeronautics and Space

Administration is proposing a ten year international cooperative research program to

obtain a solid body of knowledge from which policy decisions can be made addressing the

questions of change, either natural or of human origin, affecting the habitability of the

earth. Called “Global Habitability,” the program will focus on biological productivity and

the water, chemical and energy cycles which comprise the life support systems of the

global habitat. The program will investigate the interactions between land, sea and air on

the one hand, and biological, chemical and physical processes on the other. Much of the

required effort is currently in process within NASA, other U.S. federal agencies, and the

international community. However, some of the current research would require a change

in emphasis, and in time additional areas of research will be necessary. The total activities

include research on the atmosphere, oceans, land, and biosphere and the requisite space

and ground observations to support them.

We live on a planet characterized by change, at a time when man has achieved the

ability to alter his environment on a global scale. Within the lifetime of our children the

population on the earth is predicted to double. Of concern are the production of food

adequate to the needs of this growing population, and the subtle interactions which might

affect the planet’s ability to sustain and renew the quality of air and water and the integrity

of the global chemical cycles essential for life.

500 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Scientists believe that humanity has reached the point of being able to change the

Earth significantly on a time scale of mere decades; yet our ability to mount counter

measures, should we wish to, is restricted in many cases to a time scale which is similar or

longer. An understanding of the overall system is essential if we are to live successfully with

global change. Although the time scales for change are decadal, the need for the body of

knowledge is in this present decade if enlightened policy decisions are to be made.

Global changes which impact the habitability on the earth are principally of two

kinds: those which relate to biological productivity and those which affect human health.

Both involve cycles of energy, water, and essential chemicals through the atmosphere,

land, and oceans.

Biological productivity over land is paced by the availability of water, nutrients, and

light; in the oceans only the latter two concern us. Changes in the global rainfall

distribution, intensity and timing are critical for land productivity while the flow of nutrients

through the rivers to the coastal zone and their eventual mixing with deep ocean water and

similar transfer from land to ocean through the atmosphere are dominant factors for

productivity in the oceans. The problem of assessing these changes becomes more

complicated when we realize that natural rainfall patterns over the globe are only marginally

predictable by current climate models and are now being perturbed by the introduction of

optically active gases, changing the temperature regime and impacting the evaporationcondensation cycle. At the same time other chemicals are being added to the atmosphere,

changing the acidity of rainfall, the level of toxic gases, and the amounts of nutrients in the

soils, rivers, and eventually on the coastal shelves. They may even modify the intensity of near

ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth’s surface. The objective then is to isolate the natural

variability and then to assess the impact of man-induced changes on the global system.

On time scales of a decade, the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere function as an

integrated system. Physical, chemical, and biological processes are coupled, and progress

in our understanding will require an interdisciplinary research program of broad scope

and content. The program will require space observations to provide global perspective;

investigations of specific ecosystems both on the ground and from space to enhance our

appreciation for the overall function of the biosphere; studies of representative estuarine

and coastal systems to define the transfer of materials from land to ocean; studies of

horizontal and vertical motions in the ocean, recognizing the importance of these

motions for climate and their role in regulating the flow of materials to the depths of the

ocean; studies of the atmosphere, its chemistry, its physics and its motions; and theoretical

and laboratory investigations to synthesize new information serving as a guide to the

acquisition of new data.

This program will contribute to the ongoing environmental research efforts of the

WMO, the FAO, UNEP and other regional and international agencies. NASA will

correlate its research with the research aims of these bodies and will engage in data

exchange, co-sponsorship of specific projects, and in joint efforts to acquaint national

publics and policymakers with results and prognoses. We suggest the establishment of an

international clearing house, perhaps in the form of an existing scientific body, to broadly

disseminate the results of the studies.

We wish to encourage and invite broadscale participation of experimenters in the

development of instrumentation, the acquisition of comparative observations to

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 501
corroborate satellite-obtained information, and in the analysis and interpretation of data.

Investigators will be selected through Announcements of Opportunity and

Announcement Notices. Unsolicited proposals will be considered. Collaboration will also

take place at the scientist-to-scientist level based on agreements with national and

international agencies. NASA will provide for significant program involvement by

developing countries in areas such as ground-based observations and the exchange of

data that can assist individual countries and regions to manage their resources and better

deal with changes affecting habitability—e.g., deforestation, desertification, agricultural

productivity. Through such collaboration, both NASA and the individual countries will

obtain vital information beyond that obtainable using only a single tool of measurement.

In addition, NASA will consult and coordinate its plans with those of prospective

satellite operating agencies to encourage the development of compatible and

complementary spaceborne instrumentation and thereby maximize the effectiveness of

global measurements. Such coordination should result in cost savings, avoid duplication

of effort, and minimize the prospect of incompatible national systems.

Life has persisted on the Earth for more than 3.5 billion years. The course of life has

been threatened many times over the history of the planet. Volcanic eruptions and

advancing ice sheets altered the temperature and circulation patterns of the atmosphere

and ocean, leading to large changes in local areas. Species became extinct and others

evolved taking their place. Most species of animals survived for periods of the order of 10

million years or so, and disappeared mainly for reasons relating to destruction of habitat.

Food, water, air and climatic conditions changed gradually but inexorably beyond the

limit of the species to survive.

The human species could be facing a similar challenge. In contrast to his less

successful predecessors, however, man has the capability to manage his resources, to plan

intelligently for the future, and to preserve the necessary elements of his habitat. We can

see no better use of man’s mastery of near space than the acquisition of the body of

knowledge essential for the wise management decisions of the future.

Document IV-4

Document Title: James M. Beggs, NASA Administrator, to George A. Keyworth, Science

Advisor to the President, July 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Keyworth apparently responded to the July 7 letter from Mr. Beggs with considerable skepticism

about the value of the proposed global habitability program. This letter is NASA’s attempt to allay his

concerns and prevent the White House from blocking NASA’s cooperative initiative.

[no pagination]

[no date]

502 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Honorable George A. Keyworth

Science Advisor to the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Executive Office of the President

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Jay: 

Thanks for your letter on our Global Habitability initiative for UNISPACE ‘82. While

I can appreciate the concerns you expressed, I believe we are taking appropriate action

on each of them.

I understand the sensitivity to the “Global 2000” report and contrary to the

pessimism experssed [sic] therein, I believe that mankind has the capability to manage his

resources and to plan intelligently for the future. However he must have sound scientific

information as a foundation. The Global Habitability program is a serious scientific effort

expected to take a decade or so, and its output will be the needed body of knowledge

upon which future decisions can be made.

We are well aware of the expertise existing in other government agencies in the

research areas related to Global Habitability; indeed NOAA and USGS were involved in

the Woods Hole Study which generated the concept. In carrying out the U.S. Program in

Global Habitability, many agencies will continue to be involved.

Let me clarify that it is certainly not our intent to turn the Global Habitability effort

over to any new or existing international organization. It is our intention that the U.S.

program remain entirely under U.S. management and control. At the UNISPACE

conference we plan merely to describe our concept and to invite other nations to join this

research effort with their own programs, and to share the results. We expect that the only

international part of the effort will be some sort of “clearinghouse” for the results of the

various national efforts. This might be undertaken by one or more existing groups—

either a UN agency such as WMO, UNEP, or FAO, or by international scientific

organizations such as ICSU, COSPAR, or IAF. In Vienna, we do not plan for the U.S. to

identify which of these organizations might serve this role. We will suggest that an

international workshop be held in early 1983 to discuss this concept.

We have now briefed all the U. S. agencies on this concept, and I hope that your

concerns are alleviated by the above explanation and our actions.

Sincerely,

[signature]

James M. Beggs

Administrator

(Head U.S. Delegation to UNISPACE ’82)

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 503
Document IV-5

Document Title: B. I. Edelson, Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, NASA, with comments from Hans Mark, Deputy Administrator, NASA,

“Global Habitability,” 8 November 1982.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

In this memorandum to a wide variety of officials within NASA, Burton Edelson illustrates his strong

support for the global habitability concept and his attempt to turn it into a working program within

NASA and with international involvement. As was frequently his habit on others’ papers, NASA

Deputy Administrator Hans Mark added his comments.

[no page number]

[stamped “Nov 8 1982”]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

20546

Reply to Attn of: EL-4

TO: Distribution

FROM: E/Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications

SUBJECT: Global Habitability

We had a good kickoff for our Global Habitability effort at UNISPACE in Vienna

in August, including Mr. Beggs’ announcement, Shelby Tilford’s and Richard Goody’s

presentations, and discussions at several separate meetings with international

organizations—UNEP, FAO, UNESCO, WMO, and ISCU. What we presented and

discussed in Vienna was a “concept.” Now we need to turn Global Habitability into a

“program.” [Italics indicate a handwritten note by Hans Mark] I fully agree with this

point except that we want to make it clear that the “program” we are contemplating may not

require new funds.

As a first task, we should get internal NASA agreement on the program definition,

goals, and objectives. I suggest the following:

Global Habitability is a proposed NASA research program to investigate long-term

physical, chemical, and biological trends and changes in the earth’s environment,

including its atmosphere, land masses, and oceans. The program will of necessity

involve major international participation and will be coordinated insofar as possible

504 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
with national research programs and those of international agencies. The program

will specifically investigate the effects of natural and human activities on the earth’s

environment by measuring and modeling important nutrient chemical cycles, and

will estimate the future effects on biological productivity and habitability of the earth

by man and other species. The program will involve space and suborbital

observation, land- and sea-based measurements, laboratory research, and supporting

data management technologies over a ten-year or longer period of time. [Italics

indicate a handwritten note by Hans Mark] The program will start by combining existing

efforts in these areas before developing new ones. [In reference to the above paragraph:]

This is an excellent statement.

As a second step, consistent with the definition and goals established above, we

should prepare detailed background material for the Global Habitability program. This

would supplement the report of the Goody summer study to include summaries of

existing research, analysis of scientific issues, and relations to relevant ongoing programs

(climate, weather studies, arctic research, etc.). This should be prepared in document

form suitable for international presentation.

Third, we should formulate and document the NASA program. We should identify

those ongoing [underlined by Hans Mark with the following comment: “most important”]

and planned (i.e., FY 84-88) projects and research tasks which should be part of the

program. These should be written into a NASA program plan to include description of

the work, schedules, budgets, and responsibility assignments.

[2] Fourth, we should coordinate with other U.S. government agencies, particularly

NOAA, NSF, Agriculture, Energy, and Interior, on their ongoing programs in relation to

the NASA program and discuss possible collaborations. [Italics indicate a handwritten

note by Hans Mark] Yes.

Fifth, we should contact and work with other governments and international

research organizations we know to be interested in the subject to explore the possibility

of parallel research programs or joint programs. [Italics indicate a handwritten note by

Hans Mark] Yes.

Sixth, and last, we should approach an international body we wish to act as a focal

point for the international aspects of the Global Habitability effort. This organization will

have several roles; including:

1. sponsoring of international meetings and conferences on Global Habitability,

2. serving as a “clearinghouse” for information on plans and progress of individual

participants, and

3. creating and maintaining an archive center for results of the foreign and

international programs contributing to the Global Habitability effort.

This body should not itself conduct or direct any research activity nor set goals or

standards for national programs. Members of the body might, however, review and analyze

the combined results of various contributing programs and report results on these

analyses which, in turn, might become contributions to the global program. The

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 505
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) seems to be the prime candidate to act

as this focal point. [Italics indicate a handwritten note by Hans Mark] Right.

We will need schedules for all the activities mentioned above. We should start the first

four steps at once; in fact, some are already in motion. As soon as the NASA program is

reasonably clear and coordinated with other U.S. agencies, we should contact other

countries (step 5) to coordinate with their programs, and select the international

organization to serve as a focal point (step 6). We plan to have an international Global

Habitability workshop in late spring if possible; if not, early fall (1983).

I propose to act as chairman of a steering committee to formulate the program

and move it along through the six steps above. Members of the steering committee will

initially consist of NASA representatives. [Italics indicate a handwritten note by Hans

Mark] I agree.

[3] When we hit step 4, we will add representatives of other program agencies. Shelby

Tilford will be the NASA program manager for Global Habitability. He will appoint and

chair a NASA program committee which will be responsible for coordinating all work in

OSSA divisions (particularly in EE, EL, EI, and EB) and centers related to Global

Habitability, and will be responsible for presenting and reporting all NASA work. Ken

Pedersen will coordinate the international aspects of the Global Habitability program.

[signed: “B.I. Edelson”]

B. I. Edelson

cc:

A/Mr. Beggs

AD/Dr. Mark

Distribution:

L/Mr. Allnutt

LI-15/Mr. Pedersen

P/Dr. McDonald

E/Mr. Keller

Dr. Rosendhal

Dr. Raney

Mr. Thome

Dr. McConnell

EE/Dr. Tilford

EL/Mr. Moore

EB/Dr. Soffen

EI/Mr. Villasenor

EP/Mr. Stanford

ARC/Mr. Syvertson

Mr. Guastaferro

GSFC/Dr. Hinners

Dr. Meredith

506 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

[Italics indicate a handwritten note at the end of the

document]

Nov. 13, 1982

Dear Burt:

I think that what you are proposing here is very important.

We must get some momentum behind this business and I agree

with the steps you are proposing.

Best Regards,

Hans.

P.S. Please see my notes.
JPL/Dr. Allen

Dr. Hibbs

JSC/Mr. Griffin

Mr. Rice

LaRC/Dr. Hearth

Mr. Holloway

LeRC/Mr. Stofan

NSTL-ERL/Mr. Hlass

Mr. Mooneyhan

MSFC/Dr. Lucas

Dr. Dessler

Document IV-6

Document Title: B. I. Edelson, Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, NASA, “Global Habitability,” 24 June 1983.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This memorandum outlines NASA’s activities to support the global habitability concept following the

Unispace ’82 meeting. Among other things, it notes the creation of the Earth Science and Applications

Division within the Office of Space Science and Applications, directed by Dr. Shelby Tilford. It also

references the National Academy of Sciences study of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program,

led by Dr. Herbert Friedman. (See Document IV-7.)

[no page number]

[stamped: “Jun 24 1983”]

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Washington, D. C. 

20546

Reply to Attn of: EE-8

TO: Distribution

FROM: E/Associate Administrator for

Space Science and Applications

SUBJECT: Global Habitability

In November 1982, I outlined activities to be undertaken to turn the “Global

Habitability concept,” which was announced at the UNISPACE Conference in Vienna last

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 507
August, into a “Global Habitability program.” These outlined activities consisted of six

steps—internal NASA agreement on program definition, goals, and objectives;

preparation of background material; formulation of the NASA program; coordination

with other U.S. government agencies; coordination with other governments and

international organizations; and identification of a scientific body to serve as an

international focal point. This letter is to report on the progress we’ve made in each of

these six areas since November.

The statement of program definition, goals, and objectives which was identified as

NASA’s first task, has been revised in light of NASA and external recommendations to

read as follows:

Global Habitability is a proposed research program to investigate long-term physical,

chemical, and biological trends and changes in the earth’s environment, including its

atmosphere, land masses, and oceans. The program will specifically investigate the

effects of natural and human activities on the earth’s environment by measuring and

modeling important physical, chemical, and biological processes, and their

interactions. The program will involve the acquisition and analysis of space and

suborbital observations, land- and sea-based measurements, modeling and laboratory

research, and supporting data management technologies over a ten-year or longer

period of time. The program will of necessity involve major international

participation and will be coordinated, insofar as possible, with national research

programs and those of international agencies.

We have made significant progress in our efforts to develop detailed background

material to support the Global Habitability program. Four science working groups have

been formed to address specific program elements:

• A Global Biology Science Working Group, under the Chairmanship of Dr.

Mitchell Rambler of NASA Headquarters, has prepared and [2] published a

report entitled “Global Biology Research Program” in January 1983. This report

addresses the scientific issues and technical approaches to characterizing

biological processes on a global scale.

• A Land Global Habitability Science Working Group, under the Chairmanship of

Dr. Sylvan Wittwer of Michigan State University, has drafted a report entitled

“Land-related Global Habitability Sciences Research Program.” This report deals

with the contribution of the land areas of the earth to global processes.

• Dr. Michael McElroy of Harvard University is chairing two working groups which

will produce documents relating to physical and chemical aspects of Global

Biogeochemical Processes.

These four documents will contribute significantly to providing the scientific

foundation for the Global Habitability program. The “Global Biology Research Program”

document has been distributed. The remaining documents will be distributed as they are

finalized.

The third step outlined in my November 1982 memo was to formulate and document

the NASA program. Formulation of the program is now well underway at Headquarters as

508 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
well as participating field centers. On April 18, 1983, I directed the organizational

relocation of OSSA’s solid earth research programs to the Environmental Observations

Division. I also directed that the Division name be changed to the Earth Science and

Applications Division, to better reflect the future focus of Division activities. The creation

of the Earth Science and Applications Division, under the direction of Dr. Shelby Tilford,

will provide improved coordination of land, oceans, and atmospheric research and will

facilitate interdisciplinary studies critical to the Global Habitability program.

Two important Earth Science and Applications Division flight projects, which will

support the Global Habitability program, are candidates for Fiscal Year 1985 new starts.

The Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite (UARS), which we propose to launch in 1989,

will carry sensors for investigating the chemical composition, energetics, and dynamics of

the stratosphere and mesosphere. The Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX), which

would also be launched in 1989, will provide highly precise altimeter data which will

contribute to improved understanding of ocean circulation. In addition to these flight

projects, augmentations will be requested for Global Habitability-related research and

analysis activities in the fiscal year 1985 budgets of both the Earth Science and

Applications Division and Life Sciences Division of OSSA.

[3] NASA scientists at Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ames

Research Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and National Space

Technology Laboratories continue to participate in working groups and planning

committees for Global Habitability-related activities. These centers are currently in the

process of redirecting appropriate Earth Science research activities to focus on global

processes.

In our efforts to begin domestic coordination of the program, we have met with

representatives of other U.S. Government agencies to acquaint them with the goals of the

Global Habitability program and to encourage their participation. To date, we have met

with Dr. Anthony J. Calio, Deputy Administrator of NOAA; Dr. Dallas Peck, Director,

U.S.G.S., Department of Interior; Dr. Orville Bentley, Assistant Secretary for Science and

Education, Department of Agriculture; and Dr. Frank Johnson, Associate Director,

National Science Foundation. We will continue these discussions as we progress with

internal formulation of the NASA program.

Discussions with international organizations and representatives of foreign

governments, the fifth step in my November memo, have been limited to discussions of

the general Global Habitability concept. Active interest in the concept has been expressed

by representatives of the United Kingdom’s Natural Environment Research Council and

Science and Engineering Research Council, the European Space Agency, the Federal

German Government, Saudi Arabian National Center for Science and Technology, World

Meteorological Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, Food and

Agriculture Organization, and the United Nations University. Discussions with foreign

agencies will continue at the conceptual level until the Global Habitability program is

formulated.

To implement the sixth and final proposed step, NASA has approached the National

Academy of Science (NAS) to coordinate U.S. scientific efforts in Global Habitability, and

to represent the U.S. science communities in the international arena through the

International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). Meetings were held with Dr. Herbert

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 509
Friedman of NAS to discuss the government-wide formulation of the effort. During these

meetings Dr. Friedman proposed a concept for a broadly-based International Geophysical

Biophysical Program (IGBP), of which he proposed that Global Habitability be a part. Dr.

Friedman anticipated that IGBP planning and implementation would evolve over

approximately a five-year period. The National Research Council (NRC) of NAS will hold

a workshop in late July 1983 to formulate and draft the framework of the IGBP. The

workshop will encompass NASA’s planned research in Global Habitability as well as other

geophysical research areas, such as [4] geodynamics, solar-terrestrial interactions,

tropospheric chemistry, oceans, and climate. The Workshop results will serve as a basis for

possible NAS recommendation of a U.S. national research effort as well as a possible input

to the ICSU General Assembly in September 1984.

While we support the concepts and objectives of the IGBP, and feel that such a

program may ultimately provide needed scientific coordination for Global Habitability

and other international scientific programs, we wish to get started on Global Habitability

much sooner than we feel the IGBP will be started. We have, therefore, asked NAS to

consider the scientific and societal merit of Global Habitability as an entity separate from

the IGBP. We feel that this separate consideration will ensure that all elements of Global

Habitability will receive the deserved level of attention from the scientific community. (I

might add that we have already received some very favorable publicity from the scientific

community on Global Habitability—most notably the attached essay by Lewis Thomas in

the June issue of “Discover” magazine.) [omitted]

As you can see, we are progressing in each of the six areas outlined last November.

Global Habitability is, however, an ambitious concept which will require continued careful

planning and coordination. I intend to ensure that we build upon the progress we’ve

made in the last six months, and will keep you periodically informed of Global Habitability

developments.

[signed: “B.I. Edelson”]

B. I. Edelson

Enclosure

cc:

A/Mr. Beggs

AD/Dr. Mark

[5] Distribution:

F/Mr. Terrell

L/Mr. Templeton

LI-15/Mr. Pedersen

P/Dr. McDonald

E/Mr. Keller

Dr. Rosendhal

Dr. Raney

Dr. McConnell

510 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EE/Dr. Tilford

Mr. Arnold

Dr. Hudson

Ms. Phillips

Mr. Tuyahov

Mr. Weber

EL/Dr. Briggs

Ms. Paige

EB/Dr. Soffen

Dr. Rambler

Ms. LeSane

EI/Mr. McCoy

EP/Mr. Konkel

ARC/Mr. Syvertson

Mr. Guastaferro

Dr. Klein

Mr. Colin

GSFC/Dr. Hinners

Dr. Meredith

JPL/Dr. Allen

Dr. Hibbs

JSC/Mr. Griffin

Mr. Rice

Dr. Erickson

LaRC/Dr. Hearth

Mr. Holloway

LeRC/Mr. Stofan

NSTL/Mr. Hlass

Mr. Mooneyhan

MSFC/Dr. Lucas

Mr. Snoddy

Document IV-7

Document Title: Herbert Friedman, Chairman, Commission on Physical Sciences,

Mathematics, and Resources, National Research Council, “Toward an International

Geosphere-Biosphere Program: A Study of Global Change,” July 1983.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This document presents the results of a workshop to review the proposed International GeosphereBiosphere Program. Herbert Friedman of the Naval Research Laboratory was one of the pioneers of

the U.S. space program.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 511
[title page]

Toward an International

Geosphere-Biosphere Program

A Study of Global Change

Report of a

National Research Council Workshop

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

July 25-29, 1983

Commission on Physical Sciences,

Mathematics, and Resources

National Research Council

[iii]

INTERNATIONAL GEOSPHERE-BIOSPHERE PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

July 25-29, 1983

Steering Committee

Herbert Friedman, Chairman, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and 

Resources, National Research Council, (Study Chairman) 

David Johnson, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

Francis S. Johnson, The University of Texas at Dallas 

Thomas F. Malone, Resources for the Future

Participants

Daniel B. Botkin, University of California

Bernard Burke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Charles L. Drake, Dartmouth College

Thomas M. Donahue, University of Michigan

John A. Eddy, National Center for Atmospheric Research

James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Devrie S. Intriligator, Carmel Research Center

Mark Langseth, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

James McCarthy, Harvard University

Michael B. McElroy, Harvard University

Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire

V. Rama Murthy, University of Minnesota

Andrew F. Nagy, University of Michigan

Jack E. Oliver, Cornell University

Ronald G. Prinn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David Reichle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Roer Revelle, University of California at San Diego

512 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Juan G. Roederer, University of Alaska

Joseph Smagorinsky, Princeton, New Jersey

Verner E. Suomi, University of Wisconsin

[iv]George Woodwell, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole

Peter Wyllie, California Institute of Technology

Government Participants

Ralph M. de Vries, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Burton I. Edelson, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

Bruce Hanshaw, U.3. Geological Survey

Ned A. Ostenso, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Dennis Peacock, National Science Foundation

Mitchell Rambler, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

John Schlee, U.S. Geological Survey

Shelby Tilford, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Robert Watson, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

National Research Council

Frank Press, President, National Academy of Sciences

Robert M. White, President, National Academy of

Engineering

Jesse Ausubel, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

William Easterling, NRC Fellow

Pembroke J. Hart, Geophysics Research Forum

W. Timothy Hushen, Polar Research Board

Raphael G. Kasper, Commission on Physical Sciences,

Mathematics, and Resources

Nancy Maynard, Board on Ocean Sciences and Policy

John S. Perry, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

Martha Treichel, Office of International Affairs

Thomas M. Usselman, Committee on Solar Terrrestrial [sic]

Research

[vii]

PREFACE

The real connections that link the geosphere and biosphere to each other are subtle,

complex, and often synergistic; their study transcends the bounds of specialized, scientific

disciplines and the scope of limited, national scientific endeavors. For these reasons

progress in fundamental areas of ocean-atmosphere interactions, biogeochemical cycles,

and solar-terrestrial relationships has come far more slowly than in specialized fields, in

spite of the obvious practical importance of such studies. If, however, we could launch a

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 513
cooperative interdisciplinary program in the earth sciences, on an international scale, we

might hope to take a major step toward revealing the physical, chemical, and biological

workings of the Sun-Earth system and the mysteries of the origins and survival of life in

the biosphere. The concept of an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), as

outlined in this report, calls for this sort of bold, "holistic" venture in organized research

-- the study of whole systems of interdisciplinary science in an effort to understand global

changes in the terrestrial environment and its living systems.

The National Research Council IGBP Workshop at Woods Hole in July 1983

considered the major problems for research in five areas that might naturally be

coordinated in such a program: the atmosphere, oceans, lithosphere, biosphere, and

solar-terrestrial system. A unifying and pervasive theme of the Workshop was global

change, on all time scales, from the slow recurrence of the Ice Ages to the shortest

transient phenomena. Of pressing importance is the need to understand the often

deleterious effects of modern man on natural processes, such as the inevitable climatic

impact of carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

Progress in [viii] understanding global change will require extensive and well-organized

observations made over much of the Earth and over a long period of time. The scope of

such an effort requires international cooperation and interdisciplinary emphasis.

If we believed -- as once in fact we did -- that ocean circulation was slow and

unchanging, we could hope to establish its fundamental patterns from the collection of

random oceanographic observations from all times past. We could mix data taken by

Captain Cook on the Endeavour with soundings from the most recent cruise of the

Columbus Iselin. But the ocean is constantly changing, and the element of time is all

important. Synoptic observations or time-oriented measurements in conjunction with

time-dependent models are today indispensable. In place of a Challenger on a lone

voyage of exploration we now need a fleet of research vessels taking coordinated

observations, accompanied by downlooking spacecraft that can survey entire ocean basins

with high spatial resolution on a synoptic basis. All of these must be supported by

sophisticated modeling efforts. 

If we believed that the Earth was a constant system in which the atmosphere,

biosphere, oceans, and lithosphere were unconnected parts, then the traditional scientific

fields that study these areas could all proceed at their own pace treating each other's

findings as fixed boundary conditions. However, not only is the Earth changing even as we

seek to understand it -- in ways that involve the interplay of land and sea, of oceans, air,

and biosphere -- but we cannot even presume that global change will be uniform in space

and steady in time. World climate and the acknowledged complexity of climatic change

are cases in point. Needed to resolve this complex of change and interplay are

coordinated efforts between adjacent scientific disciplines and programs of synoptic

observations focused on common, interrelated problems that affect the Earth as a whole.

Through this kind of international and interdisciplinary collaboration, we can hope to

identify the mechanisms and causes of global change. At the same time we can illuminate

areas of particular need and emphasis in each of the related disciplines.

A major challenge to an IGBP will be that of understanding the causes and effects of

climate change. Variations in the Earth's climate appear to follow from a long and

convolved set of interactions including human and other biological activity, solar

514 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
radiation, volcanism, [ix] ocean circulation, polar ice and land effects, and the chemistry

and dynamics of the atmosphere itself. Also involved on long time scales are the varying

gravitational perturbations of the planets and the Moon on the orbit of the Earth and

perhaps the varying density of interstellar matter encountered by the Sun in recurrent

passages through the spiral arms of the Galaxy. No single factor is clearly dominant. In

most cases we must presume, moreover, that any detectable change is the result ultimately

of the interplay, feedback, and possible amplification of many causative factors.

The recovery and interpretation of a wide variety of historical, paleontological, and

geochemical records provide most of what is known of the history of climate and what

insights we have as to the responsivity of the terrestrial environment to internal and

external forcing. Tree-ring data, lake deposits and pollen samples, and ocean and polar

ice cores are natural diaries that contain information on past meteorological conditions,

sea temperatures and ice cover, atmospheric composition, biotic conditions, crustal

magnetism, and solar behavior. Such records know no national boundaries, nor is their

interpretation the exclusive province of a specific scientific discipline. The critical reading

of these data and the ability to relate what is told of global change and interaction are

necessary steps toward reliable prediction of future trends in climate and biological

response.

Tropospheric chemistry -- a field of study that hardly existed a dozen years ago -- now

looms as ever more important in fixing the conditions for life on Earth. Local atmospheric

pollution and the generation of global haze are obvious factors in the habitability of the

planet. In addition, the troposphere is both the ultimate source and the ultimate sink for

the trace chemistry of the stratosphere, which in turn modulates the amount and spectral

distribution of sunlight received at the surface of the Earth. To understand the

stratosphere we must know the chemical as well as the dynamical behavior of the global

troposphere. Stratospheric ozone is subject to tropospheric chemistry and sensitive to

anthropogenic modification. The best-known and most throughly [sic] studied green

house gas is carbon dioxide, whose role as a perturber of future surface temperature is a

subject of keen international concern. But it is now clear that gaseous leaks from old

refrigerators and even the bacteria in the gut of cattle are insidious rivals to carbon

dioxide as contributors to global temperature [x] change. Chlorofluoromethanes, nitrous

oxide, and methane appear to contribute 70 percent as much to green house warming as

does carbon dioxide. Methane in the atmosphere is increasing at more than 1.5 percent

(60 x 106 metric tons) per year, and we are completely at a loss to explain how it is

conserved.

The power of new technologies for remote sensing of atmospheric, geological,

biological, and oceanographic conditions promises to revolutionize our grasp of global

conditions and our understanding of global change. In the past, for example, our

knowledge of the sea floor was gained from shipbaord [sic] by reflecting sonic waves off

the ocean bottom. Along the heavily trafficked sealanes in the North Atlantic, the

soundings obtained by many ships combined to provide a reasonably well-filled map. Far

less was known of larger areas of the oceans of the world, where commerce was less

frequent. SEASAT, following its deployment in 1978, demonstrated the power of global

seafloor mapping from the vantage of Earth orbit. Its radar altimeter portrayed the large

features of sea mounts and ocean trenches in an immediately obvious way. Surprisingly,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 515
however, when noise corrections were made to the same data, an unexpected range of

seafloor features of much finer detail was clearly revealed. New features, never before

mapped, include underwater volcanoes, tectonic fracture zones of crustal plates, swales of

ocean crust with unusual gravitational characteristics, and a smooth underwater plateau

as large as the state of California. Fracture zones mapped from the perspective of space

can be followed across entire ocean basins, even where they are covered by sediment. 

Advantages equally great have come in the past 20 years from orbital sensing of the

Earth's biota. Much of the motivation has been to develop means of assessing conditions

for the world production of food, fiber, and fuel from renewable biological resources. The

focus has been on agricultural crops, forests, and rangeland of economic importance, and

the principal tool has been infrared mapping. In recent years, microwave techniques have

come to the fore, offering added capability in sensing through overcast and penetrating

more deeply into canopies of vegetation.

It is hard to exaggerate the impact of orbital platforms and new technology in the

field of solar-terrestrial physics. The ability to make in situ measurements in the vast

domain between the middle atmosphere and interplanetary space has revealed the

complex topography of near [xi] Earth space and a tangled web of connections that link

the lower atmosphere to the Sun. Among the early findings from spacecraft was the

unexpected scale and structure of the extended magnetic field of the Earth and the

existence of an ordered but inconstant solar wind of charged particles that fills the SunEarth space. Orbital measurements of the meteorologically important fluxes of solar

radiation are at last providing quantitative data on the perennial question of the influence

of solar variations on weather and climate. The cavity radiometer on the Solar Maximum

Mission spacecraft, launched in 1980, has made continuous measurements of the total

radiative flux from the Sun with a temporal resolution of less than a minute and a shortterm accuracy of about 10-5--about 4 orders of magnitude better than what could be done

from the ground. Quickly found were depletions of about 0.1 percent lasting for weeks,

that result from the masking of the solar disk by sunspots. Future measurements should

establish whether a similar variation accompanies the 11-year sunspot cycle.

Ultraviolet imaging from space has literally shown us the Earth in a new light. The

aurora now stands revealed in detail that escaped the previous 100 years of observation.

Reel-down instruments suspended from balloons provide direct profiles of the chemical

composition of the middle atmosphere from tropopause to stratopause; tethered

instruments from future satellites promise similar capabilities for characteristics of the

lower thermosphere.

These comments sample the content of the discussions that took place at the IGBP

Workshop. From the report itself it will be clear that rich opportunities are in store for the

earth sciences in the future and that the world scientific community should prepare to

meet the challenges boldly.

Herbert Friedman, Chairman

International Geosphere-Biosphere

Program Workshop

[xiii]

CONTENTS

Summary 1

516 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
1 Introduction 3

2 The Power of New Technologies 6

3 Goals and Findings of the Workshop 8

4 The Scientific Challenge 11

Solar-Terrestrial Systems, 11

Oceans and Atmosphere, 15

The Lithosphere, 19

The Biosphere, 22

5 The Need for an Integrated Approach 25

The CO2 Question, 25

A Comprehensive Monitoring System, 26

Common Observation Systems, 27

Exploring the Earth's Future from Its Past, 27

Other Common Foci, 27

Appendix A: Solar-Terrestrial System 31

Appendix B: Oceans and Atmosphere 38

Appendix C: The Lithosphere 45

Appendix D: The Biosphere 52

Appendix E: IGBP Related Programs and Plans 60

Appendix F: Participants, International GeosphereBiosphere Program Workshop, Woods Hole,

Massachusetts, July 25-29, 1983 78

[1] SUMMARY

The workshop reviewed the major problems for research in the atmosphere, oceans,

lithosphere, biosphere, and solar-terrestrial relationships. A unifying theme is global

change. Beyond the intellectual drive to understand basic scientific interrelationships is

the practical need to gain a better grasp on how to manage the environment and global

life-support systems.

A majority conclusion was reached that an International Geosphere-Biosphere

Program (IGBP) under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific Unions

(ICSU) could provide an effective vehicle for coordinating global measurements from

space platforms and ground-based observational networks, exploiting new technologies

for observations, implementing improved capabilities for data management, and

placing proper emphasis on mathematical modeling with advanced computational

facilities.

Unlike the comparatively short-lived International Geophysical Year (IGY), an IGBP

must be designed as a long-range, interdisciplinary program. Effective planning over the

coming several years could inaugurate a program that would begin to take shape toward

the end of this decade and reach maturity in the 1990s.

The Workshop participants urged that such planning begin immediately within

national organizations and in all the interested adhering bodies of ICSU. An important

target date for a first assessment of plans brought forward from all sources would be the

ICSU General Assembly in September 1984.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 517
In implementing an IGBP, careful attention must be paid to all relevant national and

international programs already conceived and in various stages of progress. Proper

planning should guarantee that these programs are [2] carried forward effectively. The

success and timeliness of an IGBP is in large part predicated on gains in understanding as

well as a desire for greater interaction between neighboring disciplines starting to emerge

from these programs.

INTRODUCTION

[3] A generation ago researchers concerned with the basic sciences of the Earth joined

together in a unifying effort, the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The IGY was an

outstanding success, both scientifically and politically. During 1957-1958, coordinated

geophysical observations were gathered from pole to pole, and these observations and the

research and monitoring that followed have significantly improved our understanding of

the physics of the Earth. Thousands of scientists, from 67 nations, shared knowledge,

purpose, and tools and created a spirit of cooperation and good will that transcends

political differences.

Studies of ecological and biological processes were essentially neglected during the

IGY, as were many questions requiring multidisciplinary approaches for their solution.

These questions have become increasingly prominent since the IGY. The contemporary

concern for the environment has heightened awareness of the need for increased

scientific understanding of biogeochemical cycles and of the links between geophysical

and biospheric processes. The desire to explore possible future conditions for life on

Earth and the role of human activities in shaping those conditions lend urgency to

developing the basic scientific knowledge of the geosphere and biosphere. It seems clear

that this knowledge will only come from a comprehensive understanding of the historical

evolution of the Earth and the dynamics of global change.

Since the IGY, there have been several major international programs, such as the

Global Atmospheric Research Program and the International Magnetospheric Study, that

included coordinated observations on a global scale. These programs have contributed

significantly to our knowledge of geophysics and, in the case of meteorology, [4] our

ability to forecast weather. However, the observational programs have generally focused

on narrowly defined problem areas rather than on the broad scope of linkages among

components of the geosphere and biosphere. Often the programs have been too brief in

duration to establish linkages between slowly varying cyclic processes.

Today we find a growing number of current and planned programs, international in

scope, that have interdisciplinary breadth. These programs and their national and

multinational components are vital to any more broadly based future geospherebiosphere program. For example, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the

Environment (SCOPE) of ICSU has catalyzed pioneering work over the last decade with

its program on the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.

The theme of biogeochemistry has now been endorsed by a group of U.S. scientists in

plans for a NASA program on "Global Habitability." Examples of other current programs

close in spirit to an IGBP are the International Lithosphere Program (ILP), the World

Climate Research Program (WCRP), and the Study of Travelling Interplanetary

518 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Phenomena (STIP). Each of these, of course, has many important components. For

example, the WCRP embraces the planned World Ocean Circulation Experiment

(WOCE), whose objective is to describe and understand quantitatively for the first time

the large-scale circulations of the world's oceans and their influence on the atmosphere.

This objective should be attainable in large part as a result of new remote sensing

techniques. WOCE is dependent upon major satellite missions, such as the Topography of

the Ocean Experiment (TOPEX) and the Geopotential Radar Mapper (GRM) of the

United States and the Earth Resources Satellite (ERS-1) of Europe, as well as surface and

subsurface observing platforms. These observational programs are well conceived now

and should be carried forward with a sense of urgency.

To understand many geosphere-biosphere phenomena and their interactions,

monitoring over long periods will be necessary. For example, to detect and separate

anthropogenically caused climate changes from natural ones and to understand the

mechanisms involved may require a decade or more of accurate global monitoring of

atmospheric and sea temperatures, the amount and distribution of radiatively active gases,

vulcanism and aerosols, solar and terrestrial radiation fluxes, and ice masses and sea level.

Thus, it becomes important to continue [5] and strengthen existing global observing and

monitoring programs (and their national components), such as the programs World

Weather Watch (WWW), and perhaps re-evaluate others, like the International Global

Ocean Services System (IGOSS) and the Global Environmental Monitoring System

(GEMS), in view of the scientific goals of an IGBP.

These and other programs that may relate in conceptual or practical ways to an IGBP

are summarized briefly in Appendix E.

[6]

THE POWER OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

The IGY occurred at the dawn of the Space Age. The 25 years since the IGY have seen

the development of remote sensing techniques and space platforms, which have opened

up major avenues to investigate important problems in the geosphere-biosphere.

Significant strides have been made in describing solar-terrestrial relations and studying

the atmosphere through the use of space technology. The new power of this technology

in studying the lithosphere, oceans, and the biosphere has been demonstrated, for

example, in mapping the oceanfloor and terrestrial ecosystems. New programs are

planned to take advantage of these techniques in all the discipline areas; they should be

supported preparatory to increased multidisciplinary activity in the 1990s.

Remote sensing is by no means limited to space platforms. Probing the solid Earth

by seismic and electromagnetic waves or the oceans by acoustic tomography are important

examples of the growing array of ground-based remote-sensing techniques that can

unlock the mysteries of the planet Earth.

The potential of high-altitude balloons to explore directly the stratosphere has been

enhanced by the demonstration of a "yo-yo" technique to lower and raise a payload

repeatedly through a layer about 10 km thick beneath the balloon. A tethered satellite is

proposed to facilitate repeated direct measurement of the ionosphere and mesosphere.

Improvements are being made in the quality and reliability of many in situ sensors,

platforms for carrying them (e.g., buoys, long-duration balloons), and the use of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 519
inexpensive satellite links for data collection and platform location. The cost of some of

these systems is [7] within reach of many countries that may wish to be involved in

international cooperative research.

The development of communication and computer technologies also opens up new

vistas of research not possible 25 years ago. The handling of complex models is one

example. Perhaps of equal importance is the opportunity that these technologies present

for collecting, processing, archiving, accessing, and exchanging data. Such information

will be needed by the many discipline groups internationally whose intellectual efforts

must be enlisted if answers are to be obtained to many of the challenging questions raised

at the Workshop.

[8]

GOALS AND FINDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP

Invitees to the Workshop were asked to address several specific issues and problems:

1. Need and criteria for an IGBP. Are there significant benefits to be had from

increased integration and coordination? Which activities for which reasons (geographical

access, satellite coverage, and cost, for example) truly require international cooperation

to be successful?

2. Identification of areas in which large measurement programs can serve multiple

scientific needs. For example, monitoring of a variety of chemical and radiative processes

in the upper atmosphere is essential to understanding both the modification of the ozone

layer and the greenhouse effect. Can more efficient use of resources to fulfill global and

temporal requirements be made through an IGBP-type program?

3. Identification of critical interdisciplinary problems, interfaces, and linkages. For

example, climate variation is related to solar-terrestrial interactions, vulcanism, ocean

circulation, and forest and ecosystem processes and is recorded by sedimentary processes.

4. Potential roles of U.S. agencies, for example, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of

Defense in ocean, atmosphere, and solar-terrestrial programs; the U.S. Geological Survey,

NSF, and NASA for land surface and lithosphere; the Department of Energy, the

Department of Agriculture, NOAA, NASA, and others for biogeochemical cycles.

5. Relationships with existing international programs and projects, such as the

Middle Atmosphere Program, the [9] World Climate Research Program, the World Ocean

Circulation Experiment, the International Lithosphere Program, and others.

6. Review of relevant papers and plans in the area, including the Space Science Board

study Toward a Science of the Biosphere, the NASA Global Habitability plans, the CSTR

report on Solar-Terrestrial Research for the 1980's, documents of the World Climate

Research Program, including plans for the World Ocean Circulation Experiment, the

report of the National Research Council's (NRC's) Carbon Dioxide Assessment

Committee, Changing Climate, the NRC's global tropospheric chemistry report, and

reports of the Middle Atmosphere Program.

7. How should design of the IGBP be broadened, nationally and internationally,

should the concept evoke enthusiastic support at the Workshop?

The participants (Appendix F) represented a broad cross section of the natural520 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
sciences community in the United States. The breadth of the group led to a realization

that the study of global change relevant to human welfare must encompass wider time

scales and greater areas of investigation than had hitherto been proposed. In particular,

it became evident that much information relevant to the future can be gleaned from study

of the past. These considerations suggest that investigation of global changes in the

geosphere and biosphere should encompass pertinent studies of solar-terrestrial relations,

lithospheric processes and their interaction with the atmosphere and oceans, and the

history of life as evidenced in the fossil record, as well as the more obvious core of dynamic

and radiative interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, and biosphere.

At the same time, questions were raised about the underlying conceptual unity and

coherence, as well as practical necessity, of an IGBP. While the overall finding of the NRC

group was strongly supportive, the concept remains only broadly defined. The major

conclusion of the Workshop was the importance of the topic of global change, and the

major recommendation was for further development of programmatic concepts on the

national and international levels. The issues and problems listed above must be addressed

in more detail by various potential participating individuals and groups to arrive at a

consensus both nationally and internationally.

An IGBP must cover the time span of major natural cycles, such as the 11- and 22-

year solar magnetic cycles. The characteristic duration of some important processes in the

biosphere is even longer. It would be most valuable to design an international program

with such intrinsic stability that monitoring parameters of global change could be carried

on with necessary fidelity for decades. ICSU could provide the continuity of administrative

structure to coordinate an IGBP over the long range.

A report of this Workshop was presented as part of a colloquium on global change

organized by ICSU on August 3, 1983, coincident to a meeting of its General Committee

in Warsaw. The report was favorably received, and the General Committee recommended

global change as a theme for one of the scientific symposia being arranged on the

occasion of the ICSU General Assembly in Ottawa, Canada, September 1984. This

decision constitutes an invitation to all constituencies of ICSU to develop detailed inputs

to a comprehensive discussion meeting at Ottawa. If that discussion leads to ICSU

endorsement of a program, several years of intensive planning will need to follow in order

to initiate a well-coordinated scientific effort.

In implementing an IGBP, careful attention must be paid to all relevant international

programs already conceived and in various stages of progress. Proper planning should

guarantee that these programs are carried forward effectively and in due course meshed

with moves to accomplish the major goals of an IGBP. With adequate support and proper

planning the IGBP could reach full maturity in the 1990s.

Several other desirable characteristics for an IGBP should be mentioned. One is that

it should enlist young scientists and help them plan careers around the many exciting

problems described here. Another is that universities should be involved. Universities are

where much of the most advanced research is performed, and their involvement has

implications for the scale of problems to be studied and rates at which results might be

obtained. Third, the program should be worldwide, involving both developed and

developing countries. Finally, there should be easy, wide access to data and individual

freedom of choice for researchers on problems in which to involve themselves.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 521
[11]

THE SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE

Unraveling the mysteries of the past evolution of the Sun and Earth and predicting

the future evolution of this planet and its life forms depend on continued strength to

tackle the intellectually challenging problems within each of the disciplines studying the

geosphere and biosphere. However, Workshop participants emphasized those scientific

problems and opportunities that are multidisciplinary and global in scope, often

requiring international cooperation. The scientific challenges were considered from the

vantage point of four broad research domains: solar-terrestrial, oceans and atmosphere,

the lithosphere, and the biosphere. The following sections summarize problems and

opportunities in each area. Appendixes A-D report on the areas in greater detail.

SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS (see APPENDIX A)

Solar-terrestrial research is concerned with the interactions by which diverse forms of

energy generated by the Sun influence the terrestrial environment and with the resulting

complex interplay of physical and chemical processes in every element of the system

comprising Sun and Earth (Figure 1). The Sun is a variable star. Transient outbursts, such

as solar flares, and cyclic changes in solar magnetism, such as the 11- and 22-year

variability of sunspots, remain to be understood. The sine and figure of the Sun oscillate

in a variety of modes. Understanding the processes causing these variations and the

accompanying changes in solar output as they may affect the Earth will be a major

preoccupation of solar research for a long time to come.

[14] Magnetospheric perturbations induced by episodic variations in the properties of the

solar wind are coupled electrodynamically to the ionosphere, to regions deep in the

atmosphere, and to the lithosphere. The processes involved in interactions of the solar

wind with the magnetosphere, storage and transfer between regions of the magnetosphere,

and coupling to the ionosphere and atmosphere are still poorly understood. Since the

atmospheric effects may influence climate change, an understanding of these phenomena

may be important to the entire geosphere-biosphere system.

The ionosphere (Figure 2) is a magnetospheric energy and exerts important

feedback on the regions of the magnetosphere to which it is linked. Changes in the highlatitude ionosphere alter the global circulation and temperature structure of the

thermosphere. The detailed nature of these interactions is not well understood, nor is the

question of whether they affect, in a substantial way, the lower atmosphere. Variations in

solar short-wavelength radiation and particle emission affect the composition and

structure of the middle atmosphere, leading in extreme cases to possibly serious changes

in atmospheric ozone. Such effects need to be further analyzed.

Finally, a thorough understanding of the photochemistry of the stratosphere and

mesosphere is yet to be attained. Such knowledge would contribute importantly to

assessment of the effects of trace gases such as nitrous oxide (formed partly by

atmospheric electricity) and fluorocarbons and of variations in solar input on the ozone

content of the middle atmosphere. Because of the importance of the ozone ultraviolet

screen to the biosphere, these couplings have profound significance.

522 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Key foci in solar-terrestrial research in the next few years include Origins of Plasmas

in the Earth's Neighborhood (OPEN, see Appendix E), a program to examine the global

flow of energy through the Earth’s space environment above the upper atmosphere, and

the planned Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS, see Appendix E), which are

designed to improve our understanding of the chemistry and dynamics of the middle

atmosphere and the flow of energy through this region.

[15]

OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE (see APPENDIX B)

Over the last quarter century, our knowledge and understanding of the behavior of

the atmosphere and ocean on a global scale have advanced impressively. Operationally

oriented observing programs and special research-oriented field programs, in which space

technology played a crucial role, have provided new insights into the dynamics and

chemistry of the Earth's fluid envelope. This knowledge has provided the basis for the

development of numerical models employed in weather prediction and simulation of the

dynamics of the oceans and the variability of climate. Similar advances have been made in

the understanding of our nearest star and its influence on our planet.

Three critical global multidisciplinary problems are perceived as major foci of

attention in ocean-atmosphere research:

1. Dynamic and thermodynamic interactions between components of the climate

system (Figure 3). The interactions between oceans, atmosphere, land, biosphere, and

cryosphere maintain in delicate balance our climate and the natural productivity vital to

life. A scientific strategy for the World Climate Research Program has been developed to

address key problems employing emerging technological capabilities for observing the

atmosphere, the Earth's surface, and the oceans. An early focus of activity will be the study

of interaction between the tropical oceans and the global atmosphere as exemplified by

the El Nino/Southern Oscillation phenomenon. In the longer term, the slow circulation

and evolution of the world ocean will be addressed through a World Ocean Circulation

Experiment.

2. The interactive processes of global chemistry, emphasizing the biogeochemical

cycles of substances important to the stable maintenance of life and global climate. Over

the past decade, we have come to regard the global atmosphere, oceans, solid Earth, and

biota -- including man -- as an integrated chemical system. It is clear that this system is at

present undergoing significant changes in the global and regional cycles of many

substances. Many of these changes are coupled to human activity. Major problems include

the following:

• Processes regulating the distribution of stratospheric ozone;

• The atmospheric hydrological cycle;

[19] • The tropospheric distribution of oxidants;

• The chemistry of dry and wet deposition;

• The sources and sinks of radiatively important aerosols and gases;

• The ocean's role in biogeochemical cycles in terms of chemical, geological, and

biological processes;

• Fluxes between ocean, atmosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere; and

• The role of land surface processes.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 523
3. Sensitivity of the terrestrial system to solar variation. Solar variability on a broad

range of time scales can have an impact on many terrestrial processes. Better

understanding will require precise measurement of solar energy output and solar

ultraviolet radiation. Information on past changes in insolation due to orbital changes

should be exploited to understand the sensitivity of climate to solar variations.

Further advances in understanding the oceans and atmosphere will depend critically

on the implementation of new technology for sustained data acquisition, processing,

archiving, and dissemination to research users.

THE LITHOSPHERE (see APPENDIX C)

Development of the solid Earth has resulted from complex interactions of physical,

chemical, and biological processes. The theory of plate tectonics has provided a

framework into which we can fit diverse evidence from the solid-Earth sciences and a

foundation upon which subsequent investigations of the evolution of the Earth are built.

The plate-tectonics model tells us that thermal convection must take place within the

Earth, but we have not yet been able to characterize it. Related to this problem is the

characterization of the chemical composition of mantle heterogeneities and their

residence times. We do not yet have a clear picture of the various processes at plate

boundaries nor quantitative estimates of subduction related recycling of materials and its

effects on mantle evolution and basalt genesis (Figure 4). Associated with plate

movements and processes are significant changes in paleogeography, paleooceanography,

and paleoclimatology, the records of which remain to be fully reconstructed. We are

beginning to understand geochemical cycling in the [21] mantle; for example, it is

estimated that a volume of water equal to that of the entire ocean circulates through the

oceanic crust every 8 million to 10 million years.

Much of what we infer about the early history of the Earth has come from

comparative planetology. However, continental platforms and fold belts appear to be

unique to the Earth, and except in the near surface, we know little about their structure

and can only infer their origin and evolution. They hold the record of most of Earth's

history, including that of life. The origin of life, the nature and rates of its evolution, and

the nature of major changes and extinctions are among the principal challenges in the

Earth sciences. An ocean and an atmosphere must have existed early in Earth history, but

the degassing history of the Earth and the quantity of primordial components still being

emitted remain to be determined. Activity around geothermal vents in the oceanfloor is

offering a new perspective on possible origins of life.

The solid Earth, and especially the sedimentary stratum, on land and on the seafloor,

holds the only record of past activity at or near the Earth's surface. This record includes

chemical composition, climate variations, past organisms and their evolution, sea-level

change, and biogeochemical information about life in the past. Much of this information

is relevant to studies of cyclic phenomena and other variations of interest to researchers

concerned with the biosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and solar-terrestrial

relationships. It appears possible that records of solar variability may be preserved in the

sediments, that confirmation of hypothesized effects of short-term physical or biochemical

events may be found, and that sources and sinks for chemical compounds can be

524 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
established from the sedimentary record. Significant geological events have resulted from

biological activity in the past, and, of course, our supplies of petroleum, coal, phosphate,

and other resources are the result of interactions among the lithosphere, atmosphere,

hydrosphere, and biosphere.

Many of the techniques and tools used for lithosphere studies are also utilized by or

derived from other disciplines. Solar seismology uses methods of terrestrial seismologists.

Marine biologists and physical oceanographers use acoustic tools developed by

geophysicists, and seismologists are now developing tomographic techniques to study

heterogeneity in the Earth's interior similar to those developed by physical

oceanographers to [22] study internal variations in the oceans. The TOPEX mission,

designed for physical oceanography, also promises important information for solid-Earth

scientists, while the GRM mission of the geophysicists will provide information that will

enhance the TOPEX data for oceanographers. It is obvious that the interchange of tools

and techniques can enhance progress in all areas of investigation of the Earth.

THE BIOSPHERE (see APPENDIX D)

In thinking about global changes in the Earth, we must pay special attention to

changes in living organisms -- plants, animals, and bacteria -- and their interaction with the

oceans, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere. On a time scale of the next hundred years,

the most important of these interactions will be those between the behavior of living

organisms and climatic change.

Changes in the biosphere can bring about climatic change through the global cycles

of the "greenhouse gases" -- especially carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides

through changes in the regional and planetary albedo and other characteristics of the

land surface; and through the effects of land vegetation on evapotranspiration and

storage of water and on river runoff. Figure 5 [not included] shows the energy and water

balance of the biosphere.

The influence of climatic change on the distribution and abundance of species has

long been recognized, but more data are needed to understand better the effects of

climatic change on the mass of the biota and on biological productivity. Several examples

of feedback between biospheric and climatic change can be described. A diminution in

the size of the land biosphere, caused by a rise in atmospheric temperature, will result in

an increase in atmospheric CO2 and hence in further warming. Similarly, because high

biological productivity in ocean waters extracts CO2 from the air and sequesters it in the

ocean depths, changes in the intensity of ocean biological production caused by climatic

change can result in large changes in atmospheric CO2, with corresponding climatic

effects.

The need for a multidisciplinary approach to study these problems can be illustrated

by two questions: (1) How has the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide varied

during past geologic times, and how will it vary in the future? (2) What is the cause of the

present rapid rise in atmospheric methane?

[24] Studies of oxygen isotopes in ocean sediments laid down during the Cretaceous

period 60 million to 120 million years ago show that the temperatures of ocean waters at

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 525
high latitudes were about 15 degrees warmer than at present. Were these high

temperatures brought about by high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and, if so,

did the high atmospheric CO2 result from a more rapid vertical ocean circulation, which

prevented the sequestering of large quantities of carbon dioxide in the ocean depths?

Measurements of CO2 in air trapped in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica

show that 10,000 to 20.,000 years ago atmospheric CO2 was much lower than at present,

while 20,000 to 30,000 years ago CO2 in the air fluctuated from approximately 175 to 300

ppm, apparently over relatively short times. Both of these conditions probably resulted

from changes in oceanic biologic production, perhaps related, in the former case, to

larger quantities of ocean nitrogen and phosphate, and, in the latter, to fluctuations in

ocean biological production, which are poorly understood. The climatic effects of the

relatively small variations in insolation resulting from the "Milankovitch" cycles in the

Earth's orbital parameters may have been greatly amplified by fluctuations in the sources

and sinks of phosphorous and nitrogen in the ocean, their consequences for ocean

biological productivity, and, in turn, for atmospheric CO2 levels. A major uncertainty

about future atmospheric CO2 concerns the question of whether forests will serve as a

source or sink for carbon. CO2 enhances photosynthetic production and reduces water

stress on plants, but the significance of this effect in changing the size of the biosphere is

conjectural.

Analyses of ice cores show that methane, one of the important greenhouse gases, was

relatively constant during the 20,000 years before the seventeenth century and that it has

doubled in concentration since that time. its present rate of increase is apparently 1-2

percent per year. Is this increase related to changes in the biological sources of methane

(i.e., symbiotic microorganisms in ruminant animals and termites, rice paddies, marshes,

and swamps) or in the atmospheric sink? The latter depends on the atmospheric

concentration of OH ions. Careful measurements of OH and studies of the size and

productivity of methane sources over the next few decades should answer this intriguing

question.

[25]

THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH

From the preceding, it appears clear that a multidisciplinary approach to many

problems will be needed. An excellent example involving all four discipline groupings

follows.

THE CO2 QUESTION

It is reasonably well established that the observed continuing anthropogenic increase

of atmospheric CO2 will give rise to tropospheric warming and to shifts in global and

regional climate over the next century. A quantitative assessment of the structure and

degree of change requires an understanding of the dynamics of climate. The role that the

oceans play is paramount in delaying and regionally modifying the climatic response to a

given scenario of atmospheric CO2 increase.

The diminishing reflectivity at the continental snow cover margin provides an

important positive feedback, intensifying the high-latitude tropospheric warming.

526 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
However, polar sea ice shields the fast-acting atmosphere from the slow-acting, and

relatively warmer, sea blow.

The inputs from the geological sciences enter in several ways. Effects of volcanic

activity on atmospheric composition is one example -- volcanic aerosols may partly counter

or mask a greenhouse warming. A second important contribution from geological studies

is climatic data for validating climate models in simulating extreme shifts of past climate.

This also includes a knowledge of how other configurations of the continents may have

influenced past climatic regimes.

Since the atmospheric response is primarily radiatively controlled, the balance of

solar radiance and outgoing [26] infrared fluxes in determining the thermal structure of

the atmosphere must be better understood. Recent results suggest that the climatic

response to a doubling of CO2, as measured by a surface temperature change, is

qualitatively and quantitatively similar to that of a 2 percent increase in the solar constant.

Biogeochemical processes, of course, partially determine the partitioning of

increased CO2 production among the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere. Determining

the net atmospheric loading scenario thus involves an understanding of production,

storage, transport, and transformations within and among the active terrestrial media.

Changes in other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and

fluorocarbons, further complicate and increase the radiative response. Changes in their

concentrations might obscure detection of an actual CO2-induced signal, and secondary

effects may be significant. A CO2 increase would result in considerable stratospheric

cooling, which, in turn, would decrease the rate of destruction of in situ O3 and, therefore,

lead to an increase in its concentration -- which promotes still an additional alteration of

the temperature and circulation of the stratosphere and affects the biosphere below.

Ultimately, the altered climate of the planet Earth, including the condition of the

oceans, will have an impact on the biota -- but how?

It is clear from this illustration that the prediction of future states of the regional and

global climate resulting from anthropogenic CO2 sources, and the resulting impact on

humanity, will critically depend on a close integration of focused and coordinated

research among the relevant disciplines.

A COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING SYSTEM

The interrelationships discussed in the Workshop indicate that many parameters in

the geosphere-biosphere need to be monitored on a long-term basis and in a coordinated

manner. Indeed, many of the same or similar observations, for example, on solar activity,

vulcanism, and carbon fluxes, will be needed by more than one discipline group. In

addition, simultaneous observation of physical, chemical, and biological processes, for

example, in the oceans, could offer a rich new basis for scientific advance. Some of the

needed observational techniques are now available [27] or have been demonstrated;

others will be tested in programs under way or planned for the remainder of this decade.

This provides the foundation for considering the design of an effective program of

sustained observations beginning in the 1990s, which could achieve efficiencies and

economies not possible with individual, uncoordinated activities.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 527
COMMON OBSERVATION SYSTEMS

In either long-term monitoring or exploratory research of shorter duration, there are

technological opportunities to use common observing platforms (e.g., satellites, buoys) or

even sensors (e.g., multispectral imagers, solar and terrestrial radiation detectors,

satelliteborne altimeters) to provide data required by several disciplines and studies.

Coordination of the system and data specifications and the timing of observations may be

feasible in many cases, thus providing increased scientific benefits from a fixed investment.

EXPLORING THE EARTH'S FUTURE FROM ITS PAST

A coordinated program of exploring the lithosphere and cryosphere not only would

aid the solid-Earth sciences but would contribute to understanding climate change,

biogeochemical cycles and the evolution of life on Earth, and the impact of solar

variations. For example, analysis of lake and marine sediments can provide information

on the history of climate and sea level, the biological record, and the geomagnetic field,

which is also relevant to the past record of cosmic-ray flux.

OTHER COMMON FOCI

If we look at the totality of scientific questions and challenges discussed at the

Workshop, a number of additional common thrusts emerge that tie together various

disciplines:

• The dynamics of change: what are the characteristic rates and time scales of various

processes - biospheric, solar, atmospheric, oceanic, and geological-and how do they

interact?

[29] • Biogeochemical cycles and global chemistry -- the interaction with all media and

their dynamics, the effects of solar variations, man's impact, the impact of the physical

systems on the biological and vice-versa (Figure 6).

• Development of major integrative models of the geosphere and biosphere -- for

example, global climate models and models of radiative balance that treat albedo

(cryosphere, snow cover, biomass, etc.), volcanic aerosols, and greenhouse gases; global

ecosystem models; carbon cycle models; and plate tectonics models.

These thrusts call for multidisciplinary approaches and emphasize the need for

international cooperation.

Document IV-8

Document Title: “Terms of Reference of the Committee on Earth Observations Satellites

(CEOS),” adopted 25 September 1984.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

528 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Document IV-9

Document Title: CEOS, “Meeting Minutes,” 24–25 September 1984.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Document IV-10

Document Title: John H. McElroy, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Environmental

Satellite, Data, and Information Services, “Memorandum to CEOS Conference

Participants,” 19 October 1984.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

By the late 1970s, with the proliferation of Earth-observing satellite systems, the space-faring nations

had begun to recognize the importance of coordinating their satellite programs, not only to avoid

unnecessary duplication, but also to capitalize on possible synergies afforded by closer cooperation on

weather and climate observations. In September 1984, the United States used the opportunity as hosts

of the Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations to propose the creation of the Committee on Earth

Observations Satellites (CEOS), which was accepted by the delegates. These documents present the

terms of reference for the new organization, the minutes of the meeting, and a transmission memo from

Dr. John McElroy, indirectly referring to the rotating chairmanship of the organization by noting that

ESA would chair the next meeting.

Document IV-8

[Cover Page]

TERMS OF REFERENCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EARTH OBSERVATIONS SATELLITES

Adopted September 25, 1984 

Washington, D.C.

[1]

TERMS OF REFERENCE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EARTH OBSERVATIONS SATELLITES

PREAMBLE

Remote sensing from space has evolved from an early period of limited applications

satellite programs to a point where distinctions among existing missions result from the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 529
technology employed, rather than from the disciplines served in system operations. In the

future, a number of international, national, and regional space-borne earth observations

systems will operate simultaneously, and support both interdisciplinary and international

applications.

The organization of international cooperation in space-borne earth observations

systems also is evolving, from mission-specific reviews to the interdisciplinary coordination

of multi-mission programs. Beginning with the first Multilateral Meeting on Remote

Sensing – held in Ottawa on May 8-9, 1980, and attended by agency representatives from

Canada, the European Space Agency, France, India, Japan, and the United States of

America – current and potential operators of earth observations s systems have met several

times to discuss the means by which mutually beneficial cooperation and coordination

could be achieved in both the near and longer term. As a result of these gatherings, the

recent past has seen the creation of the Coordination on Land Observation Satellites

(CLOS) by agency representatives from France, Japan, and the United States of America

in Paris on November 13-14, 1980; the initiation of the Coordination on Ocean Remote

Sensing Satellites (CORSS) in Paris on May 10-11, 1982, through the efforts of agency

representatives from the European Space Agency and Japan; and the second Multilateral

Meeting on Remote Sensing, held in Paris on may 12-13, 1982, and attended by agency

representatives from France, Canada, the European Space Agency, India, Japan, and the

United States of America.

This framework of initial discussion and cooperation has enhanced the utility of

space-borne earth observations data to users worldwide, has encouraged the coordination

of program plans among space-borne earth observations system operators, and has

fostered international receptivity to, and acceptance of space-borne earth observations

system activities and applications.

Consequently, the assembled representatives of international, national, and regional

space-borne earth observations systems:

AWARE of the overlap of space-borne earth observation mission objectives and of the

interdisciplinary applications of remotely-sensed data;

RECOGNIZING the advantages of ongoing communication and cooperation among

space-borne earth observations system operators; and

[2] DESIRING to promote the international growth and potential benefits of spaceborne observations of the earth;

have affirmed the value of the activities described above, and have agreed to coordinate

informally their current and planned systems for earth observations from space through

the organization of a Committee on Earth Observations Satellites (CEOS).

The CEOS will not supersede current or potential agreements by members.

Participation in the activities of the CEOS will not be construed as being binding upon

space-borne earth observations system operators, or as restricting their right to develop

and manage earth observations systems according to their needs.

MEMBERSHIP

International, national, or regional organizations responsible for a space-borne earth

observations program currently operating or at least in Phase-B or equivalent of system

development, will be eligible for membership in the CEOS. Members must have a

530 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
continuing activity in space-borne earth observations with responsibility for the overate

mission, intended to operate and provide data for some years. Other entities with sensors

on board such missions will normally be represented by the entity responsible for the host

mission. Initial members of CEOS are Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Centre

National d’Etudes Spatiales (France), European Space Agency, Indian Space Research

Organization, Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais (Brazil), Japan (to be confirmed), U.S.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. The addition of new members will be with the consensus of

current members of the CEOS.

OBJECTIVES

The CEOS will seek to enhance the benefits of space-borne-earth observations for

members and the international user community.

The CEOS will serve as a forum for the exchange of technical information to

encourage complementarity and compatibility among space-borne earth observations

systems that are currently in service or development. Improved complementarity and

compatibility will be sought through cooperation in mission planning and the

development of compatible data products, services, and applications.

[3]

COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES

Cooperation in the development and management of remote sensing programs can

be of benefit to operators of space-borne earth observations systems and to users of earth

observations data. Redundancy among systems and the utility of data can be optimized

through the appropriate coordination of complementary and compatible space and

ground segments, data management practices and products, and earth observations

systems research and development.

CEOS members will exchange technical information on and pursue the potential for

coordination of space and ground segments. Such coordination could include discussions

on current and future mission parameters, sensor capabilities and intercalibration, and

data and telemetry downlink characteristics. In addition, earth observations systems

coordination within CEOs could address issues of ground station technical compatibility

for back-up satellite tracking, command and control, and sensor and telemetry data

reception.

CEOS members will investigate the means for increasing data utility and costeffectiveness, for both operators and users. CEOS activity could include the coordination

of data acquisition, sampling and pre-processing methodologies; the standardization of

data formats where appropriate; the increase in compatibility of data archives; and the

enhancement of user access to CEOS member data bases, information products, and

applications services. CEOS members will seek to assure that the user community is made

aware of the satellite programs of members and encourage discussions between the users

and the relevant satellite system operators, as necessary.

CEOS members will present their plans for emerging satellite remote sensing

technologies and programs and will discuss appropriate approaches for the coordination

of future systems. CEO members could address current developments and future

directions and opportunities in earth observation from space, including free-flying

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 531
spacecraft, mission-specific instruments flown on space transportation systems, and the

placement of instruments on space platforms.

ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES

CEOS will convene at least once every two years in plenary session. The CEOS

meeting will be organized and chaired by the host organization. The host organization

will provide and distribute minutes of the meeting and will report on any follow-on

activities at the next regular meeting. At each meeting of the CEOS, the time, place, and

host for the next meeting will be established.

CEOS also may establish, as mutually agreed, and on an ad hoc basis, special

temporary Working Groups to investigate specific areas of interest, cooperation and

coordination and to report at subsequent plenary meetings. Continuation of each ad hoc

Working Group requires confirmation at each plenary session. Conclusions resulting from

CEOS plenary sessions, or the findings and recommendations of ad hoc CEOS Working

Groups, will be acted upon at the discretion of each CEPS member.

[4] CEOS will replace the Multilateral Meeting on Remote Sensing, the CLOS, and the

CORSS. During the development of and action on CEOS activities, the member agencies

of CEOS will follow the example of the successful international technical and

programmatic cooperation achieved by the Coordination on Geostationary

Meteorological Satellites. CEOS members also will consider the issues, concepts, and

conclusions arrived at in previous gatherings of the Multilateral Meeting on Remote

Sensing, CLOS, and CORSS, and will address current and future activities of space-borne

earth observing systems.

CEOS encourages its members to maintain communication as appropriate with

other groups and organizations involved in space-borne earth observations activities and

applications through the relevant channels within their respective governments. Such

groups and organizations include, but are not limited to, the Coordination on

Geostationary Meteorological Satellites; the International Polar-Orbiting Meteorological

Satellite Group; the Landsat Ground Station Operations Working Group; the

Groupement des Operateurs des Stations SPOT; the World Meteorological Organization;

the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; the International

Council of Scientific Unions; the Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations; and

national, regional, and international remote sensing satellite data archiving, applications,

and user organizations.

ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT

These Terms of Reference were adopted at the September 24-25, 1984, meeting of

CEOS and may be amended by consensus of the members.

[5]

SUMMARY

REMOTE SENSING TRAINING COORDINATION MEETING

As agreed by the Economic Summit Panel of Experts on Remote Sensing, the United

States will host a meeting on coordinating donor activities in remote sensing training for

developing countries. The meeting is planned for the Asian Regional Remote Sensing

Training Center located at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand.

532 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The date will be during the week of February 4, 1985, and the meeting is scheduled for

two days.

Dr. Charles Paul, Forestry and Natural Resources Office, U.S. Agency for

International Development, has agreed to assume organizational responsibility for the

meeting. Dr. John McElroy, NOAA, will attend as the U.S. representative to the Panel of

Remote Sensing Experts. An informal preparatory meeting is taking place October 10,

1984, in Toulouse during the GDTA International Conference on Training for Remote

Sensing Users.

For further information on this activity, contact Kenneth Hodgkins, NOAA/NESDIS

International Affairs Unit, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-4586.

Document IV-9

[1]

MINUTES

COMMITTEE ON EARTH OBSERVATIONS SATELLITES

SEPTEMBER 24-25, 1984

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Committee on Earth Observations Satellites (CEOS) held its first meeting in

Washington, D.C. September 24-25, 1984. The group was chaired by the U.S. .National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and was convened using the name

International Earth Observation Satellite Committee (IEOSC). Attending the

meeting were representatives of the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Centre

National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) of France, the European Space Agency (ESA), the

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), the Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais

(INPE) of Brazil, the Japanese National Space Development Agency (NASDA), U.S.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as well as observers from the U.S.

Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of State. The attendees are listed in

Attachment 1.

Following opening remarks by Dr. John McElroy, Assistant Administrator of NOAA,

the group agreed on the name CEOS and that CEOS would replace the previous

Multilateral Meetings on Remote Sensing, and the Coordination on Land Observing

Satellites (CLOS) and Coordination on Ocean Remote Sensing Satellites (CORSS)

groups. The proposed charter, renamed "Terms of Reference", was discussed and revised,

and the final agreed document is presented as Attachment 2. The NASDA (Japan)

representative requested that formal approval of the Terms of Reference by Japan be

rendered upon confirmation from Tokyo.

Presentations were made by each participating agency covering its current and

planned earth observation system with presentation materials distributed to all members.

Topical discussions covered ocean satellite systems, satellite data products and archives,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 533
the role of commercial and government-funded satellite programs, regional user

meetings, and training programs. These items are summarized below.

Ocean Satellite Systems-Presentations were made on U.S. plans for coordinating and

integrating data from a variety of current and planned satellites of interest to the marine

community, with the suggestion that work needs to begin now to ensure an adequate

system for handling the rapidly increasing volume of ocean observations expected by the

early 1990s. NASA presented its plans for ocean observations from space, as did ESA.

Discussion related to ensuring user community involvement and progress made to date

on interesting the oceanographic community in satellite data. CEOS members agreed that

coordination of planned missions was advantageous to system operators and data users.

Specific cooperative arrangements are being addressed in various bilateral discussions

between relevant agencies.

[2] Data Issues: There was general agreement on the desirability of increasing

coordination and standardization in data management. A Working Group was established

to define areas where progress was feasible and to develop a plan for proceeding, mindful

of the risk of attacking too large a problem and never making any substantial, practical

progress.

Commercial and Government Programs: There was discussion on the proper role for

a potential commercial operator of an earth observations system in this or another forum.

The Terms of Reference do not exclude the possibility of a commercial organization

participating, either directly or as part of a government agency's delegation. The

consensus was that there was no immediate case requiring a precise position and that the

CAS would continue to discuss this as the situation evolves. All agreed that

communication between commercial and government space-borne earth observations

systems was desirable. There was not agreement on the formalities or terms under which

that communication should take place.

It was agreed that the addition of new members to CEOS can be effected between

plenary sessions if there is unanimous agreement among members. If there is not

unanimity, the proposed membership will be discussed at the next plenary session.

Regional User Meetings: The discussion centered on the previous Multilateral

Meeting sponsorship of regional meetings as a means of increasing interaction between

system operators and users throughout the world. The group agreed that while such

interaction was desirable, a formal program for regional meetings was unnecessary. There

were several action items agreed on regarding increased exchange of information on

regional remote sensing organizations, upcoming meetings, and CEOS. (See Action Items

1-3)

Training: Each participant described training activities in its country or agency.

There was general agreement on the desirability of coordinating plans for training, and

of providing training on-site, in the location of the trainees, rather than bringing the

trainees to the location of the training organization. The upcoming international meeting

planned for February 1985 in Bangkok to coordinate planned remote sensing training was

described, and NOAA will provide participants with further information. (Action Item 3)

The results of this meeting will be reported at the next CEOS meeting, and the CEOS will

then consider whether CEOS should take further action in training.

534 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[3] WORKING GROUPS

1. NOAA will chair a Working Group on Data. Each interested participant [Handwritten

note: “Dodge/Butler”] will designate a point of contact for this Working Group, and

transmit that name to Lisa Shaffer (NOAA) within 6 weeks of the CEOS meeting.

2. ESA will chair a Working Group on Intercalibration and Performance Verification.

Each interested participant [Handwritten note: “Schiffer/Thomas”] will designate a

point of contact and transmit that name to Guy Duchossois (ESA) within 6 weeks of

the CEOS meeting.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Each agency will include information on CEOS in its newsletter or other publications

as appropriate.

2. Each agency will provide to other members information about relevant regional

organizations and upcoming meetings which CEOS members any wish to attend.

Agencies will provide information on CAS to relevant regional organizations in

which they participate.

3. NOAA will provide information to CEOS members on the planned Bangkok meeting

to coordinate plans for remote sensing training.

4. Each agency will provide to other members the results of satellite failure analysis on

relevant programs.

5. CCRS will notify members of a planned meeting in Canada on oceanographic

satellite data use, and invite representatives of agencies with planned oceanographic

satellite programs to participate.

NEXT MEETING

The European Space Agency will host the next meeting of CEOS in April/May 1986

in either Paris or Frascati. Included on the agenda will be presentations on training

activities (including a report on the Bangkok meeting, as well as each agency's programs),

and the status of commercialization.

Document IV-10

[no pagination]

[stamped “Oct 19 1984”]

To CEOS Conference Participants

Dear Participant:

I am pleased to send the minutes of the first meeting of the Committee on Earth

Observations Satellites, held September 24 and 25, 1984, in Washington, D.C. Also

enclosed are a copy of the agreed Terms of Reference, a complete list of names and

addresses of attendees, and information as promised on the remote sensing training

meeting scheduled for February 1985 in Bangkok, Thailand.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 535
I again apologize for having to leave before the end of the meeting, due to travel

commitments. I understand that the final part of the meeting was at least as useful and

productive as the part I attended. The high level of contribution by all attendees confirms

my belief that this type of forum is of value to all current and prospective satellite

operators, and will ultimately benefit the entire international user community.

If there are any comments or corrections on the minutes or other CEOS

documentation, please let Lisa Shaffer know. We look forward to the progress of the two

CEOS Working Groups, and to our next meeting to be hosted by ESA.

Best regards,

[signed]

John H. McElroy

Enclosures

Document IV-11

Document Title: Earth System Sciences Committee, NASA Advisory Council, “Earth

System Science Overview,” May 1986.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This document represents the summary results of a committee of scientists chaired by Dr. Francis

Bretherton. It was influential in designing the initial framework for what became not only NASA’s

Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), but also the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Among other

things, the committee’s report focused attention on the interlocking, interactive nature of Earth’s systems.

[title page]

Earth System Science

Overview

A program for global change

Prepared by the

Earth System Sciences Committee

NASA Advisory Council

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546

May 1986

536 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[inside cover 1]

We, the peoples of the world, face a new responsibility for our global future. Through

our economic and technological activity, we are now contributing to significant global

changes on the Earth within the span of a few human generations. We have become part

of the Earth System and one of the forces for Earth change.

Research holds the key to a deeper understanding of the Earth as an integrated

system of interacting components, and of the consequences of global change for

humanity. To achieve this understanding, the Earth System Sciences Committee

recommends:

OVER THE NEXT DECADE—

• Programs of continuing and operational space observations to extend and to

enhance those presently being carried out by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), and others;

• A coordinated sequence of specialized space research missions for studies of

specific Earth System processes, including the Earth Radiation Budget

Experiment (ERBE, launched 1984), Laser Geodynamics Satellites (LAGEOS-1,

launched 1976, and LAGEOS-2, started 1983), Upper Atmosphere Research

Satellite (UARS, started 1982), Navy Remote Ocean Sensing System (N-ROSS,

started 1985), Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX/ POSEIDON, candidate

new start 1987), and Geopotential Research Mission (GRM, candidate new start

1989);

• Pursuit of other observing opportunities to obtain important Earth System data at

modest additional cost;

• An interdisciplinary program of basic Earth System research and in situ

measurements to be carried out by NASA, NOAA, the National Science

Foundation (NSF), and other Federal agencies;

• An advanced information system to process global data and to facilitate data

analysis, data interpretation, and quantitative modeling of Earth System processes

by the scientific community; and

• A program of instrument development to ready a variety of satellite experiments

for implementation in the mid-1990s.

DURING THE SPACE STATION ERA: MID-1990s AND BEYOND—

• An Earth Observing System utilizing polar orbiting platforms planned as part of

the U.S. Space Station program and offering opportunities for combined flight of

NASA research instruments and NOAA operational payloads, to provide

continuous, long-term global Earth observations (candidate NASA new start,

1989);

• Advanced geostationary space platforms to support a new generation of research

and operational measurements from geosynchronous orbit; and

• Additional specialized space research missions, including the Rainfall Mission

(candidate new start 1991), Magnetic Field Explorer (MFE, candidate new start

1993), Mesosphere-Thermosphere Explorer (MTE, candidate new start 1995),

and Gravity Gradiometer Mission (GGM, candidate new start 1997).

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 537
BEGINNING AT ONCE-—

• Development of new management policies and mechanisms to foster cooperation

among NASA, NOAA, NSF, other Federal agencies and commercial firms

engaged in Earth System Science and the study of global change; and

• Strengthening of the international agreements and coordination necessary for a

truly worldwide study of the Earth.

Each of these steps will contribute to a new framework for Earth studies. By deciding

to take these steps now, we can help to ensure that the gifts of the Earth will be preserved

and passed on to future generations.

[Inside cover 2]

Preface

In 1983, the Advisory Council of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) established an Earth System Sciences Committee (ESSC) to:

• Review the science of the Earth as an integrated system of interacting

components;

• Recommend an implementation strategy for global Earth studies; and

• Define NASA’s role in such a program of Earth System Science.

In charging the Committee with these tasks, the Council emphasized the importance

of understanding the Earth as a system, within the context of the solar environment, and

of an integrated research program for the study of global change. Both of these objectives

are highly relevant to the future habitability of the Earth. In view of the strong

collaborative role to be played by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) in any program of Earth System Science, NOAA has requested that it also receive

the Committee’s recommendations. The present report is thus addressed to NASA and

NOAA jointly.

The Committee began its deliberations in November 1983 with a review of other

relevant reports and studies, particularly those of the Space Science Board of the National

Academy of Sciences, and a consideration of concurrent approaches to the investigation

of global change, such as the Global Habitability study of NASA and the International

Geosphere Biosphere study of the National Academy of Sciences (see listing in Appendix

A). During 1984, the Committee received the reports of a number of Working Groups

formed to assess the status of research programs and opportunities in a variety of specific

Earth-science disciplines. These initial meetings and discussions culminated in a June

1985 workshop, during which the Committee achieved a consensus on an implementation

strategy for Earth System Science for the next 10-15 years. The present study is believed to

mark the first time that such a large and disparate group of Earth scientists, representing

broad areas of Earth study, has attempted to define a unified, systematic approach to the

scientific investigation of the entire Earth.

A research strategy for all of Earth science—one that would assign research priorities

across all discipline boundaries and among all measurement techniques—is not yet within

reach. The Earth System Sciences Committee followed a more restricted approach, first

identifying those research areas to which space techniques and observations can make an

538 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
outstanding contribution, and then considering the in situ activities and measurements

necessary to support and complement the observations from space. Because of the unique

benefits of the space perspective, this approach is the one that seems most likely to

advance global Earth studies both broadly and rapidly in the years ahead. In the course of

its study, the Committee accomplished the following:

• Identified a unifying scientific strategy by confirming that the concept of the

Earth as an integrated system indeed provides strategic guidance for future Earthscience investigations. [Preface 2] This approach is rapidly gaining the support of

scientists from a wide variety of traditional Earth-science disciplines.

• Defined an integrated program for Earth investigations from space that (1)

builds upon two decades of successful research and operational satellites, and (2)

places currently planned near-term missions within the framework of a systematic

approach to the study of the Earth as a whole. This near-term space program,

complemented by appropriate in situ measurements, furthermore lays the

scientific foundation for the recommended global observing program and

associated information system in the longer term.

• Confirmed the importance of new space technology for the study of the Earth as

a system, especially a next generation of large space platforms in polar orbit. Such

platforms are currently planned as part of the U.S. Space Station Complex and

would be both advantageous and cost-effective for implementing the proposed

Earth serving System in the Space Station era.

• Considered the roles of NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation

(NSF) in an integrated Earth System Science research program, calling particular

attention to the need for these agencies to collaborate closely in future studies of

the Earth System. The important roles of other Federal agencies are also

recognized.

• Identified the issues of management and leadership as key to the success of these

initiatives. United States agencies will need to develop new mechanisms for

interacting and carrying out the Federal research program outlined here.

Moreover, the success of Earth System Science will also require a collective

research effort by the nations of the Earth. Any U.S. program must be part of an

effective international collaboration in Earth remote sensing systems and other

research activities.

This Overview presents a summary of the current status of Earth System Science and

of the implementation strategy recommended by the Committee. A detailed scientific

rationale will be published later.

**********

[4] Introduction

The Goal of Earth System Science:

To obtain a scientific understanding of the entire Earth System on a global scale by

describing how its component parts and their interactions have evolved, how they

function, and how they may be expected to continue to evolve on all timescales.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 539
The Challenge to Earth System Science:

To develop the capability to predict those changes that will occur in the next decade

to century, both naturally and in response to human activity.

Scientific research continues to yield fundamental new knowledge about the Earth.

Studies of the continents, oceans, atmosphere, biosphere, and ice cover over the past

thirty years have revealed that these are components of a far more dynamic and complex

world than could have been imagined only a few generations ago. These investigations

also have delineated, with increasing clarity, the complex interactions among the Earth’s

components and the profound effects of these interactions upon Earth history and

evolution. We can now proceed, for example, to incorporate the global effects of

atmospheric wind stress into models of oceanic circulation; to study volcanic activity as a

link between convection in the Earth’s mantle and worldwide atmospheric properties; and

to trace the global carbon cycle through the many transformations of this vital element by

terrestrial and ocean biota, atmospheric chemistry, and the weathering of the Earth’s solid

surface and soils.

Our new knowledge is providing us with deeper insight into the Earth as a system.

This insight has set the stage for a more complete and unified approach to its study, Earth

System Science.

Complementing our innate curiosity about our planet, the search for practical

benefits to improve the quality of human life has long provided a second important

motivation for Earth science. Today, human beings in most regions of the globe enjoy

greater abundance from the Earth than at any time in our history. Further advances in

weather prediction, agriculture and forestry, navigation, and ocean-resource management

will accompany a still better understanding of Earth processes.

[5] Now a third and urgent factor spurs the quest for knowledge. The people of the

Earth are no longer simple spectators to the drama of Earth evolution but have become

active participants on a worldwide scale, contributing to processes of global change that

will significantly alter our habitat within a few human generations. In some cases, such as

the depletion of the Earth’s energy and mineral resources, the effects of human activity

are obvious and irreversible. In other cases, such as the alteration of atmospheric chemical

composition, the processes of change are more difficult to document, and their

consequences harder to foresee. Moreover, the global effects of many human-induced

changes cannot readily be distinguished from the results of natural change on the same

timescale.

We particularly require a set of Earth observations that will permit us to disentangle

the complex interactions among the Earth’s components and to document their effects

over extended time periods. Such observations will allow us to establish causal

relationships among the processes involved and therefore to distinguish between the

consequences of human economic and technological activity, on the one hand, and the

results of natural change on the other. With this new knowledge, we will then be able to

take timely action to ensure an abundant Earth for future generations.

We can begin to meet this challenge today:

• Programs of global observations relevant to a number of Earth System properties

have already been carried out with great success. Sensors for future space and in

540 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
situ measurements are ready to deploy or in advanced stages of design. The most

urgently needed observations can be made through near-term missions and

programs that have been thoroughly planned and can now be initiated. The

proposed Earth Observing System aboard polar-orbiting platforms now planned

as part of the U.S. Space Station Complex appears to provide the most

advantageous and cost-effective means of obtaining essential global observations

from space from the mid-1990s onwards.

• Information systems specifically constructed to process individual sets of global

data are already in operation. New developments in computing technology have

now made feasible an advanced information system to provide worldwide access

to these current data sets, to process the more extensive global data to be

obtained in the future, and to facilitate data analysis and interpretation by the

scientific community.

• Existing numerical models are already contributing to detailed understanding of

individual Earth components. Building upon these prototypes, new conceptual

and numerical models of the Earth System are now being developed to explore

the interactions among the Earth’s components and to analyze the global effects

of physical, chemical, and biological processes. By furnishing a quantitative

understanding of the Earth System, these new models will also provide

predictions of the effects of global change on human populations.

• [6] Federal agencies are recognizing the need for interdisciplinary research

support and interagency cooperation. Moreover, there is a developing consensus

on the goals and missions of these agencies in Earth-science research, as

exemplified by a recent report of the President’s Office of Science and

Technology Policy (see Appendix A).

• A worldwide political awareness of the necessity for a coordinated, international

approach to the global study of the Earth has been created, and cooperative

research efforts by many nations across the globe are under way.

If pursued with resolve and commitment, this research program will bring us rewards

of knowledge as dramatic, and as relevant to humankind, as any in scientific history. The

anticipated achievements of Earth System Science include the following:

• Global measurements: Establishment of the worldwide observations necessary to

understand the physical, chemical, and biological processes responsible for Earth

evolution on all timescales.

• Documentation of global change: Recording of those changes that will occur in

the Earth System over the coming decades.

• Predictions: Use of quantitative models of the Earth System to anticipate future

global trends.

• Information base: Assembly of the information essential for effective decisionmaking to respond to the consequences of global change.

Guided by this new knowledge, the Earth’s human societies may wish to consider, for

example, modifications in the use of fossil fuels; political, social, and technical planning

for the relocation of primary grain-production areas; controls on the disposal of chemical

wastes; or redistribution of water in response to drought forecasts.

[7] We have no greater concern than the future of this planet and the life upon it.

Exploration of the other planets in the Solar System has confirmed the very special place

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 541
of our world among them: the only planet with a biosphere, the only planet with abundant

oxygen and liquid water, and the only planet with plate-tectonic processes that renew its

surface structure and recycle nutrients essential to life. To preserve it, we must continue

to seek a deeper scientific understanding of global Earth processes. Now is the time to

meet this challenge through a program of Earth System Science.

[9] 

OUR PLANET EARTH

The Earth Sciences

For the present generation of human beings, the continuing search for new

knowledge of our planet has been particularly exciting. In an extraordinary burst of

research findings over the past 30 years, our view of the solid Earth has been totally

transformed. The earlier notion of a static, placid globe has been swept away, replaced

by the dynamism and drama of plate tectonics. Enormous sections of the Earth’s crust,

born at mid-ocean ridges, float upon the convective mantle of the Earth, restlessly

jostling against neighboring plates until their ultimate subduction back into the

Earth’s interior along continental plate boundaries. Patterns of mountain-building,

volcanism, and earthquake activity all fit consistently into this new view. Plate tectonics

has, for the first time, provided a unified, coherent description of the Earth’s crustal

features.

The past several decades have also seen remarkable advances in our knowledge of

the fluid Earth. The oceans, atmosphere, and ice-covered regions of the planet are now

recognized to be closely coupled in shaping the Earth’s weather and climate. Research

has charted the courses of the world’s great ocean currents and revealed the

distribution of heat, salt, and nutrients in the ocean interior. Aided by satellite

observations of global temperature, moisture, and cloud cover, scientists have

constructed numerical models of the atmosphere that have begun to provide reliable

predictions of general atmospheric circulation. Studies of the ocean-atmosphere

interaction have identified an association between the El Niño ocean-current variation

off the South American coast and the Southern Oscillation atmospheric pressure

phenomenon that produces effects across the entire tropical Pacific Ocean and beyond.

Such investigations are contributing to an initial understanding of the operation of the

fluid Earth on a global scale.

The biological Earth is now recognized to exert a major influence on global

processes. Ocean biota, for example, have an important effect on climate through net

removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide during formation of ocean sediments. Both ocean

biota and land ecosystems participate in the global cycles of chemicals essential to life.

Furthermore, land biota can also affect climate through their important influence on

albedo and water cycling, and through production and emission of various trace gases. All

of these findings have established important connections among the components of the

planet Earth and thus have emphasized the essential unity of global processes which are

only now beginning to be studied systematically.

542 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Science for Practical Benefits

The pursuit of an improved quality of life upon the Earth goes hand in hand with the

search for greater scientific understanding of the Earth itself. The application of basic

research to human needs is today proceeding more vigorously than ever before.

One of the most important benefits secured to our generation is increasingly

accurate global weather prediction. Numerical simulation of atmospheric processes began

to become practical in the 1960’s with the advent of highspeed computers. These

simulations were accompanied by a complementary and dramatic new development:

global observations of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere from space, beginning with the

launch of the first experimental satellite in 1960. The first operational series of polarorbiting weather satellites began in 1966, and a series of geostationary environmental

satellites became operational in 1974. These spacecraft have permitted continuous, global

recording of temperature, cloud cover, and other atmospheric variables to supplement an

increasingly refined series of measurements made from the ground and within the

atmosphere itself. Regional weather forecasts are now based almost entirely upon the

predictions of numerical models employing these data.

Studies of the land and the oceans have produced additional benefits for humanity

within the past generation. Research into crustal movements and plate tectonics has

delineated regions of potential volcanic and earthquake activity and has begun to develop

predictors of these events. We have come to understand the origin and distribution of the

Earth’s vast quantities of petroleum, natural gas, and mineral deposits—particularly since

the investigation of environment-specific processes, such as the deposition of metallicsulfide ores at hydrothermal vents along oceanic spreading centers. Spacecraft

observations of ocean color have identified plankton-rich regions and productive time

periods important to the aquatic food chain, thus promising more efficient use of our

fishing resources. Continued research holds the potential to increase still further the

abundant benefits of the Earth.

[10] A New Human Need: Study of Global Change

Human activity is now causing significant changes on a global scale within the

span of a few human generations. The burning of fossil fuels, for example, is injecting

carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. The atmospheric

concentration of this gas has increased by nearly 25 percent since the Industrial

Revolution, and by over 10 percent since 1958 alone; at this rate it will double within a

century. Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight entering the atmosphere but blocks

the flow of heat radiated outward from the Earth’s surface, thus creating a “greenhouse

effect” that produces a net warming trend. On the basis of the present rate of increase

in atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate models predict an average global increase of at

least 2°C in surface temperature during the next century—an increase comparable to

that experienced since the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago—together with marked shifts

in precipitation patterns. There are also continuing increases in a number of other

“greenhouse gases,” including methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and tropospheric

ozone; although the concentration [11] of these trace species are presently much less

than that of carbon dioxide, they are rising much more rapidly. Their effects can 

also be more pronounced: molecule for molecule, chlorofluorocarbons produce

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 543
10,000 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, in addition to depleting

stratospheric ozone.

Moreover, the daily needs of nearly half the world’s people for fuel and nourishment

are reducing the Earth’s vegetation and the productivity of marginal agricultural land.

Because of these economic and cultural forces, the extent of the Earth’s forest cover has

decreased substantially since 1950. Since much of the [12] deforested land is planted to

other vegetation, and since substantial afforestation may be occurring at northern

midlatitudes, the net effect on carbon-dioxide balance remains unclear, but such changes

are almost certain to alter the ecology of the land in a variety of ways. For example, the

clearing of tropical forest, often by burning, is reducing the world’s greatest reservoir of

plant and animal diversity. In marginal agricultural areas, overcropping of the land and

uncontrolled animal grazing may be turning productive soil into desert, a major source of

dust that in turn can affect atmospheric properties and climate.

All of these human-induced changes are difficult to assess and measure accurately,

but it is already evident that they are playing a role in shaping present and future global

conditions. Now is the time to document these processes on a global scale and to identify

the causal relationships among them, while there is still time to respond effectively.

**********

[31]

THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM

In developing its recommended program, the Earth System Sciences Committee

recognized two distinct research eras delineated by the U.S. Space Station development

schedule: a current, near-term era, extending over the next decade, that will utilize

present satellite capabilities, and a long-term era beginning in the mid-1990’s that will

draw upon the new capabilities provided by the Space Station. The Committee has also

examined the roles of Federal agencies during both of these program periods and placed

them in the context of an international effort directed at global Earth studies. Following

a presentation of its own budget estimates of the costs of implementing the recommended

program, the Committee offers some concluding remarks on Earth System Science.

Priorities for an Implementation Strategy

In determining priorities, the Committee first considered the intrinsic scientific

importance of each potential research contribution, particularly its relevance to the Goal

and the Challenge of Earth System Science. The relevant reports of the National Academy

of Sciences’ Space Science Board, such as that of the Committee on Earth Sciences,

provided essential guidance for these science-related decisions. Other Academy studies,

for example the International Geosphere-Biosphere study, also furnished a valuable

scientific perspective.

The Committee next examined the feasibility of proposed program elements in the

time periods of interest. The required measurement technology, scientific personnel, and

institutional resources must be projected realistically and carry a reasonable assurance of

availability. The nature and magnitude of some of the tasks has dictated a careful appraisal

544 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
of the roles of the Federal agencies engaged in Earth-science studies. Because many of

these tasks require satellite observations, the Committee has taken into account the future

availability of space observatories. Consideration of the resources and opportunities to be

provided by the Space Station program were therefore important to the Committee’s

conclusions.

Finally, the Committee had to face the constraints, both technical and fiscal, that

must inevitably restrict the scope of any national research program, even one as important

to our future as Earth System Science. From the perspective of its science strategy, the

Committee considered programmatic opportunities to attain the objectives stated in the

Academy reports, examining the relevance, readiness, degree of community support, and

cost of proposed missions. The Committee has tried to strike a balance between program

needs, on the one hand, and a realistic demand on agency resources and capabilities on

the other.

In the opinion of the Committee, the sequence, programmatic balance, and – given

the high national importance of the Goal and Challenge – the schedule of integrated

program recommended here reflect all of these considerations.

The program elements recommended for inclusion in the current, near-term era of

research (the next decade) are:

• Continuing and operational space observations;

• Specialized space research missions;

• Other observing opportunities;

• Basic research and in situ observations;

• An advanced information system; and

• Instrument development.

During the second era of research to follow (the mid-1990s and beyond), emphasis

will shift to the integrated program of global measurements to be carried out by the

proposed Earth Observing System (EOS), as well as NOAA’s complement of operational

instruments, both of which can utilize new space platforms in polar orbit provided by the

Space Station program. These programs will be complemented by ongoing basic research

and in situ observations, appropriate specialized space research missions, and

observations from new space platforms in geosynchronous orbit.

The Current Era

Continuing and Operational Space Observations

The United States civilian operating Earth-observing satellite systems, together with

ground-based calibration and validation programs, furnish continuing global data on the

atmosphere, oceans, solid Earth, and important solar and space-environment properties.

From these sources, Federal agencies provide operational services critical to the

protection of life and property, the national economy, energy development and

distribution, and global food supplies.

At the same time, this ongoing measurement program, together with associated in

situ investigations, provides a data base that is fundamental to research on the state of the

Earth and global change. The Earth System Sciences Committee therefore concurs with

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 545
the National Academy of Sciences’ COSEPUP Panel on Remote Sensing of the Earth in

emphasizing that present ongoing and operational satellite measurement systems must be

continued [32] and improved as required—to provide accurate, homogeneous, and

timely data. The Earth System Science program recommended here is based on the

assumption that the operational system now in place will be continued.

NOAA is presently concluding contract negotiations for the next series of

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) spacecraft and payloads and

has initiated a procurement through NASA for the continuation of the NOAA polarorbiting spacecraft series. The GOES initiative will produce a series of Shuttle-launched,

three-axis-stabilized spacecraft available for service beginning in 1990. These satellites,

GOES-I through M, will offer direct-broadcast capabilities and simultaneous operation of

imaging and sounding instruments. A greater number of spectral channels and higher

resolution will also be provided. The extended polar-orbiting series, NOAA-K, L, and M,

includes an Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit to provide improved soundings in cloudcovered areas and in the stratosphere, together with new information on sea ice, rain

rates, and soil moisture. This series will remain in service until NOAA transfers its polar

mission to the polar-orbiting platforms planned as part of the Space Station Complex.

Specialized Space Research Missions

Of particular importance in the near term is a carefully constructed sequence of

specialized space research missions required for the study of specific Earth System

properties and processes. Each is characterized by a choice of orbit and spacecraft design

tailored to achieve the particular objectives of the mission. These missions must therefore

be flown separately, and in a sequence that yields the optimum scientific return to the

Earth System Science program as a whole. They are as follows:

• Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). Because of its importance to

climate studies, measurement of the Earth’s radiation budget has been the

objective of many satellite observations since the beginning of the space program.

The ERBE program in progress, combining observations from a NASA research

experiment (EBBS) in a low-inclination orbit with measurements from the

operational NOAA-9 and NOAA-G satellites in polar orbit, is the first to provide

these essential characteristics: adequate calibration, wide geographic sampling,

broad spectral response, extensive measurements of the angular distribution of

reflected and emitted radiation, unbiased diurnal sampling, and high spectral

resolution. The projected ERBE observing period is 1985-1989.

• Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS). Scheduled for a 1989 launch, the

approved UARS program is designed to improve understanding of the coupled

chemistry and dynamics of the stratosphere and mesosphere, the role of solar

radiation in these processes, and the susceptibility of the upper atmosphere to

long-term changes in the concentration and distribution with altitude of key

atmospheric constituents, particularly ozone. UARS data will be coordinated with

results from the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV) spectrometer scheduled to

be flown aboard operational meteorological satellites and the Space Shuttle

during the UARS mission duration.

• Scatterometer (NSCAT) aboard the Navy Remote Ocean Sensing System (NROSS) satellite. The approved N-ROSS program, scheduled for launch in 1991,

will carry four sensors: a scatterometer for ocean wind measurements, a

546 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
microwave radiometer for measurements of sea-surface temperature, a microwave

radiometer to monitor ice extent, and a radar altimeter to measure wave height

and to locate oceanic [33] fronts and eddies. NSCAT is planned to provide

accurate, global wind-field data over a three-year period that will be of high

importance to oceanography and meteorology. The instrument itself will satisfy

both the research requirements of the scientific community and the operational

requirements of the Navy. In addition to providing NSCAT to the Navy, NASA and

NOAA plan to establish a ground data processing system to produce data

products, including those of research quality, and to make them available to the

oceanographic and meteorological communities.

• Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX/POSEIDON). This joint US/France

mission, proposed as a 1987 NASA new start, will use radar altimetry to measure

the surface topography of the oceans over a period of several years. When

combined with appropriate in situ measurements, these observations will permit

a determination of the three-dimensional structure of the world’s ocean currents.

The prime sensor will be a modification of the highly successful 1978 Seasat

altimeter providing direct measurement of ocean topography through twofrequency operation. Highly accurate orbital characteristics are to be provided by

receivers of the Global Positioning System; laser-tracking retroreflectors will be

carried as well. Two experimental French instruments are part of the payload, and

launch will be provided by Ariane. The TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite is scheduled

to operate during the N-ROSS mission.

• Geopotential Research Mission (GRM). Candidate for a NASA new start in 1989,

GRM is designed to measure spatial variations in the Earth’s gravity and magnetic

field over the entire globe to a resolution of 100 kilometers with unprecedented

completeness and accuracy. The mission currently incorporates two low-drag

spacecraft in co-planar, 160-km orbits, tracked by Doppler radar to an accuracy of

one micrometer per second over their 300-km separation. GRM will yield

important new insights into the Earth’s remote interior. Measurements of the

gravity field will elucidate the pattern and dynamics of thermal convection in the

mantle, which drives plate-tectonic motions: observations of the magnetic field

and its time variation will constrain models of the geodynamo in the fluid outer

core of the Earth. Moreover, the timely flight of GRM is essential to a maximum

utilization of data from TOPEX/POSEIDON by providing the geoid to which seasurface heights are referred for studies of ocean circulation. The mission

furthermore has important applications to additional studies of the

thermosphere and mantle, and to geodesy.

All of the above missions are either operating, ready to proceed, or in advanced stages

of development. Many of the measurements initiated by these missions should be continued

as part of a program of long-term global observations from the mid-1990s onward.

Other Observing Opportunities

In addition to the specialized space research missions discussed above, there are

opportunities to fly several other instruments, either on NOAA operational satellites,

aboard the Space Shuttle, or on other spacecraft. All offer high scientific return at modest

cost. Their development could be undertaken either by NASA, by NOAA, through a

NASA-NOAA cooperative program, or through international collaboration.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 547
• First among this set is an Ocean Color Imager. The Coastal Zone Color Scanner

on the Nimbus 7 satellite, launched in 1978, has already provided a significant

start on a long-term data set and has operated well beyond its design lifetime. This

data set on biological activity in the world’s oceans has a demonstrated utility to

the research and ocean-user communities alike. This data stream must be

continued with global oceanic coverage and improved flight hardware as soon as

possible.

• The surface topography of the continents can be determined by a scanning radar

altimeter flown on a series of Shuttle missions. This will furnish a data set of broad

applicability in geology, geophysics and hydrology that can facilitate the

interpretation of later high-resolution imagery.

• The chemistry of the troposphere is an area of growing emphasis in research and

analysis as part of Earth System Science. The only trace chemical constituents of

the troposphere currently measurable from space are carbon monoxide and

water vapor. Carbon monoxide is indicative both of hydrocarbon oxidation and

of the abundance of hydroxyl radicals which control the destruction of a number

of other tropospheric gases. A version of the current Space Shuttle instrument,

improved to detect carbon monoxide in three layers spanning the full height of

the troposphere, would be a good candidate for flight on the NOAA morning

satellites.

Basic Research and In situ Observations

A program of basic research is needed to complement and make full utilization of

the data from specific missions and projects recommended in this report. In particular,

NASA, NOAA, and NSF will all need to expand considerably their basic Earth-science

research efforts in order to strengthen ecological studies, fund new multidisciplinary

research efforts in support of Earth System Science, and extend research in a number of

present Earth-science disciplines, such as tropospheric chemistry.

[36] NASA will require, for example, expanded capabilities to make measurements from

non-space platforms, such as aircraft and surface stations, exploiting the latest technology.

NOAA will need to improve the ground-based monitoring of sea levels and of long-lived

atmospheric constituents from networks of stations and enhance its programs of modeling

and research in the application of these data. With respect to spacecraft data, NOAA will

need to increase its research on the application of operational satellite observations to

Earth System Science problems. NOAA should also actively participate in national and

international research projects designed to exploit operational satellite observations for

Earth System Science applications, such as programs for cloud and land-surface

climatology. Key NSF program enhancements include the establishment of terrestrial

ecosystem observatories in which detailed in situ measurements of different biomes

(vegetative groupings) can be made on a long-term basis for comparison with global

satellite observations, together with studies of ocean circulation and related

biogeochemistry.

All three agencies will, in addition, need to support modeling and laboratory studies

of Earth System components and their interactions. In shaping programs to attain these

objectives, the agencies must furthermore take care to provide for the full participation of

the university research community, which will play a pivotal role in the advance of Earth

System Science.

548 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Finally, the Committee wishes to stress the potential research importance of Earth

System data to be provided by the commercial remote-sensing ventures now beginning

operation. The Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984 laid down extensive

guidelines for the conduct of United Stales commercial operations; however, it is not yet

clear how this act will actually be implemented in detail. The research will, in particular,

need access to commercial data for scientific purposes at a price commensurate with the

resources of realistic research budgets. Moreover the continuity and quality central of

remote-sensing data are of the highest importance to research. These concerns must be

met in any plan to transfer research instruments developed for remote sensing to

commercial or Federal operational programs.

[37] An Advanced Information System

Of paramount importance to the success of Earth System Science is an advanced

information system that will promote productive use of global data. The worldwide space

and in situ observations required for a deeper understanding of the Earth System can be

utilized only if the research community has effective access to them. The design,

development, and management of the requisite information system are tasks that

approach, in scope and complexity, the design, development, and operation of spacebased observing systems themselves. NASA, NOAA, and NSF will all benefit from such a

system and should collaborate in this undertaking. Other interested agencies, such as the

U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior, should participate as well.

The diversity of Earth-data sources mandates an information system of substantial

capabilities in which flexibility of use is a key characteristic. There is, to begin with, a wealth

of existing Earth System data, scattered among various locations, that could be rapidly

applied to research problems if that information were more immediately accessible to the

scientific community. Operational data currently processed and used by NOAA also need to

be made available to the community through interactive access by remote terminals. In

addition, data to be returned by specialized NASA space missions over the next two decades

must be processed and distributed widely for scientific analysis. Finally, the information

system will need to meet the data-handling requirements of the global system to observe the

Earth envisioned for the mid-1990s and beyond. The system must thus permit scientists to

obtain and combine data from all of these sources and to carry out detailed analysis of these

integrated data on central and local computers. The system should also permit individual

research groups to exchange analyses and to develop Earth System models interactively.

Among the more specialized requirements for an advanced information system are

the following: the provision of data directories and catalogs, browse capabilities, and full

documentation on sensors, missions, algorithms, and data sets; a hierarchical structure, so

that active data bases of geophysical and biological properties can be maintained together

with archives of more primitive sensor characteristics; the provision of utilities for higherlevel data processing; and the linking of local work stations with observing-system control

centers, so that qualified users can submit requests for specialized observations rapidly

and directly. These features will, moreover, encourage the early formation of a community

of interactive users of the system.

Such an information system is clearly a formidable undertaking, but it is essential to

the pursuit of Earth System Science. The information system must be designed to

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 549
accommodate the variety and complexity of the Earth itself, for it will provide our primary

means for detecting and examining the processes of Earth evolution—particularly the

processes of global change, arising from both natural and human causes, that are of such

importance to the future habitability of the Earth. The contents of the information

system, and the understanding that they generate, will constitute one of the chief legacies

of Earth System Science to future generations.

Instrument Development

Finally, we need to begin, in the near term, a program of instrument development

for spacecraft use that will ready a variety of experiments for service by the mid-1990s and

beyond. Examples of such instruments are: (1) multichannel imaging spectrometers for

study of physical, geochemical, and biological surface properties; (2) synthetic-aperture

radars for ice studies, cartography, and surface properties; (3) high-resolution

atmospheric sounders incorporating visible, infrared, submillimeter, and microwave

channels; (4) laser ranging systems for geodetic measurements; (5) systems for highprecision ocean-floor measurements; (6) laser systems for measuring cloud heights,

aerosols, temperature, moisture, chemical composition, and winds; and (7) improved

microwave imagers for surface hydrologic studies and precipitation. Such instrument

development is being proposed in anticipation of the requirements of the Earth

Observing System (discussed below), and prototypes have in several cases already been

scheduled for forthcoming Shuttle flights. The concurrent development of advanced

instruments for measurements in situ will be needed to support and complement these

space initiatives.

The Space Station Era

Research in Earth System Science will change in two fundamental ways beginning in

the mid-1990s. First, the near-term program described above will be underway: the flight

of specialized space research missions can be expected to narrow the range of variables

for further study, and other important elements of the near-term program should be in

place. Second, we will have access to new technology, particularly a new generation of

advanced observational platforms in space. These two developments will prepare the way

for operation of the Earth Observing System.

[38] Earth Observing System/Polar-Orbiting Platforms

By the mid-1990’s, we will require a global observing system in space that utilizes

highly capable polar-orbiting platforms and returns both research and operational data

through the advanced information system described above. The Earth Observing System

(EOS) presently under study by NASA, carried out in collaboration with NOAA’s

operational program, will incorporate both of these essential features. In combination

with observations from geosynchronous platforms, several specialized space research

missions, and complementary in situ measurements, EOS can provide the extended

observations required for a fundamental understanding of the Earth System.

The planned instruments may be divided into three related classes: (1) a group of

instruments that images the Earth’s surface in the visible, infrared, and microwave regions

550 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
and sounds the lower atmosphere; (2) a complement of radar instruments that will gather

information on the character and structure of the surface; and (3) a group of instruments

designed to study the composition and dynamics of the atmosphere and to measure the

Earth’s energy balance. Also proposed for EOS are a Geodynamics Laser Ranging System,

for rapid measurements of crustal deformation over specific tectonic regions, and an

Automated Data Collection and Location System to support automated in situ

measurement devices.

The phased assembly of the EOS instrument complement has been discussed

extensively within the Earth System Sciences Committee and its Working Groups. This

scenario of instrument deployment has been found to meet the requirements of Earth

System Science as they are anticipated to evolve in the mid-1990s and beyond, and to

address the observational goals of the National Academy of Sciences’ Research Briefing

Panel of 1985 on Earth Remote Sensing:

“To advance our understanding of the causes and effects of global change, we need

new observations of the Earth. These measurements must be global and synoptic, they

must be long-term, and different processes such as atmospheric winds, ocean

currents, and biological productivity must be measured simultaneously . . .” 

Accordingly, the Earth System Sciences Committee endorses the planned Earth Observing

System as satisfying the requirements of ESSC and its Working Groups, and recommends

an EOS new start in 1989. As currently planned, NASA research instruments and NOAA

operational instruments will jointly utilize polar-orbiting platforms of the Space Station

Complex. Until the present, polar-orbiting satellites have been rather modest, automated

devices devoted to a few instruments only, and inaccessible for servicing. The Space

Station platforms of the mid-1990s are being designed with Earth System Science

requirements in mind and would offer the following advantages:

• Expanded capability for instrument accommodation, power, and data telemetry.

Because of the advent of advanced remote-sensing instruments and the need to

integrate observations of different kinds, the NASA and NOAA payloads will

make greater demands on platform services than can be met by platforms of

current design.

• Accessibility for on-orbit servicing, payload augmentation, and instrument

replacement by Space Shuttle crews. The periodic refurbishment and

replacement of instruments should greatly increase the scientific return of Earth

System Science payloads and facilitate the acquisition of long-term, self-consistent

data [39] sets. With the assurance of an extended operating lifetime, instruments

may also be designed with more advanced features and capabilities than is feasible

without serviceability.

The Committee furthermore notes that the Earth Observing System, NOAA

operations, and the Space Station Complex are all being planned to include substantial

international contributions and cooperation.

Geostationary Platforms

A second step toward a total system for global Earth observations will be provided by

advanced platforms in geosynchronous orbit. These offer several fundamental

advantages. First, high temporal resolution—limited only by instrument design and cost—

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 551
can be brought to bear on the study of rapidly changing, global atmospheric phenomena.

In the cases of land and ocean surveys, high temporal resolution helps to minimize data

loss resulting from cloud cover and unfavorable atmospheric conditions. Geosynchronous

orbit furthermore provides a fixed reference geometry for a given Earth location,

facilitating data analysis and interpretation and the study of processes with significant

diurnal variations.

Operational geosynchronous satellites, in service since 1974, have carried

imager/sounder instruments providing high-resolution visible and infrared images of the

Earth. The infrared channels of the sounding instruments have provided temperature

and moisture profiles over large areas of the Earth with high frequency. NOAA presently

operates two GOES geostationary satellites and should continue to maintain and improve

them. Future geosynchronous platforms with increased weight and power capabilities will

permit advanced imager/sounder instruments operating in the visible, infrared and

microwave spectral regions. The added capability of microwave sounding is not presently

available because of the large antenna required for adequate spatial resolution at these

high orbital altitudes, but such an advance is being studied as a possible addition to the

next generation of NOAA geostationary satellites in the mid-1990s. In addition, a

geostationary platform is currently under consideration as a growth element of the U.S.

Space Station program. This platform may be expected to extend many of the capabilities

and benefits of the Space Station polar platforms to geosynchronous orbit.

Specialized Research Missions

In addition to the specialized research missions recommended for implementation

during the current decade and described earlier, several additional missions will be

needed in the Space Station era to complement observations carried out by the Earth

Observing System.

There is a critical requirement for space measurements of global precipitation. An

exploratory mission is needed to test the feasibility of using active and passive microwave

data, together with visible and infrared imagery, to derive useful estimates of rainfall

amounts and distribution. A low-inclination orbit will permit study of the diurnal cycle of

rainfall over the tropics and an assessment of the relationship of heat released into the

atmosphere to anomalies in atmospheric circulation.

Also highly desirable in the Space Station era are: (1) a Magnetic Field Explorer

(MFE) mission to derive an accurate description of the Earth’s magnetic field and its

secular variation at the measurement epoch; (2) a Mesosphere-Thermosphere Explorer

(MTE) mission to address the chemistry and dynamics of the upper atmosphere, together

with its links to the Sun above and the stratosphere below; and (3) a Gravity Gradiometer

Mission (GGM) to measure the gradient in the Earth’s gravitational field as a complement

to the Geopotential Research Mission.

United States Agency Roles

Currently, NASA is responsible for general research and development in civilian

satellite technology; NOAA is responsible for operational weather and ocean satellites and

for development required to improve these capabilities; NSF is responsible for basic

552 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
research in all areas of Earth science; and industry is beginning to play a role in landsurface measurements. The Earth System Sciences Committee does not at present see a

need for major changes in these basic responsibilities, but it does see a need for more

broadly defined roles for the agencies and for a much greater degree of coordination

among them. A possible mechanism for fostering such coordination would be a high-level

interagency group conducting indepth program reviews and reaching agreement on

priorities and implementation. An effective example of this approach is furnished by the

Ocean Principals Group, which shapes policy for U.S. oceanographic research.

Role of NASA

NASA must continue its leadership in research from space relevant to Earth System

Science. In particular:

• NASA should continue to have the primary responsibility for Earth-sciences

research missions from space, including those of broad scientific scope, to study

the Earth as an integrated system. NASA should continue to support and foster

associated research, including advanced instrumentation development.

• NASA should continue to apply its capabilities in research and technology to the

improvement of data transmission, archival, and retrieval techniques for

utilization by the Earth-sciences community and by the NOAA operational

program.

Role of NOAA

NOAA’s role in the Earth sciences must be broadened beyond the present

interpretation of its mission in order to meet national needs. The Earth System Sciences

Committee urges a strengthening both of the operational satellite program and of the

NOAA in situ research program on atmospheric and oceanic processes:

• [41] NOAA should provide the operational services, data-transmission network,

and national archives, with an up-to-date interactive capability, for weather,

climate, atmospheric chemistry, and oceanographic data in a manner that will

support long-term scientific research requirements. Accordingly, NOAA should

create formal mechanisms to involve the scientific community in determining

and implementing requirements for NOAA’s operational space and groundbased systems.

• NOAA should be assigned primary responsibility for conducting a program to

obtain, maintain, and make accessible long-term (decadal) data bases that can be

used to assess mankind’s global impact or potential impact, from civil activities,

on the oceans, atmosphere, and land.

• NOAA should conduct research in the atmosphere and oceans, especially applied

research, including measurement and diagnostic modeling programs.

• NOAA should continue to have (as provided by the Land Remote Sensing

Commercialization Act of 1984) primary responsibility for processing and

archiving satellite data for land processes and for providing access to the data by

the research community. NOAA should also continue its collaboration with the

DoI/USGS in funding, defining, and maintaining an archive of land remotesensing data for which DoI/USGS has the operational responsibility.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 553
Collaboration Between NASA and NOAA

• NASA and NOAA should continue to investigate the feasibility and practicality of

using the polar platforms of the Space Station to support both NASA research

needs and NOAA operational needs. NOAA should provide typically 25 percent

of the resources on any other operational satellite for support of research

instruments and should give greater attention to the calibration and long-term

stability of operational instruments in order to support research (as well as

operational) needs.

• NASA and NOAA must collaborate in ensuring that satellite data on land

processes acquired by NASA are transferred to NOAA as well.

Role of NSF

The role of NSF must be to continue to support studies in basic science and

engineering that utilize all types of observations, both in situ and remote. The Committee

believes it essential for NSF to view research utilizing satellite and complementary in situ

validation and calibration data to be as appropriate for support by NSF as more

conventional in situ process studies.

In addition, the Committee hopes that NSF will take an even broader role. Since

future satellite programs will give us a new global view, but carry out only part of a given

scientific investigation, the satellite missions yield maximum scientific return only if

carried out in the context of large-scale field programs. Such programs are exemplified

by the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), funded jointly by NASA, NOAA,

and NSF, which produced a major improvement in satellite coverage of global weather.

Today we are seeing the development of global studies to understand the Southern

Oscillation and its manifestation, El Nino (the Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere

Program); large-scale ocean circulation and mixing (the World Ocean Circulation

Experiment); global fluxes and transport of material in the ocean; terrestrial ecology; the

structure of the Earth’s crust; the role of land and ice in paleo-environmental

reconstruction and in sea-level changes; and others. All of these will have satellite

observations as one of the central elements, and, to be successful, all will require major

enhancements by NSF as well as other agencies.

554 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 555

Representative Space Programs

Program Agency/

Status

Objectives

POES: Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental

Satellites (e.g., NOAA-7)

NOAA/

Operating

Weather

observations

GOES: Geostationary

Environmental Satellite

System

NOAA/

Operating

Weather

observations

DMSP: Defense

Meteorological Satellite

Program

U.S. Air Forces/

Operating

Weather

observations

for Department

of Defense

METEOSAT: Meteorology

Satellite

ESA/Operating Weather

observations

GMS: Geostationary

Meteorology Satellite

NASDA (Japan)/

Operating

Weather

observations

METEOR-2: Meteorological

Satellite-2

USSR/Operating Weather

observations

LANDSAT: Land Remote

Sensing Satellite

EOSAT/

Operating

Vegetation,

crop, and landuse inventory

LAGEOS-1: Laser Geodynamics Satellite-1NASA/

Operating

Geodynamics,

gravity field

ERBE: Earth Radiation

Budget Experiment

NASA-NOAA/

Operating

Earth’s

radiation losses

and gains

GEOSAT: Geodesy Satellite U.S Navy/

Operating

Geodesy, shape

of the geoid,

ocean and

atmospheric

properties

GPS: Global Positioning

System

U S. NavyNOAA-NASANSF-USGS/

Completion 1989

Geodesy,

crustal

deformation

SPOT-1: Système Probatoire

d’Observation de la Terre-1

France/

Operating

Land use, Earth

resources

IRS: Indian Remote Sensing

Satellite

Indian/Operating Earth resources

[34] TABLES 1 A

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF APPROVED AND CONTINUING PROGRAMS

Representative Space Programs
556 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Representative Space Shuttle instruments

Program Organization/

Status

Objective

ATMOS: Atmospheric

Trace Molecules Observed

by Spectroscopy

NASA/Current Atmospheric

chemical

composition

ACR: Active Cavity

Radiometer

NASA/Current Solar energy output

SUSIM: Solar Ultraviolet

Spectral Irradiance Monitor

NASA/Current Ultraviolet solar

observations

SIR: Shuttle Imaging Radar NASA/Current/

In development

Land-surface

observations

MAPS: Measurement of Air

Pollution from Shuttle

NASA/Current/

In development

Tropospheric

carbon monoxide

SISEX: Shuttle Imaging

Spectrometer Experiment

NASA/Planned Spectral

observations of land

surfaces

LIDAR: Light Detection and

Ranging instrument

NASA/Planned Surface topography,

atmospheric

properties

[34] TABLES 1 A

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF APPROVED AND CONTINUING PROGRAMS

Program Agency/

Status

Objective

MOS-1: Marine

Observation Satellite-1

NASDA

(Japan)/Launch

1987

State of sea surface

and atmosphere

LAGEOS-2: Laser Geo

dynamics Satellite-2

NASA-PSN

(Italy)/Launch

1988

Geodynamics, gravity

field

SPOT-2: Système Probatoire

d’Observation de la Terre-2

France/Launch

1988

Earth remote sensing

UARS: Upper Atmosphere

Research Satellite

NASA/Launch

1989

Stratospheric

chemistry, dynamics,

energy balance

ERS-1: Earth Remote

Sensing Satellite-1

ESA/Launch

1990

Imaging of oceans, ice

fields, land areas

N-ROSS: Navy Remote

Ocean Sensing System

U.S. Navy/

Launch 1991

Ocean topography,

surface winds, ice

extent

JERS-1: Japan Earth

Remote Sensing Satellite-1

NASDA (Japan)/

Launch 1991

Earth resources
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 557

Representative International Programs for

Measurements In Situ

Program Organization/

Status

Objective

GEMS: Global Environment

Monitoring System

UNEP/Begun

1974

Monitoring of global

environment

World Ozone Program WMO-NASAUNEP/OperatingAtmospheric

composition

Crustal Dynamics Project NASA-23

nations/Begun

1979

Tectonic plate

movement and

deformation

Man and the Biosphere UNESCO/

Operating

Ecological studies

International Biosphere

Reserves

UN/Operating Long-term ecological

studies

ISCCP: International

Satellite Cloud Climatology

Project (World Climate

Research Program)

WMO-ICSU/

Begun 1983

Measure interaction of

clouds and radiation

ISLSCP: International

Satellite Land Surface

Climatology Protect (World

Climate Research Program)

WMO-ICSU/

Begun 1985

Measure interactions of

land-surface processes

with climate

TOGA: Tropical Ocean

Global Atmosphere Program

(World Climate Research

Program)

WMO-ICSU/

Begun 1985

Variability of global

interannual climate

events

GRID: Global Resource

Information Database

UNEP/Begun

1985

Information on global

resources

[34] TABLES 1 A

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF APPROVED AND CONTINUING PROGRAMS
558 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

[35] TABLES 1 B

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAMS

Representative Space Programs

Program Agency/ Status Objectives

TOPEX/POSEIDON: Ocean

Topography Experiment

NASA-CNES

(France)/Start

1987, Launch

1991.

Ocean surface

topography

POES: Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental

Satellite system—follow-on

missions (NOAA K,L,M)

NOAA/

Planned

Advanced

capabilities for

weather observations

GOES, Geostationary

Operational Environmental

Satellite system—follow-on

missions (e.g., GOES-Next)

NOAA/

Planned

Advanced

capabilities for

weather observations

RADARSAT—Canadian

Radar Satellite

Canada/Start

1986, Launch

1991

Studies of arctic ice,

ocean studies, Earth

resources

MOS-2: Marine Observation

Satellite-2

NASDA

(Japan)/

Launch about

1990

Passive and active

microwave sensing

GRM: Geopotential Research

Mission

NASA/Start

1989, Launch

1992

Measure global geoid

and magnetic field
Individual instruments for long-term global

observations

Program Agency/

Status

Objective

OCI: Ocean Color

Imager

NASA-NOAA/

Planned

Ocean biological

productivity

ERB: Earth Radiation

Budget instrument

NASA/

Planned

Earth radiation budget on

synoptic and planetary

scales

Carbon-Monoxide

Monitor

NASA/Planned Monitor tropospheric

carbon monoxide

Total Ozone Monitor NASA/Planned Monitor global ozone

GLRS: Geodynamics

Laser Ranging System

NASA/Planned Crustal deformations over

specific tectonic areas

Laser Ranger NASA/Planned Continental motions

Scanning radar altimeter NASA/Planned Continental topography

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 559

[35] TABLES 1 B

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAMS

Eos: Earth Observing

System/Polar-Orbiting

Platforms. NASANOAA program:

NASA-NOAA/

NASA Start

1989, Launch

1994

Long-term global Earth

observations

NASA research

payloads

NASA/Planned Surface imaging, sounding

of lower atmosphere,

measurements of surface

character and structure;

atmospheric

measurements; Earth

radiation budget; data

collection and location of

remote measurement

devices

NOAA operational

payloads

NOAA/

Planned

Weather observations

and atmospheric

composition;

observations of ocean

and ice surfaces; land

surface imaging; Earth

radiation budget; data

collection and location

of remote measurement

devices; detection and

location of emergency

beacons; monitoring of

space environment
[35] TABLES 1 B

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAMS

560 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

European PolarOrbiting Platform

(Columbus)

ESA/Planned Long-term

comprehensive research,

operational, and

commercial Earth

observations

Representative Space Programs

Rainfall mission NASA/Start

1991, Launch

1994

Tropical precipitation

measurements

MFE: Magnetic Field

Explorer

NASA/Start

1993, Launch

1996

Secular variability of

Earth’s mgnetic field

MTE: MesosphereThermosphere ExplorerNASA/Start

1995, Launch

1998

Chemistry and dynamics

of upper atmosphere

GGM: Gravity

Gradiometer Mission

NASA/Start

1997, Launch

2000

Gradient in Earth’s

gravitational field

p pg

Program Agency/Status Objective
[35] TABLES 1 B

OBSERVATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GLOBAL DATA ACQUISITION:

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAMS

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 561

Representative International Programs for

Measurements In situ

Program Organization/

Status

Objective

WOCE: World Ocean

Circulation Experiment

(World Climate Research

Program)

WMO-ICSU-IOCNSF-NASA-NOAA/

1987 enhancement

Detailed

understanding of

ocean circulation

IGBP: International

Geosphere-Biophere

Program (Global

Change)

ICSU/Proposed Study of global

change on

timescale of

decades to centuries

GOFS: Global Ocean

Flux Study

NSF-NCAA-NASA/

Enhancement

Production and fate

of biogenic

materials in the

global ocean

GTCP: Global

Tropospheric Chemistry

Program

NSF-NASANOAA/

Enhancement

Tropospheric

chemistry and its

links to biota

Ocean Ridge Crest

Processes

NSF-USGS-NOAA/

Enhancement

Chemistry and

biology of deep-sea

thermal vents, plate

motions, crustal

generation

Sensing of the Solid

Earth

NSF-USGS-DoDNASA/EnhancementLarge-scale mantle

convection, studies

of continental

lithosphere

Ecosystem Dynamics NSF/Enhancement Studies of longterm ecosystems

biogeochemical

cycles

Greenland Sea Project ISCU/Planned Atmosphere - sea

ice - ocean

dynamics
[40] TABLE 2

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS*

562 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Measurement Implementation:

Current Era

Implementation:

Space Station Era

Solar energy

output

ERBE, UARS Eos

Ice extent,

dynamics

DMSP, N-ROSS, ERS-1,

JERS-1

Eos, DMSP,

RADARSAT

Weather and

climate: physical

parameters

POES, GOES, DMSP,

MOS-1, N-ROSS, ERS-1,

JERS-1, (WWW)

POES, GOES, DMSP,

MOS-2, Eos,

RADARSAT, (WWW)

Stratospheric

ozone chemistry

& dynamics

UARS, POES Eos

Tropospheric

Chemistry

CO Monitor Eos

Ocean surface

winds

& ocean currents

N-ROSS,

TOPEX/

POSEIDON,

ERS-1, GRM,

MOS-1,

GEOSAT,

(TOGA),

(WOCE)

MOS-2, Eos,

(TOGA),

(WOCE)

Ocean spectral

reflectivity, ocean

productivity

OCI,

(GOFS)

Eos

Precipitation,

rainfall rates

Concept and technique

development

Rainfall mission

over tropics,

Eos, GOES

Surface spectral

reflectivity,

land-surface

biology,

continental

geology

LANDSAT,

Shuttle instruments,

SPOT,

(ISLSCP)

Eos, EOSAT,

SPOT

Measurement Implementation:

Current Era

Implementation:

Space Station Era

Geopotential field &

mantle circulation

GRM, (Global

Digital Seismic

Network)

(Global Digital

Seismic Network)

Continental

topography

Scanning

radar altimeter

Eos

Magnetic field GRM MFE

Vegetation cover LANDSAT,

SPOT,

JERS-1

Eos

Crustal deformation

and plate tectonics

LAGEOS-1,

LAGEOS-2,

GPS, Laser

Ranger,

Shuttle

instruments,

(VLBI)

GLRS, Eos, GPS,

LAGEOS-1,

LAGEOS-2,

(VLBI)

Land-surface

energy and moisture

budgets

Concept and

technique

development

Eos

Biome extent and

productivity

Concept and

technique

development

Eos

Winds, especially in

tropics

GOES,

Concept and

technique

development

Eos

*Programs of complementary measurements in situ

appear in parentheses, e.g., (WOCE).
Document IV-12

Document Title: Sally K. Ride, “Mission to Planet Earth,” in NASA Leadership and

America’s Future in Space: A Report to the Administrator, August 1987.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This influential discussion is excerpted from NASA Leadership and America’s Future in Space:

A Report to the Administrator. This report was prepared by former astronaut Dr. Sally K. Ride,

and it provided a strong impetus within and beyond NASA for instituting a focused NASA program

to conduct comprehensive studies of Earth as a planet, much as NASA had explored other planets in

the solar system. 

MISSION TO PLANET EARTH

Mission to Planet Earth is an initiative to understand our home planet, how forces

shape and affect its environment, how that environment is changing, and how those

changes will affect us. The goal of this initiative is to obtain a comprehensive scientific

understanding of the entire Earth System, by describing how its various components

function, how they interact, and how they may be expected to evolve on all time scales. 

The challenge is to develop a fundamental understanding of the Earth System, and

of the consequences of changes to that system, in order to eventually develop the

capability to predict changes that might occur—either naturally, or as a result of human

activity. 

Background

With the launch of the first experimental satellites in the 1960s, NASA pioneered the

remote sensing of Earth from space. Over the past two decades, the scientific community

has concluded that Earth is in a process of global change, and scientists now believe that

it is necessary to study Earth as a synergistic system. As stated in the Earth System Sciences

Committee report cited earlier, “Global observations, new space technology, and

quantitative models have now given us the capability to probe the complex, interactive

processes of Earth evolution and global change.” Interactive physical, chemical, and

biological processes connect the oceans., continents, atmosphere, and biosphere of Earth

in a complex way. Oceans, ice-covered regions, and the atmosphere are closely linked and

shape Earth’s climate; volcanism links inner Earth with the atmosphere; and biological

activity significantly contributes to the cycling of chemicals (e. g., carbon, oxygen, and

carbon dioxide) important to life. And now it is clear that human activity also has a major

impact on the evolution of the Earth System.

Global-scale changes of uncertain impact, ranging from an increase in the atmospheric

warming gases, carbon dioxide and methane, to a hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic,

to important variations in vegetation covers and in coastlines, have already been observed

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 563
with existing measurement capabilities. The potentially major consequences, either

detrimental or beneficial, suggest an urgent need to understand these variations.

We currently lack the ability to foresee changes in the Earth System, and their

subsequent effects on the planet's physical, economic, and social climate. But that could

change; this initiative would revolutionize our ability to characterize our home planet, and

would be the first step toward developing predictive models of the global environment. 

Strategy and Scenario

The guiding principle behind this initiative is to adopt an integrated approach to

observing Earth. The observations from various sensors on platforms and satellites will be

coordinated to perform global surveys and also to perform detailed observations of

specific phenomena. 

Mission to Planet Earth proposes: 

1. To establish and maintain a global observational system in space, which would

include experiments and free-flying platforms, in polar, low-inclination, and

geostationary orbits, and which would perform integrated, long-term

measurements. 

2. To use the data from these satellites along with in-situ information and numerical

modeling to document, understand, and eventually predict global change. 

As illustrated in Figure 5, the global observational system would include a suite of

nine orbiting platforms: 

Four sun-synchronous polar platforms: two provided by the United States and one

each provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese National Space

Development Agency (NASDA). The first platform would be launched in 1994 and all

four platforms would be in orbit by 1997. These platforms would provide global polar

coverage with morning and afternoon crossing times. 

Five geostationary platforms: three provided by the U.S. and one each by ESA and

NASDA. These platforms would all be launched and deployed between 1996 and 2000. 

[“Figure 5. Mission to Planet Earth” image not included] 

Low-inclination, low-altitude payloads would also be included in the system. The

Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite, launched from the Space Shuttle in 1984,

and the synthetic aperture radar sensors, SIR-A and SIR-B, flown on the Shuttle in 1981

and 1984, are the types of experiments that would fall into this category. Another example

would be a proposed Space Station-attached payload designed to obtain coverage of

tropical rainfall with sampling at all local times. 

564 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The integrated system would measure, the full complement of the planet’s

characteristics, including: global cloud cover, vegetation cover, and ice cover; global

rainfall and moisture; ocean chlorophyll content and ocean topography; motions and

deformations of Earth's tectonic plates; and atmospheric concentration of gases such as

carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. 

Space-based observations would also be coordinated with ground-based experiments

and the data from all observations would be integrated by an essential component of this

initiative: a versatile, state-of-the-art information management system. This tool is critical to

data analysis and numerical modeling, and would enable the integration of all

observational data and the development of diagnostic and predictive Earth System models.

This global observational system would be designed to operate for decades, serviced

either by astronauts or robotic systems to ensure long life and to provide the continuing

data collection, integration, and analysis required by this initiative. 

Because of its international and interdisciplinary nature, the Mission to Planet Earth

requires the strong support and involvement of other U.S. government agencies

(particularly the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration) and of our international partners. The roles of the various

Federal agencies have been examined in detail by the Earth System Sciences Committee.

NASA’s responsibilities would include the information management system and platforms

and experiments described previously. Most important, NASA would also provide the

supporting technology, space transportation, space support services, and much of the

scientific leadership. 

Technology, Transportation, and Orbital Facilities

This initiative requires advances in technology to enhance observations, to handle

and deliver the enormous quantities of data, and to ensure a long operating life.

Sophisticated sensors and information systems must be designed and developed, and

advances must be made in automation and robotics (whether platform servicing is

performed by astronauts or robotic systems). 

To achieve its full scope, this initiative requires the operational support of Earth-toorbit and space transportation systems to accommodate the launching of polar and

geostationary platforms. This does not represent a large number of additional launches,

but it does require the capability to launch large payloads to polar orbit; Titan IVs would

be used to accomplish this. Since the envisioned geostationary platforms would be lifted

to low-Earth orbit, assembled at the Space Station, and then lifted to geosynchronous

orbit with a space transfer vehicle well-developed orbital facilities are essential. By the late

1990s, the Space Station must be able to support on-orbit assembly, and a space transfer

vehicle must exist. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 565
SUMMARY

NASA, with its technical and scientific expertise, is uniquely suited to lead Mission to

Planet Earth. Only from Earth orbit can we gain the perspective necessary to observe the

Earth System and the interaction of its components on a global scale. We now understand

what to observe, and how to observe it. While we do not yet know how the data will piece

together, the resulting Earth System models, developed and refined over years of study,

are the important products of this initiative, and would establish NASA as a responsive

agency ready to meet the challenge of a genuine time-critical need. Championing this

initiative would establish the United States at the forefront of a world recognized need to

understand our changing planet. 

Document IV-13

Document Title: Edward Frieman, Chairman, Earth Observing System Engineering

Review Committee, NASA, “Report of the Earth Observing System Engineering Review

Committee,” September 1991.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This report presents the results of a committee formed by NASA to review its plans for providing the

satellite platforms and sensors needed to carry out a comprehensive study of Planet Earth. This

document was instrumental in helping NASA redefine its program in light of a substantial Bush

administration cut in NASA’s future budget for MTPE. Particularly significant was this report’s

emphasis on the use of smaller satellite platforms than NASA had planned, as well as the

consideration of formation flying to solve some of the issues of simultaneity of observations that

scientists felt were crucial to deeper understanding of Earth’s systems. This report specifically examines

NASA’s program in light of the needs of the broader U.S. Global Change Research Program.

[title page]

REPORT OF THE

EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM (EOS)

ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER, 1991

Chairman: Edward Frieman

Members: D. James Baker

Peter Banks

Greg Canavan

Richard Goody

Veerabdhadran Ramanathan

566 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Warren Washington

Albert Wheelon

[1]

EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM (EOS)

ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMITTEE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3

1. Background and Perspectives 5

2. EOS Science and a Global Change Observing Program 7

3. EOS Implementation: Sensors, Flight Options, Data System,

and Infrastructure 12

4. Findings and Recommendations 20

Appendices

A. Technical Appendices

A.1 EOS Instruments 29

A.2 Simultaneity and Formation Flying 38

A.3 Flight Options, Schedules and Budget 39

A.4 Early EOS Missions 48

A.5 A Framework to Develop Program Resiliency in an Era 

of Uncertain Budgets (R. Watson, NASA) 56

B. Committee Operation

B.1 Terms of Reference of the Committee 59

B.2 Committee Membership 62

********

[5]1. BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES

In early 1991, NASA established the Earth Observing System (EOS) Engineering Review

Committee and asked it to provide advice regarding implementation of EOS, including size

of platforms, instrument configuration, and launch requirements and sequencing. The

Committee met in public meetings twice, in May at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.,

and in July at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, for a total of eight

days. The formal charges to the Committee and the members are listed in the appendices.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 567
During its meetings the Committee heard briefings from NASA personnel,

representatives of other agencies, individuals, and industry. The Committee considered a

series of NASA-generated alternative options for implementing the EOS program. The

Committee also considered options for building and flying relevant instruments

presented by representatives of the Departments of Energy and Defense, by individuals

from industry, and by interested parties who responded to a published notice. 

To carry out its charge, the Committee heard information prepared by NASA on

technical and scientific tradeoffs of alternative approaches both to the EOS instruments

and to the flight of the instruments. The Committee also received limited information on

costs and budgets. The Committee considered alternative instruments and platform

launch sequences with the objective of meeting the scientific objectives of understanding

climate change and global warming and accelerating the most critical measurements. The

Committee also discussed certain issues relating to cost and to scientific and technical

issues associated with using high-altitude, unmanned aircraft missions as complements to

current ground and space-based missions.

The Committee carried out its deliberations in the context of the needs of an overall

observing system as identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). In its analysis, the Committee

recognized the need for beginning as soon as possible the measurements by those

instruments that most directly relate to data for understanding climate change and global

warming.

The Committee found that its consideration of implementation of the Earth

Observing System led inevitably to consideration of two other closely linked elements of

NASA's Mission to Planet Earth: Earth Probes and the Earth Observing System Data and

Information System (EOSDIS). The Committee believes that the Earth Probes, providing

as they do critical near-term measurements for global change, must be considered as an

integral and high

[6]priority part of the EOS process. For the data system, the Committee believes that

EOSDIS must scale as the space program itself scales; if there is major change in one,

there must be major change in the other.

In its first meeting, the Committee was presented with NASA's original technical and

budget plan based on two series of large platforms for a 15-year program. The Committee

was impressed with the scientific scope and technical advances proposed, but noted at that

time that budget limitations might dictate change. Even before the second meeting,

overall budget constraints began to loom.

In its second meeting, the Committee was faced with two new realities. First, the

budget scenario provided by the Senate for FY1992 and the reduction of the total budget

to the year 2000 from approximately $16 billion to $11 billion clearly makes it impossible

to meet the scope and timing of the EOS program as originally conceived. Second, new

launch vehicle options now available allow intermediate size platforms to be considered

for the EOS instruments.

Moreover, the Committee discovered during its deliberations that a better

understanding of the simultaneity needs of the EOS instruments has relaxed the

requirements for collocation [sic] of all EOS instruments on one large spacecraft as

originally proposed. We have found that a smaller platform could accommodate those

568 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
groupings of instruments that must fly on a single platform. We have also found that it is

fully feasible to fly platforms in close enough formation to meet any additional

simultaneity needs. It is thus now possible to group sensors with natural simultaneity

requirements which in themselves address the priority needs of climate research.

The set of new constraints and options led the Committee to ask NASA to provide a

series of options for launch and instruments that could meet the priorities of the IPCC

and the USGCRP, fit within the estimated budget envelope, and that would fly the most

essential instruments as early as possible. The Committee hoped to find a flight option

that was at once fully responsive to the needs of the global change research program and

resilient, noting that resilience flows from thinking about the consequences of budget cuts

and technical failures as well as budget enhancements and successful flights. NASA

provided the Committee with a scientific framework and a series of options which the

Committee has carefully considered.

In the discussion that follows, the Committee presents its view of EOS science and its

consideration of implementation options. The discussion is followed with a list of findings

and recommendations.

********

[20]4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Program Design

BACKGROUND

The Committee finds that the scientific planning for EOS is sound and commends

NASA for its hard work and long effort in bringing this important issue of Earth remote

sensing to the forefront of the climate debate.

The Committee finds that the EOS program is faced with two new realities. First, the

budget scenario provided by the Senate for FY1992 and the reduction of the total budget

to the year 2000 clearly make it impossible to meet the scope and timing of the EOS

program as originally conceived. Second, new launch vehicle options now available allow

intermediate size platforms to be considered for the EOS instruments. 

SIMULTANEITY

The Committee finds that a mixture of intermediate and small satellites could carry

the EOS sensors while maintaining science and budget resilience. The Committee

emphasizes that the requirement for measurement simultaneity does not require that

large groups of instruments be co-located on single large spacecraft requiring a Titan

launch. All the instruments that must be on the same platform can fit on an intermediatesized spacecraft. Additional simultaneity required can be satisfied by flying spacecraft in

formation. The sensors that measure related science should be flown during the same

time interval. The current scenario of launch vehicles indicates that the appropriate mix

of rockets will be available at the right time.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 569
ADVANTAGES OF INTERMEDIATE AND SCR SATELLITES

The Committee finds that deploying EOS instruments on several satellites is

preferable to assembling them on a single platform. This concept provides quicker

development and flight since fewer components are required, and protection against

launch vehicle failure and early instrument demise since replacement satellites and

replacement instruments can be flown quicker and more cheaply. Resilience against

unexpected budget changes is also provided since smaller sets of instruments can be

added or delayed with less consequence for the full program. Since each set of

instruments to fly can have a narrower focus, there is easier optimization of science needs.

Finally, there is quicker technical evaluation and innovation since instruments can be

tried without jeopardizing the full program. 

[21]LAUNCH OPTIONS

The Committee finds that a variety of launch vehicles will soon be available for

launching EOS payload combinations into appropriate orbits: Titan 4, Atlas IIAS and

others, Delta II, Pegasus, Titan II, and possibly Taurus. The Committee believes that the

flight of EOS instruments on intermediate and smaller platforms launched with Atlas and

Delta class and smaller rocket boosters is a better option. This strategy provides the EOS

program with enhanced budgetary resiliency, more technical options for the EOS

instruments, and the possibility of greater scientific return. The Committee also finds that

a separation of goals into long-term monitoring (climate satellites) and shorter-term,

detailed process studies is scientifically sound and also increases the program's

responsiveness to scientific needs.

The Committee recognizes that some science is lost from the original $16 billion

program, since some of the original instruments will be delayed, and some may never fly.

But the intermediate and smaller satellites do offer the possibility of earlier launch of

critical instruments. Moreover, the more flexible option now proposed will provide

quicker technical innovation that may make up at least partly for the loss of some of the

original instruments.

INSTRUMENT GROUPINGS

The Committee recommends that NASA plans for individual EOS missions be

organized principally around prioritized USGCRP science goals. In contrast to the

previous approach using large platforms, the Committee believes that by concentrating

upon the flight of crucial instruments on intermediate and smaller spacecraft, it should

be possible to more rapidly acquire key climate and Earth process information needed for

the USGCRP.

The Committee finds that the NASA option which puts the instruments on three

basic spacecraft launched by Atlas IIAS or smaller rockets demonstrates that a significant

part of the mission needs can be met. More importantly, it can be accommodated under

the funding profile established by the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. It might be

possible to divide one or more of the three spacecraft into smaller satellites, depending

570 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
on the instruments to be flown and their orbit priorities. The set of instruments listed for

EOS-A and the set for EOS-B should no longer be thought of as separate packages, but

should be considered together as a set. The Committee recommends that NASA use the

Atlas IIAS concept discussed here as a proof of concept, and explore the details of

instrument selection and flight with the relevant scientific communities.

[22] The other part of the EOS needs might well be met with the technical talents that

could be brought to bear by DOE and DOD. These agencies have skills in this general

area, and are interested in being involved. A climate mission for monitoring changes in

forcing functions and radiation budget is one example that might be of interest here. 

The possibility of using common platforms for the two or more of the missions

should be explored. As additional funds become available, it will be important to consider

scientific needs before simply adding more of the same type of satellite in the same orbit.

Other orbits, such as lower sun-synchronous, non-sun-synchronous, elliptical, and

geostationary should be considered.

The Livermore concept of a “Brilliant Eyes” version of EOS involving multiple

satellites flying at 400 km altitude and carrying an array of sensors was presented to the

Committee. Some of the sensors involve new technology in the early stages of

development. The Committee saw that many of the techniques proposed for this program

could be relevant if they are adequately developed. For example, the lower altitude allows

significant reductions (i.e., ten times or more) in the weight of mainline instruments, but

at the expense of other complications. It is clearly desirable to fly lidar and SAR missions

in lower altitude orbits. The Committee recommends that support for instrument

technical development be supported at a level adequate to demonstrate that accurate

calibrated measurements can be made. This development should be carried out as quickly

as possible. The overall concept, however, is viewed as being in too premature a state at

this time to seriously recommend that it replace the EOS system as proposed here.

The Committee also noted that a vigorous industry has arisen to build and launch

small satellites rapidly. However, these spacecraft cannot carry the large mainline

instruments that are central to the EOS mission. If the weight and especially volume of

those instruments can be reduced significantly through the efforts of NASA, DOE and

DOD, these small satellites could play an important role as EOS evolves. It would also be

useful to explore increasing the volume of the fairings on the small launchers to increase

their capability to carry EOS instruments.

EARTH PROBES

Establishment of the Earth Probes program is a major achievement in recognizing the

importance of Earth measurements and providing a line of missions devoted to process

studies and technical demonstration. The missions now in the Earth Probes line provide

essential information during the coming decade for the U.S. Global Change Research

Program. The Earth [23] Probes line is not merely a set of precursor missions to EOS, but

an essential continuing element of that program. Other agencies such as DOE and DOD

may be able to make important contributions to Earth Probes, especially in the area of new

technology for lidars and SARs. The Committee suggests that NASA include the Earth

Probes line in the general concept of EOS by using the term “Early EOS Missions”.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 571
LEAD TIMES

A procedure must be identified to allow EOS spacecraft and instrument

combinations to be built and flown in less than the nine years experienced by virtually all

NASA scientific spacecraft programs in recent times. SDI space experiments of substantial

complexity were repeatedly mounted in less than two years, often working through NASA

mechanisms. This may require streamlining of NASA procurement processes.

STRATEGIC PLAN

NASA's strategic planning for EOS needs sharpening, especially in the light of the

new realities. This process could be based on the discussions held between NASA and

the Committee. As the program evolves and changes, it is important that the strategy be

comprehensive and clear. Changes stemming from either scientific, technological, or

financial reconsideration of the mission must be understood and thoroughly

documented. The full scientific community, including those from other federal

agencies, must be involved in the development of the strategy. The Committee

recommends that NASA refine its plan, based on the documentation that was prepared

for the review.

4.2. Partnerships

DOD and DOE

Just as NASA now works with its non-U.S. partners, it should work with the

Departments of Defense and Energy. The Defense Department has contributed

importantly through its sustained support of technology for SDI and reconnaissance.

However, the Committee believes that a more vital role can be identified for DOD if it is

willing to commit to talent, funding, special procurement authority, and especially data

collected from its own space systems. For example, DOD needs for wide-area surveillance

could address improved imagers along the lines of the proposed HIRIS instrument. DOD

experience in synthetic aperture radar and lidar could provide early development of a

multi-frequency radar instrument for study of vegetation and soil moisture.

[24] There is enormous scientific and engineering talent in the three national security

laboratories of the Energy Department and its contractors and scientific collaborators.

Some of this talent should be applied to the EOS program. An adequate budget should

be provided beginning in FY92 that enables them to develop sensors and to concentrate

on Earth Probes and other early space missions that will contribute directly to

understanding global change. They should concentrate on reducing the weight and size

of the mainline EOS instruments. They should have a role in developing laser technology

for direct measurement of winds (e.g., LAWS), ice-sheet altimetry (e.g., GLRS), and water

vapor lidar systems.

The Committee recommends that instrument development by DOD and DOE

should be carried out as quickly as possible. In the view of the Committee, by using the

full technical capabilities of DOD, DOE and NASA, the U.S. government could strive to

572 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
have a pre-EOS measurement capability (e.g., climate monitoring) in space by 1995. The

U.S. government should use all of its resources to validate this new technology in time to

support its test by 1995.

The DOE laboratories can and should make a very strong contribution to ground

measuring systems and in developing instruments for remotely piloted aircraft for making

precise measurements of atmospheric processes. The talents and resources of the two

agencies together could provide useful impetus in flying an early climate mission for

monitoring changes in forcing functions and radiation budget. 

The Committee recommends that DOD and DOE be encouraged to be involved in

the U.S. Global Change Observing System and that they have adequate funds for such

within their own budgets.

NOAA

NOAA has the mission for monitoring the Earth, a key element of global change. In

the long-term, it will not be possible for NASA to sustain a monitoring program.

Therefore, the Committee recommends that provision should be made early for flight of

pre-operational instruments, transfer of such instruments to operational programs when

ready, and full involvement of NOAA in EOSDIS planning and execution. NOAA must

budget adequately for such monitoring and data activities required by USGCRP.

[25]4.3. EOSDIS

The EOS Data and Information System is the largest data and information system

contemplated by this nation. The Committee highly commends NASA for its effort to date

in developing EOSDIS.

In light of the need for getting data sets out to the community now, the Committee

supports the emphasis placed on Version 0. The Committee recommends that Version 0

of the program should have high priority and possibly be strengthened, The Pathfinder

data sets offer an opportunity to address key questions of global change and to provide

prototypes for the generation and distribution of data sets in the EOS era. An element of

the Pathfinder activities which could receive greater emphasis is the validation of data sets.

We caution, however, that EOSDIS should not develop a life of its own, independent

of the degree of the experimental and observational program. It must be flexibly planned

to fit with programs at different levels of activity. We further urge that cooperation with

international and national agencies be emphasized in order to increase overall

effectiveness and to provide hedges against funding vagaries. Later versions of the system

must be paced by the actual flight of instruments, which is slower under the new option

of multiple flights of spacecraft.

The Committee also has various concerns about the evolving plans for EOSDIS,

including its high cost, the flexibility of its development, and the current lack of

simulation models supporting the adopted system architecture and hypothetical user

groups. With these considerations in mind, the Committee encourages NASA to proceed

slowly with plans to put implementation in the hands of a single industrial contractor

until more is learned from Version 0. A more flexible approach that could be considered

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 573
would be based on a combination of national laboratories and university participation.

An important aspect of this approach could be the day-to-day involvement of the

scientific staff of the laboratories in the joint role of EOS investigators and EOSDIS

developers, a feature that would be lacking in the industrial contract approach. We

recommend that NASA carry out a review by technical experts to establish the best way

to proceed.

4.4 A Coordinated Effort

The Committee regards EOS as an essential part of a total U.S. system in which

NASA, NOAA (with its operational environmental satellites), DOE, and DOD are

partners in a national and international effort. Furthermore, the Committee strongly

affirms that the NASA EOS remote sensing program must be considered as a vital

segment of an extensive observing system [26] that includes in situ and other types of

measurements systems that will provide an integrated observing system. In this regard, it

is important to regard EOS as a process for gathering global change data rather than as

a platform for carrying such instruments. EOS is a process for successively improving our

understanding of human impact on the Earth and refining the questions to be answered.

The Committee recommends that the CEES, with strong NASA participation and

advice from a national science community, develop and carry through a U.S. Global

Change Observing Program based on the following space-based elements:

• A series of science-driven process studies using small and intermediate-size space

systems, remotely piloted aircraft, in situ and ground-based programs.

• A series of satellites aimed at monitoring key climate variables designed to

establish a baseline and warning capability and to fill critical data gaps.

• New remote sensing technology developments.

• A major effort on a comprehensive Earth Science Data System including EOSDIS

that is proportional to the sensors flown and the scientific data collected.

The Committee notes that many of the technical objectives of the NASA program

require complex instruments and new methods of attack, and the Committee has seen

that there is a wealth of ideas involving a variety of new space launch vehicles, instruments,

and other methodologies which could make important contributions to the USGCRP over

the next 15 years.

The Committee recommends broadened participation by all relevant federal

agencies in the space measurements associated with the USGCRP. All capable and

interested agencies should contribute to the execution of this plan. The plan must be put

together in such a way that its robustness and resilience to funding vagaries is self-evident.

The new option proposed here must be implemented in the context of the IPCC and

USGCRP priorities. In consideration of the total USGCRP, careful attention must be paid

to the way in which the dominant space-based activity is planned and executed compared

to the in situ component. All of the components of the USGCRP must be adequately

funded. The overall program should be examined by the CEES, with oversight by the

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and OMB.

574 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[27] 4.6 Infrastructure

The extent of the manpower requirement is difficult to define at the present time.

EOS, as originally planned, would increase the stream of environmental data by at least

two orders of magnitude. NASA has made a good start in supporting infrastructure needs

with its global change fellowship program. We believe that U.S. and international

programs are in the long term dependent on substantial increases in our scientific

infrastructure.

The Committee recommends that the CEES consult with the NAS to prepare a plan

for the increase of scientific manpower and infrastructure for global change research and

submit a budget for implementation in FY1994.

Document IV-14

Document Title: D. James Baker, Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated,

“Testimony to Congress,” 26 February 1992.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

In addition commenting on NASA’s restructuring plan for the Earth Observing System (EOS), this

document provides a summary description of the relationship between the MTPE and other national

and international Earth observation programs. This document is particularly noteworthy for viewing

MTPE in a broad national and international context. Dr. Baker in 1993 became the Administrator

of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 

[title page]

Testimony to Congress

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space

Hearing on Mission to Planet Earth

and NASA’s Plan to Restructure the

Earth Observing System

February 26, 1992

by D. James Baker

Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated

1755 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 575
[1]

Thank you, Senator Gore, for the opportunity to present some comments about

NASA’s Earth Observing System and Mission to Planet Earth.

The successful launches last year of the European Space Agency’s Earth Resources

Satellite-1 (ERS-1) in April, a NASA ozone monitor on a Soviet Meteor spacecraft in May,

and NASA’s Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite in September marked the beginning of

a new era of remote sensing of the Earth; a true Mission to Planet Earth. After two decades

of development of sensors, platforms, and data relay and archive systems, NASA and its

sister space agencies around the world have begun a comprehensive series of missions for

the next decade and beyond. The recent revelations of ozone depletion in mid-latitudes

is due to the foresight of Shelby Tilford and his colleagues, the administration, and the

Congress, all of whom together pushed for UARS many years before measurements of

stratospheric constituent was [sic] recognized by the public as a major global problem.

Mission To Planet Earth will provide a broad range of data on solar and Earth

processes. The data will be fundamental to the major studies of global change now being

undertaken by the scientific community as part of the World Climate Research Program

and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. The Mission is the major part of the

U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. contribution to these international

efforts. The results of UARS are the first major achievement of that program, and show

the wisdom of support of this new technology.

The satellite programs are not cheap. In fiscal year 1992, the total U.S. Global

Change Research budget is close to $1 billion, with the NASA effort accounting for almost

three-quarters of that amount. By the end of the century, the total cost for Mission to

Planet Earth is expected to be more than $10 billion, the largest unmanned mission ever

proposed by any space agency. With such expenditures, it is essential that we have a

consensus on the best ways to proceed with such a program.

Today, NASA’s definition of Mission to Planet Earth includes three space-based

program elements, a comprehensive data and information system, ground-based research,

and a community of scientists performing research with the data acquired. The three

space-based elements to be operated by NASA and its international partners include a set

of near-term missions with specific disciplinary goals called Earth Probes, a broad

measuring program called the Earth Observing System that will begin in the late 1990s, and

a Geostationary Platforms program that will start after the turn of the century. The full

system will provide a constellation of satellites in a variety of orbits around the Earth. The

program also includes shuttle flights of instruments for test and short-term (a few days)

measurements. Mission to Planet Earth does not make all the measurements of the Earth

that could be carried out, but together with the operational satellite system, it will [2] make

major contributions to most of the areas of Earth science known to be important today.

The goals of Mission to Planet Earth are consistent with the goals and priorities of

the World Climate Research Program, which focuses on the physical aspects of climate,

and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, which focuses on the chemical and

biological issues. The time scales have been chosen so that the program focuses on the

issues of climate prediction most closely associated with global warming, a subject of much

public and political concern. The priorities for this aspect of the program have been set

576 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has coordinated an

assessment of the state of understanding of climate change and provided a consensus

viewpoint on next steps.

Precursor Missions and Operational Programs

In the near-term the stage will be set for comprehensive measurements by a series of

precursor missions that are the culmination of planning that began in the late 1970s.

These near-term missions include those that have already been planned for a long time

and now are ready to fly in the next two or three years, a set of missions under a new line

at NASA called Earth Probes, and missions flown by non-U.S. space agencies. The nearterm missions will provide a transition from today’s limited duration research missions to

the long-term and comprehensive Earth Observing System.

The Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, the design for which started in 1978, was

launched in September 1991 to help answer these and other questions. UARS carries ten

instruments that are aimed respectively at the sun, through the limb of the Earth’s

atmosphere, and directly down at the Earth. Data from UARS will be used to study energy

input and loss, global photochemistry, the dynamics of the upper atmosphere, and the

coupling between the upper and lower atmosphere. Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometers,

which have already given more than a decade of information on ozone flying on NASA’s

Nimbus-7, will fly on several spacecraft in the decade of the 1990s. Several flights of the

Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) Experiment are also planned during the

decade for ozone measurements. A Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) is

planned for ERS-2, the follow-on to ESA’s ERS-1, to fly in 1994.

As part of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA has arranged the Atmospheric Laboratory

for Applications and Science (ATLAS) program. This program involves experiments

flown on the Shuttle for about a week on an annual basis for about a decade to gather data

throughout the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle. ATLAS-1 experiments will study the chemical

makeup of the atmosphere between approximately 15 and 600 km [3] above Earth’s

surface. The instruments will also measure the total energy contained in sunlight and how

that energy varies, investigate how Earth’s magnetic and electric fields and atmosphere

influence one another, and examine sources of ultraviolet light in the Universe. Radiation

from the sun and clouds in the atmosphere are key elements of the climate system. Up to

1990 there was a set of instruments flying which made up the Earth Radiation Budget

Experiment (ERBE). At that time, budget cuts forced the U.S. to discontinue radiation

measurements on the NOAA satellites, but fortunately France and the Soviet Union began

designing a scanning radiometer for measuring the components of the radiation budget.

The instrument, called Scanner Radiatsionnogo Balansa (ScaRaB), is now in a prototype

phase for test this year. Fully calibrated instruments are scheduled for flight in 1993

aboard two Soviet Meteor spacecraft to provide appropriately phased measurements with

coverage of the diurnal cycle with four observations per 24-hour period.

Discussions are now being held in the U.S. about the possibility of flying small

radiation instruments based on the developments of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

These instruments, called “Brilliant Eyes” could provide an interim set of measurements

complementing the ScaRaB data before the more comprehensive data that will be

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 577
collected by the Earth Observing System starting in the late 1990s. A set of measurements

of aerosols in the stratosphere and troposphere and radiation is also under discussion as

a small mission (“climsat”) that might take place in the mid-1990s.

Precipitation is also part of the global energy budget. Direct measurement of

precipitation, particularly over the oceans, has always been difficult. In the mid-1990s, the

Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM), a joint U.S./Japanese initiative, will

monitor rainfall with active and passive microwave instruments, together with visible and

infrared to derive rainfall amount and distribution between 35 degrees north and south

latitude. Radiation will be monitored by this mission with some of the same instruments

that are planned for flight on the Earth Observing System. TRMM data will be used

directly in climate models that are critical to understanding global change. However,

TRMM will not measure precipitation outside the tropics and subtropics, it will have

relatively large sampling errors over land, and it will have a limited lifetime. These

problems will be addressed with the global measurements and long lifetime proposed for

the instruments of the Earth Observing System.

In the 1990s, several ocean-related satellite missions are either flying or planned for

flight. The European Space Agency’s ERS-1 was launched in early 1991 carrying instruments

for measuring sea surface temperature, sea surface height, waves and winds, and ice

concentration and extent. In mid-1992, a precision altimeter mission will be [4] flown jointly

by the U.S. and France, called TOPEX/POSEIDON. A follow-on to the Navy’s Geosat

altimetry mission is planned for 1995, but there are no precision altimetry missions currently

scheduled for the late 1990s. The next flight of a radar scatterometer is planned for 1996;

NASA will have an instrument on the Japanese Advanced Earth Observation Satellite

(ADEOS). After ADEOS, the next scatterometers will be carried by ERS-2 and EOS.

In 1993, an ocean color mission (SeaStar) is planned as a joint venture between

NASA and a private company, Orbital Sciences Incorporated. In 1996, another ocean

color instrument is scheduled for flight by the Japanese on ADEOS. In the late 1990s, an

instrument for measuring ocean color is planned as part of NASA’s Earth Observing

System. Ocean color data near coasts is also provided by the land sensing systems Landsat

and SPOT.

ESA’s ERS-1 carries and ERS-2 will carry a synthetic aperture radar, as will Japan’s

ERS-1 and Canada’s Radarsat. Thus the radar coverage of sea state and ice

concentration will be good during the 1990s. The USSR Almaz satellite, launched this

year, also has a radar system. These instruments, with their high spatial resolution (on

the order of tens of meters) and their ability to see through clouds are also valuable for

measurements on land. Radarsat, planned for launch in late 1994 or early 1995, will

carry a synthetic aperture radar designed for ice measurements. Stereoscopic SAR

imagery will also point out geological structures and help identify potential mining sites.

Radarsat will also monitor and map renewable resources for the agricultural and

forestry industries.

All of these SAR measurements are single-frequency. For the future, multifrequency

SARs are now being tested by aircraft and shuttle flight. These SARs will allow

measurements of the amount of vegetation at the land surface and of soil moisture, two

quantities that are not easily measurable with current techniques. The SAR system

planned as part of the Earth Observing System will be multi-frequency.

578 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Geological and geophysical processes also vitally affect life on Earth. Volcanic

eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, uplift and subsidence and associated hazards in coastal

areas are all of interest and importance. Today, the European Space Agency, France,

India, the U.S., the USSR, and Japan all operate satellites that monitor processes

occurring at the land surface. France’s Satellite Pour 1’Observation de la Terre (SPOT),

which began measurements in 1986, provides stereoscopic views of the land surface at

high resolution. India and Japan operate systems with resolution similar to Landsat.

All of the current systems are undergoing upgrades in terms of more wavelengths

and higher spatial resolution. For example, Landsat 7 will probably be an exact copy of

Landsat 6, but upgrades or an entirely new system to help meet DOD needs are also under

[5] consideration. The new Thematic Mapper for Landsat 6 (to be launched in 1992) will

provide more detailed spectrum coverage than Landsats 4 and 5, which use 7 spectral

bands and have 30 meter resolution. All of these systems have one major drawback,

however, and that is lack of time resolution. The spatial detail is good, but it takes about

a month to get full global coverage. Thus rapid changes in time are not adequately

monitored by the existing systems. This is a drawback that can be addressed with the multisatellite program proposed for EOS.

Measurements of the Earth’s gravity field are under discussion for a mission for the

late 1990s called ARISTOTELES (Applications and Research Involving Space

Technologies Observing the Earth’s Field from Low Earth Orbiting Satellites). This

mission, which involves flying a proof mass inside a satellite and then tracking its detailed

movements as it is affected by the gravity field, is being planned jointly between the U.S.

and ESA. A magnetic field measurement is also being planned as a joint U.S./French

mission, that would take place before EOS. The magnetic measurements are expected to

be continued as part of EOS.

Precise satellite geodetic measurements, providing information on crustal

deformation, continental drift and plate tectonics, Earth and ocean tides, and changes in

the Earth’s geopotential have been carried out since 1976 in a joint project between the

U.S. and Italy called LAGEOS (Laser Geodynamics Satellite). LAGEOS is a large heavy

satellite covered with laser retroreflectors in a circular orbit 6,000 km from Earth.

Accuracies of a few centimeters per year of continental drift have been obtained from

LAGEOS. A second such satellite is planned for launch in late 1992 by the Shuttle.

The Earth Observing System

Recognizing the need to take the next steps toward a long-term comprehensive

space measurement system and the long lead times necessary for such planning, NASA

and the scientific community began planning the next stage of Mission to Planet Earth,

the Earth Observing System (EOS), in the early 1980s. The initial conception of EOS

was that it would pull together the many strands of disciplinary measurements into one

long-term program that was as comprehensive as possible. In this way the scientific

community would benefit by having long-term data, and NASA would have a focused

program that could be supported as a single unit. This initial general conception has

held up; by consolidating its program, NASA was able to show the importance of the

program and achieved formal approval from the administration and Congress in 1989

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 579
to go ahead with what I have noted is the largest unmanned space mission to be

implemented.

The plans for EOS are to put into space the next generation of instruments for

remote sensing, starting in 1998, for flight of a period of at least 15 years. This time [6]

period, to be achieved by using missions end-to-end, is more than three times the normal

span of a single mission. This initial phase covers the time over which major

environmental change can occur. For example, in 15 years we can expect to see several

atmospheric biennial oscillations, three to five El Niños, and an entire solar cycle.

Although in the long-term we will need a commitment to such measurements for an

indefinite period, the agreement to fund a series of satellites to make such measurements

is an important new step for Earth sciences.

The concept of developing the next generation of instruments follows the

recommendations of a series of National Research Council reports to extend the spectral

coverage to more wavelengths, more finely divide the spectrum, and to provide higher

spatial resolution. The set of instruments proposed for EOS includes a variety of visible,

infrared, and microwave imagers and sounders, active radar altimeters and

scatterometers, radiation and chemical sensors, particle and aerosol detectors, and

geodetic positioning and ranging. In addition, new techniques are being developed for

direct measurements of, for example, winds by laser systems (lidar) and water vapor by

differential lidar systems.

The EOS program involves NOAA and non-U.S. agencies as well. The European

Space Agency plans a series of Polar Orbiting Earth observation Missions (POEM) with

two series, one (the M series) focused on meteorology, ocean and ice processes and the

other (the N series) with a focus on land resources and related atmospheric processes.

The Japanese plan at least two platforms, one in polar orbit and one in an inclined orbit

for that time period. Starting in the early 21st century, NOAA satellites will be part of the

program.

EOS is designed to provide broad and high-resolution spectral and spatial coverage.

One particular strength of EOS is that it is designed to provide for the first time a longterm, simultaneous set of measurements of the same phenomena on ever-increasing

spatial scales (local, regional, and global) that can be used to integrate and extrapolate

our understanding of ecological and hydrological processes.

One of the important concepts of EOS is that of simultaneity. The remote sensing

community has learned that missions flying one or two instruments can do much, but that

for quantitative interpretation of measurements, it is good if instruments can point at the

same point on Earth as measurements are made. This can be done by flying the

instruments on the same spacecraft or by flying spacecraft in formation. The need for

flying several instruments simultaneously has been justified by many different studies that

show the advantage of having instruments look down through the same column of air, or

look at the same piece of ocean or land surface at the same time. For example, data from

surface imagers must be corrected for atmospheric moisture. Merging sequential data [7]

streams can place technical and financial burdens on ground-based data management

and computational systems.

The original NASA design for EOS was to have two series of large satellites, EOS-A

and EOS-B. Each series would have three satellites, each with a lifetime of 5 years, so that

580 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
there would be an overlapping 15-year time series of data, with the EOS-A series starting

in 1998, and the EOS-B series about 2 1/2 years later. The satellites were planned to be

virtually identical, so that cost savings could be made by duplicating spacecraft. The

arguments for a large satellite were based largely on the need for flying instruments

simultaneously. Additional arguments for the large spacecraft included cost and risk

reduction.

But large satellites also bring disadvantages. With all the instruments on one satellite,

there is a real risk of losing them all with a launch failure or a satellite system failure. All

the instruments must fly at the same altitude and orbit, thus forcing compromises for the

sensors. For example, biological processes and radiation studies must include the daily (or

diurnal variations) of the signals. A sun-synchronous orbit does not permit measurements

of diurnal signals, and therefore these processes cannot be measured well with the

planned EOS orbit. The timing of the launch is dependent on the last instrument to get

ready; if there is an instrument problem, then the whole satellite is delayed (in fact, the

launch date of the first EOS satellite has already been moved to 1998 from an original

announcement of 1994). Trying to put many instruments on one platform forces

compromises in viewing angle and direction. Instruments may interact in ways that are not

understood, and vibration from one may affect another. Finally, with a single large system,

the only way to respond to budget cuts is to delay the program. For Earth measurements,

long delays are not acceptable.

For all these reasons, and despite general agreement on the need for long-term

comprehensive measurements, the scientific community has been far from unanimous

about the implementation of the program on large platforms each with many

instruments. In the past year and a half, in recognition of the need for agreement on

implementation for such a large and important program, the Office of Science and

Technology Policy and the National Space Council asked first the National Research

Council and then NASA to establish review panels to examine the issues of

implementation.

The first review in 1990 by a National Research Council Panel concluded that the

arguments for simultaneity made the case for one large satellite for EOS to carry the

instruments that must fly together along with some others. At the same time the NRC

Panel strongly urged that the other instruments be divided up among several

intermediate and smaller satellites, whose size and orbit should be decided on scientific

issues. The NRC Panel urged NASA to develop a contingency and backup plan in case of

technical [8] or budgetary problems.

In 1991, a number of new realities impinged on the EOS planning. The Congress cut

the EOS request drastically for FY 1992 and 1993, and cut the total funds for the program

requested to the year 2000 by one-third. The only way that NASA could meet these budget

cuts was either to slip the launch and hope to get more funds later, or to plan to fly the

large satellite without some of the instruments that were planned. Neither one of these

scenarios was acceptable either to the scientific community that supported the program

or to Congress and the National Space Council.

Fortunately, new technical developments had occurred. For unrelated military

reasons, the Air Force had decided to re-open the Western Test Range for support of the

Atlas IIAS launch vehicle, an intermediate vehicle. Thus the way was open for NASA to

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 581
design to this size rocket. At the same time, a number of studies were carried out by

industry, DOD and DOE on formation flying of satellites to provide simultaneous

measurements. These studies showed that it was indeed possible to fly satellites close

enough together and to control their position well enough so that accurate simultaneous

measurements could be made. Thus the simultaneity requirement could also be met by

flying smaller satellites.

In mid-1991, an Engineering Review Panel was appointed by the National Space

Council and NASA to review these new developments and make recommendations on

implementation to NASA. The Panel confirmed the new developments and worked with

NASA to come up with scenarios involving intermediate and smaller satellites that could

both meet the scientific requirements and the budget constraints. The Panel suggested

redesign of the platform, reassessment of the data system, and use of the Atlas IIAS (or

equivalent) launch vehicle. They also recommended that the instrument technology

being developed at the Departments of Defense and Energy be incorporated into the

planning for EOS.

As a consequence of the review, the plans for the large satellite have been dropped.

NASA has now developed an implementation plan consistent with those

recommendations. The current plan involves a morning platform focused on energy

budget, surface imaging, and lower atmospheric chemistry to fly in 1998, and an

afternoon platform with similar instruments and including an atmospheric sounder.

Smaller satellites focusing on ocean color, aerosols and clouds, and geodetic and

topography measurements are proposed in the 2000 time period. A platform with focus

on surface winds, atmospheric dynamics and chemistry, and aerosols and clouds is

planned for 2002. These successive payloads correspond roughly to the priorities as

established by the international global change research programs: climate with emphasis

on energy, radiation, and water, oceans and tropospheric chemistry, and solar radiation

and land.

This plan does provide some budget resilience by allowing smaller packages to fly

earlier. However, some science is lost because the overall budget is smaller. Moreover,

there will be a major budget increase required between 1994 and 1995 to ensure flight of

the satellites on schedule. It is clear that adding funds to this program would improve the

schedule for the delivery of instruments and spacecraft. Establishing a stable and

adequate funding profile would allow for long-term planning and thus help to improve

technical and schedule performance.

It is interesting to note that other space agencies are also looking into the possibility

of flying small satellites for earth observation. The European and Japanese platforms

originally proposed to contribute to EOS have been downsized. The Canadian Space

Agency is also exploring the use of a series of small satellites to collect data

complementary to other Earth observation programs. Along these lines, consideration is

being given to piggy-backing remote sensing instruments on other systems, particularly

communications satellites. Motorola is planning a 77-satellite constellation in low Earth

orbit for communications. It might be possible to put small Earth-sensing instruments

derived from Brilliant Eyes technology aboard each of these satellites, providing a

different kind of view of Planet Earth. Discussions on this possibility are now going on.

582 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The Earth Observing System Data and Information System

The amount of data coming down from satellites and being collected by Earthbound

sensors is increasing rapidly. By the time of the late 1990s, with the many satellites in place

that we have discussed above, there will be at least one terabyte per day of raw data being

collected. This amount, 1012 pieces of information per day, is equal to the information in

the Library of Congress per day that must be processed, archived, and made available for

distribution. This is an enormous task, the largest data and information task that any

government agency has yet faced.

In recognition of the magnitude of the problem, NASA has put a major emphasis on

the EOS Data and Information System. EOSDIS is planned to acquire and maximize the

utility of a comprehensive, global, 15-year data set. To show the commitment of NASA to

the data system, NASA will allocate only 40% of the EOS funding to spacecraft hardware

and 60% to ground-based activities, including EOSDIS and related science. This contrasts

with the usual mission, where about 70% goes to spacecraft hardware and 30% to groundbased activities.

The development of EOSDIS has been initiated by building on the existing

infrastructure within the research community. The first stage, called Version Zero, is

bringing together existing satellite data sets including the Advanced Very High Resolution

Radiometer (AVHRR), the TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS), and the data

[10] from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) as “Pathfinder

Data Sets” into a prototype data system. From this prototype, NASA, working with the

other agencies in the U.S. government that have had experience with working with large

data sets (primarily the defense community), will develop an evolving data and

information system that will serve the communities interested. As far as long-term

responsibility is concerned, NOAA will archive and distribute the atmosphere and ocean

data; USGS will handle the land-related data. The architecture will be open and

distributed so that it can evolve with advances in computing and networking technology.

Access to the raw data from EOS will be provided to operational agencies for forecasting

and assessment purposes. NASA will provide for the commercial distribution of data on a

nondiscriminatory basis to all other users. The advisory committees have suggested that

the development of EOSDIS be commensurate with the development of the space

hardware system, and NASA has agreed to proceed in that way.

A good example of an early data system now being used is WetNet. This is a five-year

pilot program using the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI) data from DMSP in a

remote interactive computer network for science investigators from NASA, NOAA, the

university community and the private sector. The SSMI measurements are being used to

retrieve global fields of precipitation, snow cover, oceanic wind speed, water vapor, and

cloud water. WetNet ensures the timely production of these fields, and fosters an

environment where these algorithms can be tested and new algorithms (for example,

vegetation mapping) can be tested. The WetNet data analysis and archive system is based

primarily on the Man-Computer Interactive Data Access System (McIDAS) developed at

the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 583
Issues for the Future

In this discussion, one must understand that NASA is not the only space agency

involved. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is

responsible for the operational weather satellites called the Polar Operational

Environmental Satellites (POES) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental

Satellites (GOES). The Air Force is responsible for the Defense Meteorological Satellite

Program (DMSP) that meets DOD needs. Outside the U.S., the European Space Agency and

the space agencies of the USSR and Japan operate operational weather satellites that

provide continuing and useful data. These agencies and those of Canada, China, France,

Germany, India, and Italy either operate or participate with other countries in operating a

variety of Earth remote sensing missions. The number of countries is increasing each year,

for example, Brazil and South Africa are expected to enter the field of remote sensing soon.

Other U.S. agencies besides NASA, notably the Departments of Energy and [11]

Defense, have important capabilities in remote sensing developed for national security

reasons. The Energy Department has operated a system for detecting nuclear explosions.

As a consequence, both of these agencies have technical and scientific expertise in

satellite systems. The agencies are expected to be more involved in satellite measurements

in the future, bringing additional resources of human talent and funds to bear on

measurements of global change.

For the future, the issues that will face Mission to Planet Earth are those that face all

large scientific experiments: can the funding be sustained in the face of other budget

pressures, will there be a large enough scientific community to carry out the program, and

will the program deliver what it promises? At the present time, it is my view that the

funding levels provided by Congress this year probably can be sustained provided that

NASA and its constituencies provide a reconfigured program that meets the

recommendations of the Engineering Review Committee. The reconfigured program will

have the support of a much larger portion of the Earth science community, which will

help with Congress and the administration. It won’t be easy in the face of other NASA

budget pressures for the shuttle and space station, but it is possible.

As far as a user community is concerned, it is clear that new scientists, trained in the

study and use of remote sensing data, will be required. But our educational system is

delivering fewer scientists in general rather than more, and those scientists tend not to go

into Earth science. It may be that the long-term nature of Mission to Planet Earth is an

advantage here: the rapid increases of funds now being put into science education may

bear fruit in time for a new generation of Earth scientists to be ready for the data when it

comes down from EOS and its sister systems in earnest. The Earth science community

needs to ensure that such a new generation is in fact nurtured.

Will the program deliver what it promises? This is the most difficult question of all.

Quantitative knowledge and improved skill of prediction of a complex system like the

Earth comes slowly, as witness the slow improvement of weather prediction. Therefore it

is unlikely that there will be, in the near term, new understanding that will have a major

impact on policy determination. We could get lucky—discovery of the deepening ozone

hole led almost immediately to governmental policy decisions to reduce the amount of

chlorofluorocarbons emitted into the atmosphere. But on the whole, we have to

584 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
anticipate that understanding will come slowly and that early results are not necessarily

going to provide spectacular new information for policy makers. But even as the

understanding comes slowly, the data that will be provided by a comprehensive observing

system provides the ability to make assessments of the state of the environment now. These

assessments in my view are well worth the price of a global observing system, and when we

add the understanding that will be gained, we have a system well worth the cost.

[12] There is another problem which in my view is the most serious facing us for the

establishment of long-term measurements. That problem is the transition from these

research measurements to an operational system that will provide the data we need into the

indefinite future. NASA and its sister agencies have been remarkably successful in getting

attention and funding for the elements of Mission to Planet Earth, but at the same time in

the U.S. the civil operational system has been starved. The operational environmental

satellite system operated by NOAA, which must be the backbone of any long-term U.S.

contribution to a global climate observing system, is showing the strain of budget neglect.

Without a robust operational system, we will not have the long-term data sets we need.

There are two ways in which this problem makes itself known: first by the transition

of new instruments from research to operations, and second by the modernization of the

existing operational programs. Both areas have shown real difficulty in recent years. As far

as instruments are concerned, very few instruments have made a smooth transition from

research missions to operations. One of the successful examples is the microwave sensor

for ice and snow that is now flying on the Defense Meteorological Satellite System. An

altimeter and scatterometer, both having demonstrated their worth, are flying on the ERS1 and ERS-2, but no commitment has been made for flight beyond those satellites. The

Earth Radiation Budget scanner instrument (ERB), the Coastal Zone Color Scanner

(CZCS), and the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) have all proved their

maturity and the measurements they make are extremely important. But none of these

has been selected for flight on an operational satellite. In an ideal world, these

instruments would now be flying on NOAA operational satellites, but budget problems

have precluded this.

The second problem comes from modernization of the existing operational

programs. The new geostationary satellites (Geostationary Operational Environmental

Satellites (GOES)) ordered by NOAA from NASA in 1986 have run into well-publicized

trouble and cost overruns. A large part of this problem is due to the fact that NASA cut

the funding for research and development for operational satellites, and the funds were

never restored in NOAA’s budget. Cost-cutting led to cutting corners in the early stages of

design, and as a consequence the program for replacement was too rushed. The problems

we see today can be traced directly back to the lack of early funds. It appears that the

program is now back on track and that working satellites will eventually be produced. But

if the old satellites die before the new ones are launched, the U.S. will lose its ability to

monitor broad weather patterns across the country. To alleviate that problem, the U.S. has

made an agreement with the European Space Agency to move one of their satellites,

Meteosat 3, farther west to cover the Atlantic. The U.S., originally the pioneer in these

areas, now finds itself in a position where it must turn for help to other countries.

[13] We have seen a related problem in the funding for remote sensing of land: faulty

reasoning about the possibility of commercializing land remote sensing data led the U.S.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 585
to reduce government funding for the program and transfer it to private industry. But the

market has not proved to be adequate to sustain the system: data sales can come close to

meeting operational costs, but the costs of developing and launching new satellites is well

beyond what can be covered with the profits from data sales. As I mentioned at the

beginning of the article, the military has now recognized the importance of Landsat data,

and may be willing to help its funding. But something must be done, otherwise we would

lose this important part of our operational program.

Let me conclude with a point about lead times for technology development.

Compared to ground-based measurements, this new space-based technology not only is

expensive, but also requires long development periods. Scientific and operational user

communities are used to rapid turn-arounds of experiments and data. But they have had

to change their style of working in order to incorporate these periods of many years

between conception of an idea and flight of an instrument. As a consequence, space

technology is still not well integrated with in situ programs; achieving coordination

between space agencies and other agencies has been difficult. The recent work of the

CEES investigating the possibilities of using small satellites with relatively fast turn-around

times is a good step in the right direction.

The above points to a real problem of coordination in our government. The

operational systems the U.S. has, including Landsat, the NOAA operational polar and

geostationary satellites, the Department of Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, and

EOS are not integrated in any coherent way: each agency tends to go its own way. The

classified technical developments useful for remote sensing do not get transitioned into

the civil side. This problem of an uncoordinated, piecemeal approach has been

recognized by the Department of Commerce Inspector General in a report on

coordination of remote sensing across the government, and it is a problem that should be

taken up by the National Space Council, chaired by the Vice President and the Office of

Management and Budget. If it is not, then we will lose the opportunity to apply this

technology for a common good.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Document IV-15

Document Title: NASA, “Report to Congress on the Restructuring of the Earth Observing

System,” 9 March 1992.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This report details NASA’s plans for restructuring the EOS, as requested by the House of

Representatives Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. This reports how NASA

expected to reduce the EOS budget from $16 billion to $11 billion through 2000. It also describes the

role of the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) and how NASA’s

program would interact with those of other agencies.

586 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[title page]

REPORT TO CONGRESS

ON

THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Submitted by:

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

March 9, 1992

Content:

1. The Science Objectives of EOS

2. New Spacecraft Configurations

3. The Impact of the Restructured EOS on Understanding the Climate

4. The Impact of EOS on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

5. EOS Data and Information System

6. Interdisciplinary Investigations

7. Missions in Advance of EOS

8. The Role of the Departments of Energy and Defense

9. Summary of the Mission to Planet Earth

10. Funding Requirements

[1]

THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

The following is a report to the Congress on the restructuring of the Earth Observing

System program, the centerpiece of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth. This report is

submitted pursuant to the requirements stated in the Conference Report accompanying

HR 2519, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations.

The Earth Observing System (EOS) is designed to provide comprehensive, long-term

observations from space of changes that are occurring on the Earth from natural and

human causes so that we can have a sound scientific basis for policy decisions to protect

our future. EOS will provide the continuation and extension of observations of the Earth

that are now being undertaken as part of Mission to Planet Earth.

As is directed by the Committees on Appropriations, EOS is being restructured for

three principal reasons:

• To focus the science objectives of EOS on the most important problem of global

change -- global climate change.

• To increase the resilience and flexibility of EOS by flying the instruments on

multiple smaller platforms rather than a series of large platforms.

• To reduce the cost of EOS, including spacecraft, instruments, data system and

science, from $16 billion to $11 billion through FY 2000.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 587
The process by which NASA has restructured EOS to meet these constraints has been

thorough, involving reviews by an external committee, evaluation by the scientists who will

use the EOS data, and systematic engineering studies of spacecraft configurations and

launch options. In July 1991 NASA presented the constraints to the EOS Engineering

Review Committee chaired by Dr. E. Frieman (the Frieman Committee), and discussed

with them options for how the EOS spacecraft could be reconfigured. The Frieman

Committee in its report endorsed these options as a “proof of concept” for an EOS which

contains a “favorable measure of resiliency.” In August 1991 NASA discussed payload

options at the Seattle meeting of the Investigator Working Group of all EOS investigators,

and in October, conducted a formal review by [2] the EOS Payload Advisory Panel. This

committee is comprised of the EOS interdisciplinary investigators and is formally charged

with recommending EOS payloads to NASA. Concurrently, extensive engineering studies

were conducted by the Goddard Space Flight Center to determine the most effective

spacecraft configuration so that the instruments can be accommodated on smaller

platforms. In December 1991 the NASA Administrator conducted a thorough review of

and approved the restructured EOS program.

The final payload configurations for the restructured EOS satisfy the Congressional

constraints -- they focus on climate change, are launched on multiple smaller platforms,

and have a total cost of $11 billion through FY 2000. The final payloads are very similar to

those endorsed by the Frieman Committee and wholly consistent with the Committee's

recommendations. These payloads satisfy the recommendations of the EOS Payload

Advisory Panel with the caveat that some of the instruments will fly later than

recommended due to the constraints on the budget.

The National Space Council, chaired by the Vice President, is currently developing a

National Space Policy Directive covering the space-based elements of the U.S. Global

Change Research Program. This document will direct NASA to implement the

restructured EOS program as part of an overall space-based global change observation

system.

1. THE SCIENCE OBJECTIVES OF EOS: The purpose of the restructured Earth

Observing System, is to determine the extent, causes, and regional consequences of global

climate change. The extent -- the change in average temperature and the time scale over

which it will occur -- is presently unknown. The causes can be either natural or human

induced. It is the latter, however, that must be understood if we are to alter human behavior

and avoid the climate changes which are most detrimental. The regional consequences --

changes in precipitation patterns, length of growing seasons, severity of storms, sea level,

etc. -- must be understood if we are to determine which aspects of climate change will be

detrimental and how we should adapt to those changes which cannot be avoided.

The behavior and evolution of the climate system is determined by complex

processes within and interactions among the atmosphere, the oceans, the biology, and the

snow and ice systems of the Earth. Scientists and policy-makers have documented in

recent years which of these processes and interactions are most important to understand.

In particular, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific priorities of

the US Global Change Research Program, and the EPA report “Policy Options for

Stabilizing Global Climate” are all in agreement that if we are to understand the climate

588 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
and what the human species is doing to it, we must develop a quantitative understanding

of seven key issues:

• The Role of Clouds, Radiation, Water Vapor, and Precipitation.

• The Productivity of the Oceans, their Circulation, and Air-Sea Exchange.

• The Sources and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases, and their Atmospheric

Transformations.

• Changes in Land Use, Land Cover, Primary Productivity, and the Water Cycle.

• The Role of the Polar Ice Sheets, and Sea Level.

• The Coupling of Ozone Chemistry with Climate and the Biosphere.

• The Role of Volcanoes in Climate Change.

[3] The instruments that will fly in the restructured EOS program have been selected to

address these key scientific issues associated with climate change. The original EOS

program addressed a broader range of global change issues, including studies of

stratospheric chemistry and its controlling influence on ozone depletion, and aspects of

solid Earth physics. The original EOS program included a total of 30 selected instruments.

By focusing on climate change, the required instruments are reduced to 17 that need to

fly before 2002; 6 that are deferred, and 7 that are deselected.

2. NEW SPACECRAFT CONFIGURATIONS: In the original EOS program the

instruments were to be flown on a series of large platforms, each containing about 15

instruments and launched on a Titan-IV with solid motor upgrades. There are certain

advantages to the large platform approach:

(i) The total cost for flying a set instruments on a large platform is less than the total

cost of flying that same set of instruments on multiple smaller platforms.

(ii) It is easier on a large platform to accommodate those instruments which need to

make simultaneous observations of the Earth. The sensitivity of the EOS

instruments is such that they generally rely on simultaneous measurements from

other instruments, through the same column of air, in order to make atmospheric

corrections and/or to pursue their science objectives.

However, there are also major disadvantages to the large platform approach:

(i) The large platform with multiple expensive instruments is inflexible to budget

shortfalls or overruns. The only solution to budget problems is to slip the launch of

the platform and all its instruments, thereby delaying the acquisition of EOS data.

(ii) The large platform with multiple instruments is inflexible to technical problems.

If one major instrument experiences development delays, the launch of the entire

platform will slip.

(iii)The orbit of a large platform cannot be optimized for each of the multiple

instruments it will carry. Instruments can have different requirements for orbital

altitude and inclination and for the time of day at which the spacecraft crosses over

points on the Earth.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 589
(iv) A launch failure, which is the greatest single risk to space missions, will result in

a greater catastrophic loss to a large platform mission than to smaller platform

missions.

When the EOS program was designed, prior to FY 1991, the only available launch

vehicle for EOS spacecraft was a Titan-IV. EOS spacecraft are launched from the [4]

Western Test Range at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California into sun-synchronous,

polar orbit. Such orbits provide both global coverage and allow the spacecraft to pass over

points on the Earth at the same time each day, and thus observe with constant sunlight

conditions. The launch vehicles available from the west coast were expected to be only a

Delta-class, which is too small to accommodate most of the required payload

configurations for EOS, or the large Titan-IV-class, which can easily accommodate the

large platform, with 15 instruments. Accordingly, EOS was designed in the large platform

configuration.

In the spring of 1991, the Air Force announced that it would seek funds to construct

facilities at Vandenberg to launch intermediate launch vehicles, in the Atlas IIAS-class.

Such vehicles can accommodate payloads which are approximately one-third those of the

Titan-IV, and which are large enough to include appropriate groupings of EOS

instruments. Thus it is now possible, whereas it was not earlier, to reconfigure the EOS

payloads to fly on multiple smaller platforms.

The Frieman Committee, and most of the other advisers that NASA has consulted on

EOS, advocated that it is appropriate to fly the EOS instruments on multiple platforms.

This approach has advantages which are the reverse of the disadvantages of the large

platform approach. It is flexible in being able to accommodate budget shortfalls and

overruns, as well as technical difficulties. The optimum orbits can be chosen for each of

the instruments. Finally, it is more resilient to catastrophic loss from a single launch

failure.

NASA, with input from the Frieman Committee, and detailed recommendations

from the EOS Payload Advisory Panel, has reconfigured EOS to fly the 17 instruments

required for global climate change studies on (i) three intermediate spacecraft that can

be launched on Atlas IIAS-class vehicles, (ii) one smaller spacecraft to be launched on a

Delta-class vehicle, and (iii) two small spacecraft to be launched on Pegasus-class vehicles.

The names of the spacecraft, their launch dates and vehicles, and their purposes are as

follows:

• EOS-AM (June 1998, Atlas IIAS-class) -- Characterization of the terrestrial surface;

clouds, aerosols and radiation balance.

• COLOR (1998, Pegasus-class) -- Oceanic biomass and productivity.

• AERO (2000, Pegasus-class) -- Atmospheric aerosols.

• EOS-PM (2000, Atlas IIAS-class) -- Clouds, precipitation, and radiative balance;

terrestrial snow and sea ice; sea-surface temperature and ocean productivity.

• ALT (2002, Delta-class) -- Ocean circulation and ice sheet mass balance.

• CHEM (2002, Atlas IIAS-class) -- Atmospheric chemical species and their

transformations; ocean surface stress.

590 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[5] The instrument configurations and the observations they will make are shown

pictorially in Figure 1. (The acronym for each of the instruments is defined in the

Appendix to this report.) The impact of these missions on our understanding of the

climate system of the Earth is discussed in the next section.

The orbits for EOS-AM and EOS-PM are both sun-synchronous, polar, but with

different crossing times. The EOS-AM spacecraft primarily observes surface features and

thus prefers a morning crossing time when cloud cover is a minimum. In contrast, EOSPM includes an instrument which is a candidate, next-generation atmospheric sounder

for deployment on future NOAA operational satellites. It prefers an afternoon crossing

time which is most useful for contributing data for meteorological forecasting. Moreover,

both EOS-AM and EOS-PM observe characteristics of the terrestrial surface and of the

atmosphere. By having measurements at two different times of the day it is possible to

study diurnal variations in these features. The orbits for COLOR, ALT, and CHEM are also

sun-synchronous, polar, but the optimum orbit for AERO is 57 degree inclination.

As can be seen in Figure 1, certain instruments are flown on more than one spacecraft.

The MODIS-N instrument, which is a moderate resolution spectrometer capable of

observing both the surface and the atmosphere, is included on both EOS-AM and EOS-PM

because MODIS-N has critical simultaneity requirements with the other instruments on

each of these spacecraft. That is, the observations from MODIS-N seen simultaneously

through the same column of air are required to interpret the data from these other

instruments. By including MODIS-N on each of these spacecraft it is unnecessary to do

complicated formation flying, and the EOS-AM and EOS-PM spacecraft can each be flown

in its optimum orbit. Moreover, MODIS-N is the central instrument on EOS, and with it

flying on two separate spacecraft the program has important redundancy. The CERES

instrument, which measures the energy budget of the Earth, is flown on both EOS-AM and

EOS-PM to give measurements at two different times of the day. The SAGE-III instrument,

which measures atmospheric aerosols, is flown on AERO and CHEM to provide

measurements from two different orbits, 57-degree inclination and polar, respectively.

The launch of the EOS-AM spacecraft is in June 1998, six months earlier than the

planned launch of the first large platform in the original EOS program. By reducing the

size of the payload it is possible to launch earlier. The launch dates of the remaining EOS

spacecraft will occur over the next four years, through the year 2002. Every effort will be

made to hold the launch date of EOS-AM in June 1998, and then EOS-PM in 2000. The

program has flexibility in that limited budget shortfalls or overruns can be accommodated

by minor slips in the launch dates of the COLOR, AERO, ALT and/or CHEM spacecraft.

EOS is to be a long-term program, providing continuous observations of the causes

of global climate change. The principal EOS spacecraft, EOS-AM, EOS-PM, etc., will [6]

thus be repeated twice on five-year centers for at least fifteen year coverage. However, the

payloads on the follow-on EOS spacecraft could change, depending on the evolution of

scientific understanding of global change and the development of technology. For

example, the ASTER instrument on the first EOS-AM spacecraft could be replaced by the

high resolution spectrometer, HIRIS, on the second EOS-AM spacecraft. Actual decisions

on instruments to fly on follow-on spacecraft do not need to be made for some years.

However, technology development efforts need to continue to insure that subsequent

generation instruments are available when needed.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 591
3. THE IMPACT OF THE RESTRUCTURED EOS ON UNDERSTANDING THE

CLIMATE: Scientists agree that the climate system of the Earth is governed by a series of

interacting components which are illustrated in Figure 2. External inputs to the climate

come from human activities, shown on the right of the figure, and natural inputs such as

volcanoes or changes in solar output, shown on the left. The internal components of the

climate system -- the components of the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biology -- are

then coupled together through a series of interactions denoted by the arrows in the

figure. Interactions involving primarily physical and chemical processes are included in

the gray box labeled “Physical Climate System.” Interactions that also involve mainly the

chemical and biological processes of the Earth are included in the box labeled

“Biogeochemical Systems.”

Our knowledge of the individual components which govern the climate system of the

Earth is represented by large-scale numerical models which should (i) include all the

relevant physical, chemical, and/or biological processes that determines the behavior of

each component and its interactions with other components, (ii) include comprehensive

data on the current state of the component, and (iii) allow us to predict the future of the

component. However, the accuracy and completeness of current models of the

components of the climate system are inadequate, and also vary widely depending on the

component being modeled. The lack of appropriate observational data is the principal

impediment to improving models of the components and to coupling these models

together into a comprehensive model of the whole climate system.

Consider a hypothetical scale for the accuracy and completeness of numerical

models of the Earth in which current models for a five-day regional weather forecast are

a “10”. On this conceptual scale, then, current climate models that focus upon

atmospheric dynamics, the so-called general circulation models (GCM's), rate

approximately a “6”. There is similarity in the physics that is important in five-day weather

forecast models and in global atmosphere models. However, GCM's have time scales of

weeks to years and are more strongly influenced by the poorly understood effects of

clouds and aerosols which can cause heating or cooling of the atmosphere and surface.

In addition, the couplings within the climate system, for instance between the ocean and

the atmosphere, are more complex over the inherently longer time scales of the climate

system.

[7] On this same conceptual scale, the accuracy and completeness of current global

models for ocean circulation rate approximately a “4”; global models of ocean circulation

that include the calculation of marine biological activity are just now being developed.

Global models of terrestrial ecosystem that treat the rate at which they exchange carbon

and water with the atmosphere rate perhaps a “2” on this scale; global terrestrial ecosystem

models that treat the effects of climate change and feedbacks to the climate change are

also just now being developed. These models, particularly those involving the biology,

suffer from lack of data to determine the relevant processes which govern their behavior,

as well as from inadequate data to determine the current state of the component.

As is shown in Figure 2, the components of the climate system are coupled to each

other. Thus, an adequate, comprehensive model for the climate system requires adequate

and comprehensive models for each of the components, and verification of the method

for coupling the components together. Even if we improve the accuracy and completeness

592 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
of models of the atmosphere, their utility to predict the future of the climate is severely

limited unless we also improve the accuracy and completeness of the models of both the

oceans and the terrestrial components. Furthermore, the regional consequences of

climate change, on sea levels and agriculture, cannot be assessed without accurate models

of the oceans and the biology of the Earth. However, this does not mean that all models

need to reach the highest level of sophistication or that they need to reach the same level

of completeness.

It is unrealistic, and unnecessary, to attempt to develop a global atmosphere model

that will provide specific forecasts on a daily basis that is analogous to five-day weather

forecast models. We are, after all, looking only for changes in the climate by region, and

by month or by season, on which to base policy. Thus, on our scale where weather forecast

models are a “10”, a realistic goal for global atmosphere models is an “8”.

Our goals for models of the oceans and the biology of the Earth can be less

demanding since many of the controlling processes operate on longer time scales and

therefore may be treated initially by relatively simpler models. In addition, advances of 50-

200 % in these less well modeled subsystems will yield significant contributions toward the

development of integrated climate system models. Continuing with the simple scale

concept, a realistic goal for models of both the oceans and the biology of the Earth is a “6”,

though the treatment of the physical circulation of the oceans will need perhaps to reach

a level more consistent with the general circulation models of the global atmosphere (e.g.

an “8”). Clearly, models of the terrestrial biological systems, which we currently rate as a “2”,

have the furthest to improve; however, initial improvements in these more data-sparse

components will be relatively rapid and, as mentioned, very valuable.

The EOS spacecraft are designed to provide the observations that will allow us to

make the necessary improvements in the models of the Earth's climate system, and to

monitor its long-term evolution. These observations need to be supplemented with [8]

extensive, coordinated ground and aircraft measurements, which are to be funded

outside of the EOS program and in many cases by other Federal agencies or our

international partners. The color-coding on the figure describing the climate system

(Figure 2) indicates which of the EOS spacecraft will study each of the components. The

actual observations that each of the EOS spacecraft will make, and the instruments that

will make them, are shown pictorially in Figure 1 in section 2.

The EOS-AM spacecraft (shown in green in the figure describing the climate system),

and its accompanying small mission COLOR (shown in blue) will provide the observations

that will allow the required improvements in models of the biology of the Earth. These

spacecraft will study terrestrial ecosystems, marine biogeochemistry, land use, soil,

terrestrial energy/moisture, tropospheric chemistry, etc. Improvements in models of the

biology require observations of the surface of the Earth and its vegetation in many

different wavelengths of radiation. This quantitative information then provides the basis

for understanding the processes which govern the biology. EOS-AM, in particular, is a

major improvement in wavelength coverage over any mission that will precede it, and thus

should provide the required improvements in models of the component of the climate

system that are the least developed.

The EOS-PM spacecraft (shown in red in the figure), and its accompanying small

mission AERO (shown in yellow) will provide the observations that will allow the required

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 593
improvements in models of the dynamics of the atmosphere of the Earth. These

spacecraft will study atmospheric physics/dynamics, global moisture, etc. The EOS-PM

and AERO instruments have improved spectral resolution over preceding missions, and

thus should produce the required quantitative understanding of the hydrological cycle

and other aspects of the energy balance in the atmosphere.

The observations from the EOS-AM and EOS-PM spacecraft also complement each

other. Spacecraft which observe the surface of the Earth in general observe the

atmosphere as well, in part to make needed atmospheric corrections to their

measurements. Conversely, spacecraft which observe the atmosphere can see the surface.

Thus, the EOS-AM spacecraft can also observe aspects of the atmosphere, such as clouds

and their effects on the Earth's radiation balance, and the EOS-PM spacecraft, aspects of

the surface. These measurements come at different times of the day -- EOS-AM in the

morning and EOS-PM in the afternoon -- and provide an opportunity to study variations

in the atmosphere and on the surface during the daily heating and cooling cycles.

Models of the oceans of the Earth should improve in the next few years with

observations of global circulation from the US/France TOPEX/Poseidon mission, which

will be launched in 1992, and from observations of air-sea interactions from the Japanese

ADEOS mission in 1995, which includes the flight of two US instruments. The time scales

for phenomena in the oceans, however, are quite long, and thus the TOPEX/Poseidon

and ADEOS missions, which are of limited duration, will not provide all the observations

needed to make the required improvements in ocean models. The EOS mission will thus

continue the TOPEX/Poseidon and ADEOS measurements, [9] at the same spatial and

spectral resolution, from the ALT and CHEM spacecraft, respectively.

The chemistry of the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, is determined by emissions

from the biology of the Earth and from human activities. However, the chemistry of the

troposphere is difficult to study from space with current instrumentation. The CHEM

spacecraft, which is the last of the first series of EOS spacecraft, is planned to carry an

advanced instrument that will for the first time provide detailed measurements of the

chemistry of the troposphere. These measurements will provide important information of

the transformations of “greenhouse” gases in the troposphere, and an essential check on

the models of the biology and atmosphere that are developed using data from earlier EOS

spacecraft.

Models of ozone depletion, and the governing processes in the stratosphere, should

improve substantially in the next few years with observations from the Upper Atmosphere

Research Satellite (UARS). This problem is important to climate change studies in that

ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere can affect the heating or cooling of the

troposphere. Thus, the CHEM spacecraft, which launches essentially ten years after

UARS, will also carry instruments to check the accuracy of models of stratospheric

chemistry.

The launch sequence for the EOS spacecraft is determined by technical,

programmatic, and scientific reasons. The scientific reasons provide a compelling logic.

The first two spacecraft, EOS-AM and COLOR, will provide the data to improve the

models of biology of the Earth -- the models most in need of improvement. The second

two, EOS-PM and AERO, will provide the data needed to improve the models of the

dynamics and energy balance of the atmosphere, which is of primary influence on the

594 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
climate. The EOS-AM and EOS-PM spacecraft, will work together to observe the daily

heating and cooling cycles of the surface and atmosphere. The ALT and CHEM missions

are last in the sequence and will provide an important continuation of ocean data which

is started in advance of EOS. Moreover, CHEM, at the end of the sequence, can provide

an opportunity to fly instruments to study tropospheric chemistry, which are not currently

available, as well as an opportunity to monitor the chemistry controlling ozone ten years

after UARS.

Models of the climate system should attain the required near-term improvements

with observations from the first sequence of EOS spacecraft (EOS-AM, COLOR, EOS-PM,

AERO, ALT, and CHEM), and from related ground and aircraft measurements. However,

it is important to note that the timescales for processes which govern the climate system

of the Earth can extend for several decades. Moreover, to check the accuracy of the

models, and to look for changes in the external inputs to the climate system, from human

activity and from natural variations, it is important to continue the studies of the

components of the climate system. Thus, the sequence of EOS spacecraft is planned to be

repeated to provide fifteen year coverage of the climate system. 

[10] In summary, models of the climate system of the Earth -- of the atmosphere, the

oceans, and the biology -- all need to be improved if we are to determine the extent,

causes, and especially the regional consequences of climate change. The EOS-AM and

COLOR spacecraft will provide the data need to improve the models of the biology. The

EOS-PM and AERO spacecraft will provide the data to improve the models of the

dynamics and energy balance of the atmosphere. The EOS-AM and EOS-PM spacecraft

will work together to provide data on daily variations of both the surface and the

atmosphere. And the ALT and CHEM spacecraft will extend and improve the models of

the ocean and atmospheric chemistry.

4. THE IMPACT OF EOS ON ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES:

Strategies to deal with climate change fall in two categories: adaptation and mitigation

strategies. Adaptation strategies provide options for adjusting human behavior to deal

with the impacts of climate change. These strategies come into effect primarily after the

climate change has occurred. Mitigation strategies provide options for avoiding the

impacts of human activity on the climate. They come into effect prior to the full onset of

the climate change and can slow its pace.

Observations from the EOS spacecraft, and from related ground-based studies, will

provide the scientific underpinning for adaptation and mitigation strategies in two ways:

• First, individual EOS spacecraft will monitor (i) changes in the components of the

climate system to which we may have to adapt, and (ii) the inputs of human

activity into the climate system, which we may have to mitigate.

• Second, the entire suite of EOS spacecraft, the data they will produce, and the

models that will result (See Section 3) will determine (i) the future behavior of

the components of the climate system that affect human activity, thereby

providing the basis for comprehensive adaptation strategies; and (ii) the impact

of individual aspects of human behavior on the entire climate system, thereby

providing the basis for comprehensive mitigation strategies.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 595
Consider first the components of the climate system which may change, requiring

our adaptation. As can be seen by the arrows in Figure 2, which show the linkages between

the components of the climate system, two components have a direct impact on human

activity: the Atmospheric Physics/Dynamics component, which describes the actual

climate change, and the Terrestrial Ecosystems component. Listed in Figure 3 are aspects

of human activity which are sensitive to changes in climate and/or terrestrial ecosystems:

farming, managed forests and grasslands, human migration, political tranquility, natural

landscapes, and tourism and recreation. In addition, there are components of the climate

system which cause secondary changes to which human behavior or nature will be

sensitive: changes in the Ocean Dynamics component can affect coastal settlements and

structures; the Terrestrial Energy/Moisture component affects water resources; and the

Marine Biogeochemistry [11] component affects marine ecosystems. The list of sensitive

aspects of human activity and nature was prepared by the National Research Council

study, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming.

Individual EOS spacecraft will monitor changes in the components of the climate

system that affect human activity. The color coding in Figure 3 is the same as in Figure 2

and illustrates which EOS spacecraft monitors which component. The EOS-AM spacecraft

will monitor changes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. The EOS-PM spacecraft, its accompanying

small mission AERO, and aspects of the CHEM mission will monitor changes in

Atmospheric Physics/Dynamics, and thus the climate. The EOS-AM and EOS-PM

spacecraft, which observe the Earth at different times of the day, will work together to

provide observations of daily variations on the surface and in the atmosphere, and, in

particular, will monitor the Terrestrial Energy/Moisture component. The ALT and CHEM

spacecraft will monitor the Ocean Dynamics component, and the COLOR spacecraft,

Marine Biogeochemistry.

Monitoring the components of the climate system which affect human activity will

provide information on trends and on changes that are of immediate concern. This

information by itself, however, will not allow us to determine the future behavior of each

of the components of the climate system that affects us, and thus will not permit us to

develop long-term plans for how we will adapt to change. Rather, determining the future

behavior of components of the climate system requires that we understand the climate

system as a whole since the components are coupled together. For example, as is

illustrated in Figure 2, the future of the Terrestrial Ecosystems component depends on the

behavior of the Global Moisture, Soil, and Tropospheric Chemistry components, and in

turn on other components. Predicting the future behavior of each of the components that

affect human activity will be done by the entire suite of EOS spacecraft and related

ground-based studies, working together to provide the data on which to build the coupled

models for biology, oceans and atmosphere of the Earth described in the previous section

(Section 3).

Consider next the human activities that can affect the climate system, which we

may chose to mitigate. As illustrated by the arrows in Figure 2, such human activities fall

in three categories: the emissions of pollutants into the troposphere or lower

atmosphere, e.g. chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's); the emissions of carbon dioxide into the

troposphere from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation; and changes in land use

patterns.

596 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Individual EOS spacecraft will monitor the inputs to the climate system from these

human activities. As is illustrated by the color-codes in Figure 3, the EOS-AM spacecraft

will monitor changes in land use patterns. The CHEM spacecraft will monitor changes in

carbon dioxide concentrations and the combination of CHEM and EOS-AM will monitor

the emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere.

Monitoring the inputs of human activity will give us a measure of the magnitude of

the influence we are having on the climate system. However, to develop comprehensive

mitigation strategies it is necessary to trace the impact of specific human activities [12]

throughout the climate system, determine which are most detrimental, and then consider

the economic and social consequences of changing these activities. For example, the

emissions of pollutants and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere effects the Tropospheric

Chemistry component. In turn, as is illustrated in Figure 2, Tropospheric Chemistry

affects Terrestrial Ecosystems and, through a more complicated chain, Atmospheric

Physics/Dynamics, both of which impact back on human activities. Tracing the effects of

specific human activities throughout the climate system to determine which are most

detrimental will be done by the entire suite of EOS spacecraft, their related ground-based

studies, and the models of the components of the climate system that will result.

The time scales during which adaptation strategies need to be developed is relatively

long; the impact of any potential climate change is not expected for decades. Thus, the

full EOS system of spacecraft and related ground-based studies can be the principal source

of data on changes on the Earth for developing adaptation strategies. In contrast, the time

scale for developing mitigation strategies needs to be shorter if we are to avoid

detrimental impacts of climate change. Here, we are in the position of having to develop

knowledge of the climate system and mitigation strategies concurrently throughout the

Mission to Planet Earth. There are prudent, economically sound steps that can be taken

today, in the absence of certain knowledge of climate change, to serve as an “insurance”

policy against unwelcome changes. The early missions of the Mission to Planet Earth

program will reveal additional steps that should be taken. Knowledge of the climate

system sufficient to develop comprehensive mitigation strategies will be determined by the

full observations of EOS, the related ground-based studies, and the models they generate.

5. EOS DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (EOSDIS): EOSDIS is designed to

serve the needs of the entire Mission to Planet Earth program. It will improve, archive,

and distribute data from the missions that fly in advance of EOS. It will process, archive

and distribute data from, and will control the EOS spacecraft.

EOSDIS is designed to be an evolutionary system. It is to be developed with an open

architecture, which will allow the easy insertion of new technology that comes on the

market, either software or hardware, and will enable the system to respond to changing

user requirements. Indeed, the management approach for EOSDIS is to (i) build the

system in increments, (ii) try each increment out on the users, and (iii) make appropriate

adjustments at each stage. This approach will require a highly interactive arrangement

with the contractor who will develop the core of the EOSDIS system. The contractor will

be tasked to perform prototyping activities, develop the system in successive versions, each

version responding to the lessons of the previous version, and make appropriate

modifications to respond to changing user needs. EOSDIS is unprecedented in scope and

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 597
accessibility. It is larger and more comprehensive than any previous civilian system; it is

more interactive than any other large data system. We need to learn as we develop

EOSDIS, so that the final system that results is truly responsive to the needs of all the users

of EOS data. 

[13] The first major activity in EOSDIS, known as Version 0, is to develop an

experience base for handling large Earth science data sets by reworking existing data sets

into more user-friendly formats. This effort, of course, has the added advantage that it will

take existing data sets that have been underutilized and ensure that the information they

contain on key issues of global change is more widely available to researchers. Examples

of data sets that are being reworked as part of Version 0 include: Advanced Very High

Resolution Radiometer measurements of sea surface temperature and vegetation from

the NOAA polar orbiting satellites, Special Sensor Microwave/Imager measurements of

water vapor and precipitation from the Defense Meteorological Satellites, and

Multispectral Scanner land cover data from Landsat.

The subsequent development of EOSDIS will be phased to meet the requirements of

missions that are to fly in advance of EOS, and then of EOS itself. For example, the

required computing capability and institutional support will be brought on-line only as is

needed to handle the data. Thus, the restructuring of EOS, which results in delays in some

of the observations from what was expected in the original program (e.g. the flight of

EOS-PM occurs later than the original large platform), permits the EOSDIS that will be

required by the year 2000 to be smaller than initially envisioned. This adjustment can be

made without altering the basic architecture, or the evolutionary design of EOSDIS.

However, the budgets for EOSDIS have been reduced substantially, and scale

approximately with the reduced cost of the space hardware for EOS.

To validate the approach that is being pursued for EOSDIS, NASA has requested that

the National Research Council convene a panel of experts to review our plans, including

the validation of its engineering and technical underpinning, and to assess whether

current plans provide sufficient resiliency to be adaptable to changing requirements. The

report is due in the summer of 1992.

The EOS data will be processed, archived and distributed through Distributed Active

Archive Centers, or DAAC's, which are located at major research centers around the

country. The DAAC's and their data holdings will be:

• Goddard Space Flight Center (Greenbelt, MD.)- Climate Change, Atmospheric

Chemistry, and Biogeochemistry.

• EROS Data Center (Sioux Fall, SD) - Land Surfaces.

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Pasadena, CA.) - Physical Oceanography.

• Langley Research Center (Hampton, VA) - Radiation Budget, Clouds and

Aerosols and Tropospheric Chemistry.

• Marshall Space Flight Center (Huntsville, AL.) - Hydrological Cycle and

Hydrodynamics.

• National Snow and Ice Data Center (Boulder, CO.) - Cryosphere.

• Alaska SAR Facility (Fairbanks, AK.) - Sea Ice, Polar Processes Imagery.

[14] Each of these DAAC's has tasks to perform in the Version 0 effort and will receive a

598 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
small amount of institutional support to do so. However, the DAAC's will be activated to

process EOS data only as needed. The EOS-AM spacecraft data will be processed at the

DAAC's at the Goddard Space Flight Center, the EROS Data Center, and the Langley

Research Center. Thus, these DAAC's will be equipped with the appropriate computer

facilities and staffing levels in advance of the launch of EOS-AM. The remaining DAAC's

will be equipped later, in time to process the data sets for which they are primarily

responsible.

In addition, the EOS data system includes affiliated DAAC's which are designed to

serve the needs of specific research and policy-making communities. The most significant

affiliated DAAC is the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network

(CIESIN), located in Michigan, which has the responsibility to use the EOS data products

to support socioeconomic studies of the human dimension of global change. CIESIN will

also serve as the interface with the non-traditional user community such as educators and

policy makers.

Additional DAAC's may also be established to take advantage of unique research

capabilities at national laboratories. The EOS data system and its DAAC's are expected to

serve a worldwide user community that could approach 10,000 scientists.

The EOS data will be acquired through the TDRSS satellite network, and transmitted

to the ground through the White Sands, NM ground station. The data will then be

transmitted to the NASA facility in Fairmont, WV., where it will be archived in raw form

and distributed to the DAAC's for processing and archiving of the data products. The

Fairmont facility will also coordinate the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)

of the EOS data system. Data for potential future operational instruments will also be

directly downlinked to operational ground receiving terminals.

6. INTERDISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS: As part of the EOS program, NASA

has established 29 Interdisciplinary Teams, whose job it is to develop a quantitative

understanding of the processes which govern the climate system of the Earth, and to

incorporate this knowledge into predictive models which can serve as the basis for policy

decisions. These Interdisciplinary Teams are being established at 12 US universities, 7

NASA facilities, and 9 international research facilities and universities.

7. MISSIONS IN ADVANCE OF EOS: In advance of EOS some 16 free-flying satellites

will be launched to make observations of global change on the Earth. These missions are

to be conducted by the US and our international partners. In addition, three major Space

Lab series will be launched on the Space Shuttle to study global change, and there will be

continuous, routine observations from the NOAA and military weather satellites. This

extensive period of observations is known as Phase 1 of the Mission to [15] Planet Earth.

It is important to note that all of the instruments that will fly on the EOS spacecraft

have less capable versions, and in some cases identical versions, that will fly on these Phase

1 missions. Thus, Mission to Planet Earth is an evolutionary program. It is providing

important information on global change today, will provide more such information

throughout Phase 1, and will evolve into more comprehensive and detailed observations

when the EOS spacecraft fly.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 599
8. THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF ENERGY (DOE) AND DEFENSE

(DOD)- As noted by the Frieman Committee, the DOE and DOD can make important

contributions to the Mission to Planet Earth. In particular, the DOE may be able to

provide additional spacecraft to Phase 1 of the Mission to Planet Earth. Although there

are a large number of missions that fly during Phase 1, several review committees have

noted that there is a discontinuity in Earth radiation budget observations, between

NASA's measurements on the EBBS and NOAA 9/10 spacecraft, and NASA's

measurements on the US/Japan TRMM mission and subsequent EOS spacecraft. The

DOE is considering providing one or more small spacecraft which can provide these

observations. To be useful the observations must commence no later than 1995, since

TRMM flies in 1997, and their calibration must be well understood to help provide

continuity between the earlier and future observations.

Further, the DOE and DOD may be able to assist in the development of new

technologies for use in subsequent generations of EOS instruments. The restructured

EOS does not include a Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder, an advanced Synthetic

Aperture Radar, or a light-weight, high-resolution imaging spectrometer. These

instruments will be important for future global change studies. It would be very helpful

for DOE and DOD to execute technology demonstration projects that would lead to

reliable, more compact, and less expensive versions of these and other advanced

instruments.

9. SUMMARY OF THE MISSION TO PLANET EARTH: The structure of the Mission

to Planet Earth -- the Phase 1 missions, the EOS spacecraft, the DAAC's, the

interdisciplinary investigations, and the science and policy objectives -- is illustrated in

Figure 4, and summarized as follows:

1. During Phase 1 of Mission to Planet Earth, which begins now and continues

through 1998, a large number of satellites will be launched by NASA, other

Federal Agencies, and our international partners to monitor the climate and

study specific processes which may control its evolution.

2. Beginning in 1998, the Phase 1 satellites will be replaced by a constellation of

intermediate and small satellites as part of the Earth Observing System, or EOS.

The instruments on the EOS spacecraft are more capable and can provide more

comprehensive long-term observations than those from the Phase 1 spacecraft.

[16] 3. All of the data on the interactions and processes which control the climate

will be processed and archived in Distributed Active Archive Centers, or DAAC's.

4. The data in the DAAC's will be made readily available to all researchers who study

global change. In particular, it will be the the [sic] basis for studies by the

Interdisciplinary Teams that NASA has established.

5. These Interdisciplinary Teams, along with other researchers, are charged with

developing a quantitative understanding of the seven key science issues (listed in

section 2) and incorporating this knowledge into predictive models that will

determine the extent, causes, and regional consequences of global climate change.

10. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: The President's budget estimates for fiscal year

1994 through 1997 reflect a government-wide policy to present a nominal freeze in budget

600 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
authority in all outyears for domestic discretionary spending programs. This serves to

emphasize that in FY 1994 and subsequent years, each proposal for increased funding will

have to compete on its merits” against all other domestic discretionary programs, and

decisions made accordingly within the caps and overall fiscal constraints. The outyear

funding estimates shown in this report represent preliminary program planning estimates

that reflect a continuation and extension of the programs proposed in the FY 1993

budget. These programs may not be funded at these levels, however, given competition

with other priorities and fiscal constraints. Each program will compete each year on the

merits.

The restructured EOS program, including the spacecraft (EOS-AM, EOS-PM,

COLOR, ALT, and CHEM), EOSDIS, and the supporting science has been designed to

accommodate the $11 billion funding cap through FY 2000, as directed by Congress.

Indeed, the design philosophy has been: First, to eliminate all instruments that are not

essential to study global climate change. Second, to insure that there is no unnecessary

duplication of observations with international missions studying global climate change.

Third, to provide an adequate data and information system, and supporting science.

Fourth, to launch the first EOS spacecraft, EOS-AM, as early as is programmatically

feasible. And fifth, to launch all other EOS spacecraft as early as permitted by the funding

profile associated with the $11 billion cap.

The EOS program has four basic components: the space hardware -- spacecraft and

instruments, the EOSDIS data system, the supporting science, and mission operations.

The funding profiles for each component, through FY 2000, is shown in Figure 5. The

profiles total to $11 billion. The profiles have relatively modest growth from FY 1992 to FY

1993, in compliance with Congressional direction, and then increase substantially from FY

1994 to FY 1995. The funding profiles level, increasing only at the rate of inflation after

FY 1997. This level funding profile is assumed to [17] continue after FY 2000 to complete

the development of the ALT and CHEM spacecraft, to continue, through repeated

launches of EOS spacecraft, the long-term monitoring of the climate, and to continue

data reduction, distribution, and analysis.

The total cost of the space hardware component, through FY 2000, is approximately

$6 billion. The ground segment -- EOSDIS and science -- totals to $5 billion. This

proportion of ground to flight segments is very high by the standards of any previous

NASA program. It reflects the strong commitment of NASA to use EOSDIS to improve,

archive and distribute the data from spacecraft in Phase 1 of the Mission to Planet Earth,

thereby substantially increasing the understanding of global change that will result from

these missions. Developing an operational EOSDIS in advance of the launch of the EOSAM spacecraft will also insure the immediate return of useful information from all the

EOS spacecraft. After FY 2000, the proportion of ground to space segments increases; by

end of the full 15-year operational life of EOS, the total cost of the ground segment will

be approximately 60% of the overall mission cost.

The space hardware costs are broken out by individual spacecraft mission (e.g.

EOSAM, EOS-PM, etc.) in Figure 6. The cost estimates used for the instruments that were

to have flown on the original large EOS platform and the EOS-AM spacecraft bus are well

understood since both elements are under contract (although the spacecraft contract will

be modified to reflect the current downsized configuration). Cost estimates for

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 601
subsequent spacecraft and for the instruments that are not currently under development

are preliminary, based on derivation from the current EOS-AM definition and

development estimates and analogy with previous flight project experience. These

estimates will be updated before beginning development of these spacecraft and

instruments.

Most of the space hardware costs in FY 1993 and FY 1994 are associated with

development of the EOS-AM spacecraft and instruments, and the beginning of the

development of EOS-PM. The growth in the budget in FY 1995 is essential to maintain the

schedule of EOS-AM and EOS-PM and to begin the full development of AERO, CHEM,

and ALT. It should be noted that the small COLOR mission is not shown in this figure.

NASA assumes that it can acquire the data from COLOR as a data purchase only, in the

same manner as it is acquiring the data from the SeaStar mission that will fly during Phase

1. Accordingly, the costs for COLOR are bookkept in EOSDIS. The category called

“Other” in the figure includes the costs of a copy of the CERES instrument which is to fly

on the US/Japan TRMM mission in 1997 and begin measurements of the Earth's

radiation budget prior to EOS. The “Other” category also includes a wedge to fund

additional instruments for flights of opportunity, such as to provide measurements of solar

luminosity, or to study other aspects of global change that may become important in the

coming years. [18] $1.1 billion, Japan - $1.8 billion, Canada - $0.35, and

NOAA/DOD/DOE - $2.5 billion. (Costs for European, Japanese and Canadian missions

are estimates only).

The costs for the science portion of EOS are shown in Figure 7. Included here are

the costs for the Interdisciplinary Teams, the costs for scientists to develop the algorithms

to process EOS data, and the costs for both of their computer facilities. In the NASA

budget, the costs for personnel and computer facilities to do algorithm development are

bookkept with the costs for the spacecraft for which the algorithms will be developed.

NASA is committed to having the algorithms for each EOS spacecraft fully developed

prior to its launch, so that there will be no delay in the use of the data. The costs for

algorithm development thus increase beginning in FY 1995, in preparation for the EOSAM launch.

Figure 8 illustrates the costs associated with EOSDIS. Funds for Version 0 support

NASA's efforts to take existing Earth science data sets and make them more available and

useful to researchers. This effort will both improve our understanding of global change

and provide an experience base on which to develop the full EOSDIS. Each of the DAAC's

will participate in Version 0 and is provided a small level of institutional support to do so.

Funds for Version 1, etc. support the establishment of the EOSDIS capability -- its basic

architecture and associated networking. As in the case of algorithm development, NASA

is committed to have the appropriate level of EOSDIS capability on line prior to the

launch of EOS-AM. Funding is also provided for the Independent Verification and

Validation activities and the in-house support for managing the data system at the

Goddard Space Flight Center. Finally, funding is provided to establish the data processing

capability at selected DAAC's, as is needed. The first DAAC's to be brought on line to

process EOS-AM data are the Goddard Space Flight Center, the EROS Data Center, and

the Langley Research Center. The remaining DAAC's will be activated as they are needed

to process data from subsequent EOS spacecraft.

602 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 603

Cost comparisons with the original EOS program are difficult since the restructuring

has been such a fundamental change. It is interesting to note, however, that to fly most of

the instruments on the original large platform now requires three spacecraft -- EOS-AM,

EOS-PM, and CHEM -- in the restructured program. The total cost of these three

intermediate satellites is of course larger than the cost of the original large platform, in

part because the program is spread over more years and paid for now in inflated dollars,

and in part because the economy of scale of the large platform is lost. However, as can be

seen in Figure 9, if we compare the cost profile required to launch the large platform and

its instruments in late 1998 with the cost profile available for EOS-AM, EOS-PM, and

CHEM, we see that the large platform required substantially more up-front funding.

Equivalently, with limited funds available in FY 1993 and FY 1994, the large platform could

not be launched until the year 2000, or later. The multiple platform approach has the

clear advantage that it can begin the crucial EOS measurements early, with EOS-AM in

June 1998, with only a modest growth in funds required in the early years.
604 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 605
606 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Mission to Planet Earth

Purpose Scientific Interdisciplinary

Issues Investigations

Determine

Extent,

Causes, and

Regional

Consequences of

Global

Climate

Change

The Role of Clouds,

Radiation, Water

Vapor, and

Precipitation

The Productivity of

the Oceans, their

Circulation, and

Air-Sea Exchange

The Sources and

Sinks of Greenhouse

Gases, and their

Atmospheric

Transformations

Changes in Land

Use, Land Cover,

Primary

Productivity, and

the Water Cycle

The Role of the

Polar Ice Sheets and

Sea Level

The Coupling of

Ozone Chemistry

with Climate and

the Biosphere

The Role of

Volcanoes in

Climate Change

LaRC—Radiation and Clouds

Goddard Institute for Space

Studies—Interannual Climate

Variability

NCAR—Climate Modeling

MRI (Japan)—Atmosphere/Ocean/

Land Interactions

GSFC—Atmosphere/Ocean/Land

and 4-D Data Assimilation

Penn. State U./MSFC—Water Cycle

GSFC—Global Water and Energy

Cycle

BMRC (Australia)—Atmospheric

Modeling

U. of Washington—Physical

Climate over Oceans

U. of Texas—Geodynamics

JPL—Air-Sea Interaction

Woods Hole Ocean Inst.—

Biogeochemical Fluxes over Oceans

CSIRO (Australia)—Physical and

Biological Oceanography

Chilworth Research (U.K.)—Oceans

Oregon State U.—Physical and

Biological Oceanography

Cornell U.—Tectonic/Climatic

Dynamics

CCRS (Canada)—Northern

Hemisphere Terrestrial Biosphere

Colorado State U.—Carbon Budget

in Grasslands

U. of New Hampshire—

Biogeochemical Cycles

GSFC—Biosphere-Atmosphere

Interactions

INPE (Brazil)—Amazonia

U. of California at Santa Barbara—

Snow Hydrology and Chemistry

LERTS (France)—Climatic Processes

in Arid/Semi-Arid Lands

U. of Washington—OceansAtmosphere Interactions

CCRS (Canada)—Cryospheric

Monitoring in Canada

GSFC—Middle Atmosphere

Chemistry and Dynamics

LaRC—Radiative/Chemical/

Dynamical Processes in the

Atmosphere

U. of Cambridge (U.K.)—Middle

Atmosphere and Thermosphere

U. of Hawaii—Volcanism and

Climate

KEY

Earth Probes Mission

1 Includes U.S. TOMS Instrument

2 Launch by NASA

3 Includes U.S. TOMS and NSCAT

(Sea Surface Winds) Instruments

4 Proposed
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 607

Distributed Earth Observing Phase I Spacecraft

Active Archive System Spacecraft

Centers

• LaRC

Radiation

Budget

Aerosols

Tropospheric

Chemistry

• MSFC

Hydrology and

Hydrodynamics

• GSFC

Upper 

Atmosphere

Dynamics

Global

Biosphere

Geophysics

• JPL

Ocean Circulation,

Air/Sea Interaction

• EROS Data Center

Land Process and

Imagery

• Alaska SAR Facility

Sea Ice and Polar

Processes Imagery

• National Snow and

Ice Data Center

Cryosphere, Snow

and Ice Data

Product of Level 2

and Above

• EOS-AM

- Clouds, Aerosols, and

Radiative Balance

- Characterization of

Terrestrial Surface

• EOS-PM

- Clouds, Precipitation,

and Radiative Balance

- Terrestrial Snow and Sea

Ice

- Sea-Surface Temperature

and Ocean Productivity

• EOS-COLOR

- Oceanic Biomass and

Productivity

• EOS-AERO

- Atmospheric Aerosols

• EOS-ALT

- Ocean Circulation

- Ice Sheet Mass Balance

•EOS-CHEM

- Atmospheric Chemical

Species and their

Transformations

- Ocean Surface Stress

NASA

UARS

Upper Atmosphere

TOPEX/Poseidon 

(with France)

Ocean Circulation

LAGEOS

Lower Geodynamics

ATLAS Series

Atmos/Solar Effects

LITE Series

Atmospheric Aerosols

SRI Series

Surface Radar Images

TOMS

Ozone Mapping

SeaWiFS/SeaStar

Ocean Color

TRMM

Clouds, Hydrology, Rain

Other U.S. (Data)

POES (NOAA)

Global Environment

GOES (NOAA)

Global Environment

DMSP (DOD)

Hydrology and Sea Ice

Geosat ( DOD)

Ocean Topography and Sea Ice

Landsat-6 (EOSAT)

Landsat-7 (NASA/ DOD)

Surface Images

Earth Radiation Budget

Measurement (DOE)4

International (Data)

Meteor-3 (Russia)1

Ozone/Radiation Budget

ERS-1/2 (ESA)

Global Environment

JERS-1 (Japan)

Sea Ice Characteristics

Radarsat (Canada)2

Sea Ice Characteristics

ADEOS (Japan)3

Sea Surface/Atmosphere
608 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 609
610 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 611
612 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 613
614 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Document IV-16

Document Title: Letter from Frank Press, Chairman, National Research Council, to

Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator, NASA, 9 April 1992, transmitting National Research

Council, Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans, “Interim Report,” 9 April 1992.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This document includes 1) a letter of transmittal from Frank Press to the new NASA Administrator

(Goldin had become NASA Administrator on 1 April 1992) and 2) the interim report of the National

Research Council panel convened to examine NASA’s plans for the EOSDIS. The interim report,

though not complete at the time of delivery, illustrates the scientific community’s concern that EOSDIS

must provide support to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, that it must serve a large number

of users, and that it must maintain flexibility to evolve as technology and scientific needs evolve.

[no page number]

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE WASHINGTON, D. C. 20418

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN April 9, 1992

Mr. Daniel S. Goldin

Administrator

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 7137

Washington DC 20546

Dear Administrator Goldin:

Enclosed is an interim report by the National Research Council on NASA's plans for

EOSDIS as well as a transmittal letter from the Chair of the Panel that prepared this

report. As you know, EOSDIS is a very complex program, and the demands on the Panel

that prepared this interim report were extraordinary--in understanding the program, in

coping with a demanding schedule, and in reaching judgements. At the same time, my

colleagues and I appreciate the importance of EOSDIS. To quote from the attached

report: "If EOSDIS fails, so will EOS, and so may the U.S. Global Change Research

Program."

It was against such an understanding that the National Research Council accepted

this task, believing that we are obliged to assist the government, even when the time is

short, the amount of information to be marshaled great, and the imperative to provide

judgements urgent.

I believe the Panel that prepared this report has done an exceptional job, ably

assisted by the people of NASA. At the same time, the judgements as well as the limits of

this interim report should be clear. While the Panel supports the schedule for procuring
a contractor for the EOSDIS Core System, it finds major shortcomings in the actual plans

for EOSDIS, and provides substantial recommendations for implementing the program

that the Panel believes will help ensure its success. Therefore, this report cannot be

construed as an endorsement of NASA's current plans for EOSDIS, but rather a

substantial critique of flaws, which, if addressed, will in the Panel's judgement help ensure

a strong and responsive program over the long term. The Panel believes that the terms of

the contract as stated in the Request for Proposal are sufficiently flexible to accommodate

its recommendations.

The limits of the report should also be plain. It is an interim report, provided in

response to requests from NASA and other interested parties for an early alert as to the

Panel's views of [no page number] EOSDIS plans. The Panel's final report this August will

offer detailed analyses for these interim judgements, and will also respond directly to the

specific issues as posed in the Terms of Reference for this task.

I look forward to your comments on this interim report. And the Panel looks forward

to a discussion with NASA officials involved in EOSDIS planning on this report and any

further issues to be considered in preparing the final report. We are arranging for your

colleagues at NASA with responsibility for the EOSDIS Project to be briefed by the Panel

next week, and intend to release it publicly on April 17th.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]

Frank Press

Chairman

cc: L. Fisk, J. Alexander, S. Tilford, D. Butler-NASA

A. Bromley, K. Erb-Office of Science and Technology Policy

J. Hezir, J. Fellows-Office of Management and Budget

S. Harrison-National Space Council

R. Corell-National Science Foundation

Congressman George Brown, R. Byerly, P. Cunniffe-House of Representatives Committee

on Science, Space, and Technology

Senator Albert Gore, S. Palmer-Senate Subcommitee on Science, Technology, and Space

********

[1]National Research Council

Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans

Interim Report

This interim report identifies several issues regarding NASA's plans for developing the

Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) and offers a number of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 615
recommendations that NASA should consider as it proceeds with procuring a contractor

to build the system. This report does not respond in detail to the items in the terms of

reference--that will be the subject of the panel's final report. Given the short time available

for the panel's initial assessment, it has not been able to pursue the issues it identified to

the depth it would like. The panel hopes, nevertheless, that NASA will find its interim

conclusions and recommendations useful in the negotiations that will take place with the

selected contractor to define the ongoing work plans for the EOSDIS Project.

The appendices of this report include NASA's letter of request for this study, the

terms of reference for the task, a list of the members of the panel and brief biographies,

the work done and the meetings held to enable the panel to write this interim report, a

brief description of EOSDIS for readers not familiar with the Project, and a brief

description of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its objectives.

The panel was selected to have the competencies demanded by its charge--in

understanding the needs of those who will use EOSDIS (including both EOS and nonEOS investigators), in the computer science and technology underlying EOSDIS, in the

creation and implementation of large data systems, and in the recent history of large

space-based data systems. The fact that the procurement for the EOSDIS Core System was

concurrent with the panel's work required extreme care to avoid either the reality or

perception of conflict of interest. Thus, in addition to following the National Research

Council's standard procedures for dealing with bias and conflict of interest, the panel--and

those who provided it information and briefings--took pains to consider only publicly

available information. The panel, to the best of its knowledge, has not been provided with

nor has it considered any proprietary information related to the procurement.

[2]

OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR FINDINGS

In combination with other programs of the U.S. Global Change Research Program,

the Earth Observing System (EOS) is intended to reduce the current uncertainties about

global climate change. Its Data and Information System (EOSDIS) is essential to the

success of EOS. If EOSDIS fails, so will the Earth Observing System and so may the U.S.

Global Change Research Program. The panel has been told repeatedly by responsible

government officials that EOS is critical to the larger, global change program--one

involving many agencies of government, and other national and international

participants--and that EOSDIS offers a unique opportunity to begin building a national,

and eventually, international, information system for global change research.

To achieve these aspirations, EOSDIS will have to evolve to meet the changing needs

of global change research over the next two decades and beyond. The panel believes that

the recommendations offered in this report are necessary to ensure that growth and

evolution. Specifically, the panel offers its judgments in terms of the following objectives

it believes essential to the success of EOSDIS:

• EOSDIS must facilitate the integration of data related to the aims of the U.S.

Global Change Research Program. Without this integration, the multidisciplinary

and interdisciplinary research objectives of the U.S. Global Change Research

Program will not be achieved. The EOSDIS program must be structured and

616 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
managed to facilitate interactions with the other agencies involved in the U.S.

Global Change Research Program so that existing data and future data collected

by NASA and by other national and international organizations--using research

and operational satellites as well as in situ sources--are available to all global

change research scientists.

• EOSDIS must serve a large and broad set of users to facilitate the aims of the U.S.

Global Change Research Program in supporting a community concerned with

understanding the earth as a system. To serve that larger community, EOSDIS

must provide its information [3] in a manner that is simple, transparent, and

inexpensive; it also must assure availability of its data to both the earth science

community and the larger scientific community. EOSDIS must ensure that service

to current users--including those involved with Version 0--will not be interrupted

as the development of the system proceeds, and that Version 1 and subsequent

versions will be implemented as soon as possible to meet the needs of the users,

both in the EOS program and in the larger U.S. Global Change Research

Program.

• EOSDIS, as it evolves, must maintain the flexibility to build rapidly on relevant

advances in computer science and technology, including those in databases,

scalable mass storage, software engineering, and networks. Doing so means that

EOSDIS should not only take advantage of new developments, but also should

become a force for change in the underlying science and technology where its

own needs will promote state-of-the-art developments. Flexibility also requires

organizational and management structures and processes that can respond to

evolving requirements and implement the means for meeting them.

• EOSDIS needs substantive user participation in the design and development of

the system, including involvement in the decisions on data acquisition and

archiving, standard or ad hoc product generation, and interfaces that directly

affect science users.

• The structure of the EOSDIS management organization and the attention it gives

to the project should reflect the importance of the program in terms of its role as

one of the major and most costly programs NASA has ever undertaken as well as

its central role in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

The EOS program was recently restructured from a mission consisting of two large,

orbiting platforms containing a total of 30 instruments to a series of six smaller spacecraft

containing a total of 20 instruments. The amount of data expected to be collected from

EOS, however, has decreased only slightly: from 330 gigabytes/day to 240 gigabytes/day.

The estimate for the total amount of processed data (from the EOS spacecraft and the

other missions and instruments that will be flown) that will be managed by EOSDIS

changed from 1300 gigabytes/day to about 1100 gigabytes/day, a reduction of only 15

percent. Furthermore, the [4]EOSDIS Plans capabilities of the EOSDIS System are tied to

the existence of the seven Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) and the data they

contain, more than to the flight rates. Although the panel will certainly examine this issue

further for the final report, it appears that the recent restructuring of the EOS flight

program has had little effect on the requirements for EOSDIS and thus does not affect the

preliminary conclusions of this interim report.

In general, the panel does not see any serious risk to the EOSDIS program due to

unavailable or inadequate technology. The panel believes that the prototyping plans of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 617
the EOSDIS Project Office, to be implemented after the contractor is selected, should be

accelerated in order to assure that Version 1 is completed in accord with design objectives.

There are risks, however, in two aspects of the planning for EOSDIS. One area of risk

derives from the scale and pace of changes in computer and data management technology

that can be expected over the long-term life of the program, and from the great diversity

of users who must interface with EOSDIS. NASA needs to focus immediate attention on

planning how EOSDIS will evolve to continue to be a useful system as the scientific needs

and the technology change over time.

Another area of risk concerns the management structure of EOSDIS. EOSDIS is an

exceptionally large and complicated project that will cost several billion dollars, involve

thousands of people, and continue for many years. The management will involve a

complex mix of government, contractors, and a scientific community that is diverse and

spread around the world. Each has an important role to play, and each will interact in a

variety of ways with the other elements. In its recommendations in this interim report the

panel has attempted to provide a number of mechanisms and approaches that it believes

will help define these roles and interactions.

NASA, of course, must have the ultimate responsibility for implementing EOSDIS. To

do so effectively, however, NASA should first ensure proper internal management

attention and should use its own earth and computer science personnel, who can

contribute significantly to the successful design of the system. Secondly, NASA needs to

bring the scientific user community into the project as a partner, rather than regarding

users simply as customers. Finally, NASA must accept the leadership role necessary to

provide the essential unity among the user community (including other federal agencies

and international participants), DAAC elements (management and scientific), and

contractors. The complexity of this project demands that a structure be developed to

ensure that all interests are properly integrated into the design of EOSDIS.

[5] The panel believes that NASA can proceed prudently with the procurement process

for EOSDIS, provided the agency builds in the flexibility to make the adjustments

necessary to ensure the success of the project. The conclusions and recommendations

offered in this interim report can help NASA to incorporate that flexibility into work plans

during the contract negotiations that will soon take place. This flexibility could be

accommodated within the scope of the current procurement as long as it is planned

ahead of final contract negotiations and the contract terms are compatible with this

approach. The panel believes that its recommendations should not materially affect the

EOSDIS schedule and that they can be implemented in work plans resulting from the

pending contract negotiations. It is important to all users that EOSDIS implementation

proceed as closely as possible to the planned schedule.

The panel has divided its assessment into three parts: user interactions, EOSDIS

architecture, and EOSDIS management. The recommendations for each area offer

actions that NASA should consider in order to meet the objectives for EOSDIS described

above without halting the current procurement. The panel also recognizes that

requirements may change over time and that NASA may have to adjust its work plans over

the life of the project.

In order to be of service to NASA during this important stage of negotiating with the

selected contractor, the panel believes that it is necessary to provide this advice now, in this

618 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
interim report. The final report will expand on the issues discussed in this interim report

and will respond in detail to the terms of reference.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the panel's judgments concerning the user interaction,

architecture, and management issues that it believes must be addressed if EOSDIS is to

meet the objectives integral to its success. In each instance, the panel points to strengths

and weaknesses in the program, and offers recommendations.

USER INTERACTIONS

Strengths

[6] NASA has stated its intention to incorporate user feedback throughout EOSDIS

development and evolution. The panel applauds this approach. The ability of EOSDIS to

serve the broad spectrum of users will be the final measure of EOSDIS success. In this

context, it should be acknowledged that NASA has led other agencies in developing the

Global Change Master Directory, which will be a comprehensive description of all global

change data sets. The panel also commends NASA for its plan to share software code and

toolkits with users who wish to import them for their own systems.

Panel Concerns

In its review, the panel has identified several areas in which an augmentation or

strengthening of critical user interactions could substantially improve the likelihood for

success of the EOSDIS program. Areas of concern are NASA's Science Data Plan, links

with other agencies, use of Pathfinder data sets, treatment of operational and historical

data, long-term archiving, involvement of nontraditional communities, and ability to

provide customized data sets.

Science Data Plan. Version 0 science data requirements are being compiled into a

Science Data Plan by the EOSDIS Project through regular interactions with the user

community. The intent is to solicit regular review of these requirements from the science

community to make certain that evolving needs are adequately reflected in the EOSDIS

Project planning. Care must be taken to ensure that the Science Data Plan continues to

emphasize the links between global change research objectives and the acquisition of

individual data sets. A clearer picture of base-level requirements can be achieved by a

continuing assessment of science objectives, existing holdings that might meet the

objectives, and requirements for future data streams.

The panel recommends that the Science Data Plan identify the links between global

change research objectives and existing and planned data sets.

Interagency Links. The research priorities of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

cut across the missions of individual federal agencies. The distribution of current holdings

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 619
as well as data to be acquired underscores the need for interagency interoperability and

cooperation. NASA has been an active participant in interagency efforts for the U.S.

Global Change Research Program through a variety of working groups, and is currently a

full partner in developing a tri-agency (NASA, NOAA, USGS) data and information

implementation plan, of which EOSDIS [7] is a critical component. The panel endorses

the efforts of these agencies to work cooperatively.

The Global Change Master Directory is an excellent first step in helping users to

identify relevant data sets for global change research. A similar effort is needed in

achieving interoperability for access to the data. Success will require both technical

developments and leadership in order to integrate and provide broad access to disparate

data types currently distributed throughout the agencies. The panel believes that NASA is

the logical agency to initiate this step in the context of EOSDIS. Moreover, EOSDIS will

be much more effective in broadening its user base if it serves as the vehicle for

integrating data.

The panel recommends that NASA expand its efforts to increase interagency links by

assuming an active leadership role among the agencies in achieving interoperability

not only at the level of the Global Change Master Directory, but also at the level of

providing access to the actual data.

Pathfinder Data Sets. Prototyping has been a routine component of EOSDIS

planning and Version 0 implementation by the Project Office. NASA has been successful

in establishing prototype earth science data systems that are currently acquiring,

processing, distributing, and archiving pre-EOS data. Lessons from such prototyping

activities can identify problems associated with the manipulation and distribution of

extremely large data sets.

Pathfinder data sets provide an early means to evaluate the handling of large data

sets, the development of products, and the distribution of data and products. NASA and

NOAA are cooperating in a Pathfinder data program for selected satellite data. This

program will be extremely valuable to the U.S. Global Change Research Program and to

the prototyping of various functions of the overall data and information system.

The panel recommends that NASA develop ways to integrate the efforts of existing

data centers and centers of data supported by NSF, DOE, and USGS with the

NOAA/NASA Pathfinder activities. Further, the Pathfinder data program now under

way should be accelerated.

Operational and Historical Data. Data from past and currently operating satellites already

are being provided to several DAACs. NASA has shown considerable foresight in

recognizing the importance of data streams from NASA, NOAA, DOD, and foreign

satellites in establishing [8]long-term data sets for global change research. Although the

EOSDIS Request for Proposal addresses data management of NASA's EOS platform

instruments as well as NASA's commitment to maintaining data sets acquired by pre-EOS

sensors, the panel wishes to emphasize the need for the accessibility of non-EOS

instrument data streams to EOSDIS users.

620 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The panel believes that the full benefit of EOSDIS to the U.S. Global Change

Research Program will not be realized until an effort similar to that for EOS data is

undertaken to manage the immense collection of historical data related to global change

research already collected through operational observing systems. This collection

includes the routine data from the space-based and surface-based observing systems of

NOAA and DOD, as well as the routine and special data collected by USGS, USDA, EPA,

DOE, NSF, and the Census Bureau. Integration, interpretation, and synthesis of such data,

as part of a modern data and information system for long-term operational measurement,

are critical to the goals of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the

interpretation of EOS measurements.

The panel recommends several ways to address the issue of integrating the

operational and research data from other agencies into EOSDIS:

• NASA should articulate a plan for incorporating operational and non-EOS

instrument data streams into EOSDIS. Where EOS and non-EOS instruments

have similar functions, NASA should develop a strategy to enhance the use of

both data streams. This strategy should also include consideration of crosscalibration between basic radiometric data and higher-level products of an

EOS instrument with a non-EOS Instrument.

• To test the interoperability of EOSDIS and to integrate the critical longterm

operational data that now exist at Affiliated Data Centers into a global change

data and information system, NASA should perform a full-function test of the

EOSDIS architecture and software on some of the Affiliated Data Centers, in

particular, centers with holdings (such as long-term satellite or in situ data

records) critical to the U.S. Global Change Research Program and to the

synthesis and interpretation of data from EOS instruments.

• NASA should articulate its policy on how Affiliated Data Centers will move up

through the different levels of interoperability that are specified for linkage

with EOSDIS.

[9]Long-Term Archiving. Long-term archiving of EOS data is an issue that has not been

addressed. Long-term commitment to maintaining data collected as part of EOSDIS is

a critical component of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. NASA, in its

response to questions from the panel, correctly pointed out that the issue of

maintaining long-term archives is one that must be addressed by all participating

federal agencies. Without a concrete plan and agency coordination for establishing

permanent data archives, however, the overall objectives of EOS, and, therefore, of the

U.S. Global Change Research Program, are jeopardized. As in the case of increasing

interagency links, the panel believes that NASA can provide the leadership in

addressing this need.

The panel recommends that NASA develop an adequate plan and technology for longterm data archiving in conjunction with the other federal agencies participating in the

U.S. Global Change Research Program.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 621
Involvement of Nontraditional Communities. NASA has identified ways for broadening

the user community and providing information about EOSDIS to those unfamiliar with

the system through professional journals and newsletters. Such publications may be

adequate for reaching users in certain disciplines but may be ineffective for those in other

fields, particularly in the nonphysical sciences. For example, one of the science priorities

identified in the U.S. Global Change Research Program is to assess the human dimensions

of global change. A detailed plan for involving potential user communities beyond the

traditional disciplines associated with the earth and environmental sciences has not been

clearly delineated for the panel.

Many approaches could be taken to encourage users from nontraditional communities

(e.g., legal, educational, political, and social). A useful approach could include the

distribution of sample products that would allow users to become familiar with the various

types of data sets available and to judge whether those data would be helpful to their research.

The panel recommends that NASA take an active role in facilitating access to EOSDIS

by other, nontraditional disciplines through a program that includes representatives

from those disciplines in NASA's user advisory groups and develops products useful

to them.

[10] Customized Data Sets. NASA clearly recognizes the importance of involving the user

community in the development of EOSDIS. An approach to encourage active user

participation is to provide customized data integration and synthesis of various products.

The availability of software tools that conform to standards in an open architecture

environment would facilitate participation by active users. For example, these tools might

enable a user to assemble a customized set of specific time- and/or space-averaged data

that could not otherwise be assembled without the user having to develop new software.

The panel recommends that NASA encourage broad user participation by providing

greater opportunities to create customized data sets.

EOSDIS ARCHITECTURE

Strengths

The panel in its several lengthy discussions with EOSDIS technical staff' was

impressed by the staffs competence and motivation. The staff has devised a process for

designing the EOSDIS Core System that would rely on open systems, including multiple

levels of interoperability for both users and the DAACs as well as the ability to handle

evolving international standards. These two approaches--use of an open system and

adoption of standards even though they will change over the lifetime of EOSDIS--will

strengthen the program.

The Project plans to deliver EOSDIS in incremental stages (via Versions 1 to 6 and

Data Product Levels 0 to 6) that are expected to provide the flexibility necessary to meet

user needs, to respond to budget uncertainties over the next decade, and to adjust to EOS

flight schedules.

622 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Panel Concerns

Design Control. Any large software system requires design criteria that are set by project

management and articulated clearly and precisely throughout the project hierarchy. This

is particularly true for EOSDIS because of four reasons: (1) the unprecedented size of the

system's [11] storage and processing capacity; (2) the extraordinary heterogeneity of both

user computation systems and user requirements; (3) the large variation in scale of both

the mass stores and the granules of data to be simultaneously managed; and (4) the high

degree of evolution expected in the system. The combination of these factors will make

the design, implementation, and evolutionary control of the system a substantial

architectural challenge.

Although NASA has assured the panel that EOSDIS will serve the needs of global

change researchers, the EOSDIS Core System Statement of Work and the Functional and

Performance Requirements documents of the Request for Proposal seem to be based on the

management of data holdings resident with or owned by NASA or the DAACs and the created

data products related to those holdings. It is entirely likely that data and/or data archives that

are not within the exclusive purview of NASA or the DAACs will need to be made accessible

to users through EOSDIS, without changing ownership of the data or the autonomy of the

data repository. In anticipation of the need for accessibility, EOSDIS software should be built

in the form of modular components with open, configuration-controlled interfaces so that

other national and international agencies will be able to link with the system and provide

products and services to the broader global change research community.

The panel believes that responsibility for the design criteria and for their

enforcement to guide the system architecture must reside with the government. The

government must assure that the contractor's detailed architecture and implementation

decisions follow the directions given by the government system architects.

The panel recommends that NASA produce a clear, concise statement of the design

criteria for EOSDIS that focuses on facilitating global change research and that NASA

communicate these criteria throughout the Project hierarchy.

The panel recommends that NASA strengthen its internal system architecture team

by acquiring additional experienced people and that it give them the responsibility,

authority, and budget to ensure that the design criteria are met as the system design and

implementation proceed. A technical project of the magnitude and complexity of

EOSDIS should have the very best system architecture team possible. NASA should make

every effort to acquire such talent.

[12] Logically Distributed System. The research that will be possible through the

resources provided by EOSDIS is difficult to characterize at present. Some research will

focus on narrow disciplinary questions, while other work will be interdisciplinary. Since we

cannot, indeed should not, attempt to specify the future directions that earth science

research will take, EOSDIS must be flexible enough to respond to a wide variety of

approaches. Furthermore, EOSDIS will be only a part, albeit a major one, of the efforts

directed at managing data and information for global change research.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 623
624 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

The EOSDIS development plan provides for centralized control over the

specification and implementation of the system. Each DAAC will implement an

Information Management System that will be centrally developed by a single contractor.

Although a centralized system is desirable for the management, operation, and control of

the satellite and its instruments, the data will be distributed and dispersed among

geographically separate and discipline-specific DAACs. Achieving the proper balance

between the common elements that should be developed centrally and those that should

be developed in a distributed fashion is critical to the success of the overall U.S. Global

Change Research Program. At present, it appears as though the EOSDIS development

plan is too heavily oriented toward a centralized approach.

The panel recommends that the EOSDIS Project adapt its development

plan to ensure a more logically distributed system, including:

• Designing EOSDIS so that all users (EOS and non-EOS investigators, DAACs,

other data centers) can easily build selectively on top of EOSDIS components.

EOSDIS should not constrain local implementation of diverse functions by users

and DAACs. The development plan should reflect a philosophy that it is "easy to

interact with EOSDIS" with minimum loss of autonomy. EOSDIS must be able to

tolerate different versions of functionality and partial sharing of the components

and toolkits it exports.

• Identifying those areas of interdisciplinary research that will require special

interfaces among discipline-specific products and formats. The Project should

specify the interfaces, build prototypes, and run simulations to exercise them,

permitting users to evaluate them prior to developing final specifications and

proceeding to full implementation. A contractor team that resides at each DAAC

and works closely with the DAAC as well as the contractor's "central core" team

should facilitate the development of these prototypes.

[13] This type of distributed development can be accomplished within the scope of the

current procurement as long as it is planned ahead of final contract negotiation, and

contract terms are compatible with this approach.

Incremental Prototyping. The current EOSDIS development plan closely ties the

availability of the distributed archive and product generation functions to the EOS flight

schedule. There is much work that should be done, however, prior to the first scheduled

launch of EOS instruments in 1998 to strengthen prototyping efforts already under way.

For example, there are both existing archives and data expected from pre-EOS satellites

that will be invaluable to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the

EOSDIS Project team has initiated the early prototyping effort for Version 0, more can

and should be done to benefit current global change research and to enhance user

feedback for final system design.

The panel recommends that EOSDIS Project management extend its incremental

development plan so that all user interfaces, all toolkits, and the end-to-end

network system are:
• Specified in detail early in the development of Version 1 and prototyped or

simulated sufficiently, and

• Evaluated in depth by users and DAACs prior to full implementation in Version

1. This will require a system network simulation and sufficient testing tools for

users to assess and validate the specified functionality.

Usability Evaluation. Prudent practice in the design of complex data management systems

ordinarily includes a means of measuring the usability of the data. To the extent possible,

such measures should be quantitative. Early evaluation exercises should be designed to

measure ease of use, quality of interface specifications; and convenience of

interoperability of heterogeneous system components. These exercises should ensure that

individual users and data archivers can acquire piecemeal both functional capabilities and

data sets. It is also prudent practice to involve independent judgment by having this

evaluation performed by a group other than those responsible for developing the system.

The panel recommends a usability evaluation program starting as soon as possible

that involves:

• Selecting key functions, interfaces, and system behavior attributes for evaluation;

• Defining a set of metrics and expected values of those metrics for each parameter

to be evaluated;

• Creating prototypes, simulations, and test suites to stress aspects of usability;

• Using the evaluations to guide final specification of system components; and

• Implementing this program so that most of the evaluation and validation is done

by groups other than the prime contractor.

EOSDIS MANAGEMENT

Strengths

NASA is to be commended for developing the plans for EOS as its flagship for U.S.

participation in global climate change research. NASA and the EOS Project are further to

be commended for their dedication to producing an adequate data system for EOS and

for its user community. The unprecedented level of funding allocated for EOSDIS and the

high level of planned contingency funding are evidence of the commitment NASA has

made to this important national research effort. The panel is impressed with the degree

of dedication and commitment of the EOSDIS Project team. The team is working

diligently and competently toward both prototyping key system and subsystem capabilities

and planning for the procurement of the full EOSDIS system.

[15] Panel Concerns

Visibility and Management Attention. Although EOSDIS appears to receive substantial

attention from management at NASA Headquarters, in the panel's view, EOSDIS lacks the

attention of senior management at the Goddard Space Flight Center. The EOS Project is

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 625
the largest single development effort the Goddard Center has undertaken. Even without

the flight hardware components, EOSDIS by itself probably satisfies that description.

EOSDIS is an extremely complex interdisciplinary science project and must integrate the

most advanced data and system technologies. EOSDIS also contains both the flight

operations segment and the ground data system. The fact that schedules overlap and that

the prime contractor probably will use different groups of personnel to implement these

two very different elements will amplify the government's oversight and management

challenge. Yet the panel has heard substantial evidence that from the management

standpoint, EOS and EOSDIS are treated like ordinary projects within the Goddard

Center. For example, the Project Manager for EOSDIS is two management levels down

within the Flight Operations Directorate, which is only one of ten directorates at the

Goddard Center. In addition, the Project Office is quite small for the task at hand, with

plans for only 45 government employees when fully staffed. This small core of dedicated

staff provides inadequate programmatic and managerial depth and expertise in the

development of large, distributed data systems and in computer science and technology.

Given the preeminent position of EOS and EOSDIS in the U.S. Global Change

Research Program, the panel believes that it is essential to increase the level of

management visibility of the Project and the size and skills of the Project staff. In addition

to learning from other government agencies that have had experience in the

development and operation of large distributed data handling systems, NASA could, as

needed, add to the Project experienced systems development personnel from other parts

of the government.

The panel suggests that greater flexibility in defining success criteria and in using the

process for setting award fees for direct feedback from the Project Manager to senior-level

contractor management would help to assure that the contractor will do an outstanding

job on EOSDIS. The panel commends NASA for including users in its performance board

for contract evaluation and urges the active participation of users in setting award fees.

The panel recommends that the EOSDIS Project Manager have higher management

visibility within Goddard Space Flight Center. The staff authorizations and skills

should be sized to the scope and complexity of the Project. Further, the Project

[16]could augment its staff with experienced personnel from other parts of the

government in addition to NASA.

The panel recommends that the EOSDIS Project use the award fee process to best

advantage through greater differentiation of success and failure criteria for

evaluating contractor performance and by involving users in determining award fees.

Scientific Involvement at Goddard Space Flight Center. The Goddard Center's in-house

earth scientists have a very limited role in the management and operations aspects of the

EOSDIS Project. Although NASA has established a variety of science advisory and data

working groups, such groups cannot replace the continuing and even daily involvement

of the external scientific community and the Goddard Center staff to ensure that the

eventual system is responsive to user needs.

626 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Likewise, the nation's computer science community currently has very limited

involvement in the Project, despite the fact that EOSDIS, to be successful, must

implement the latest advances in scientific data management technology and, in some

cases, stimulate the development of new technologies. The development of EOSDIS

would benefit from substantive use of expertise in systems design and exploitation of

information processing technology. Because underlying technologies, such as storage

density, processor speeds, and transmission rates, are doubling roughly every three years,

EOSDIS must be able to exploit rapidly expanding capabilities during its lifetime of a

generation or more.

EOSDIS will also stretch the limits of what can be done by a mammoth database

management system shared by a very diverse and demanding user community. Certainly,

many of the underlying technologies such as storage will evolve on their own. Other

technologies, however, will have to be encouraged, such as large-scale data management,

visualization, and integration of heterogeneous information. Possible ways to stimulate

technology include establishing an intramural computer science research capability

comparable to those in other sciences, supporting and using the external computer

science community, and using DAACs to establish formal and informal links with the

computer science research community in their neighboring universities.

The panel recommends that NASA involve Goddard Space Flight Center earth

scientists to a greater degree in the management and operations of EOSDIS and also

involve computer scientists both inside and outside of NASA to explore research and

[17] technology in those areas where EOSDIS will stress the state of the art in science

and technology and where EOSDIS will evolve most rapidly.

DAAC Involvement. The DAACs are not well integrated into the EOSDIS management

structure, particularly during the development phase. The DAAC managers do not have

well-defined authority or accountability in building EOSDIS. DAACs should be involved

early, in contrast to the current plan, in which their primary role appears to be to operate

the hardware and software at their sites after delivery, and to deliver data products to

users.

There should be mechanisms for feedback on scientific utility and operational

effectiveness from the individual DAACs and associated archive centers to the central

Project since the DAACs will be the primary sites for user interaction. There should be a

coherent overall development, management, and science advisory structure that includes

the DAACs. The panel understands that DAAC managers and scientists are involved in

advisory roles. Advisory roles, however, are not sufficient for developing capabilities for

and at the DAACs.

Overall, the centralized management of the design and implementation of EOSDIS

functions at each DAAC is not conducive to active user involvement and responsiveness to

changing technology. What is needed is a structure that strengthens the local role of each

DAAC beyond the present DAAC advisory group and thus enhances the responsiveness of

each DAAC in meeting the needs of its user community, gives the DAAC some control

over its destiny, and yet ensures that an interoperable system is developed to meet the

requirements of EOSDIS.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 627
628 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

The panel recommends that NASA create, at each DAAC, a Development Team

of full-time staff and active science users to address DAAC and user concerns. These

teams should evaluate EOSDIS planning and implementation, including architecture,

DAAC interface definitions, and other deliverables essential to ensuring that the

DAACs will be responsive to user needs and that the EOSDIS system will be

interoperable. In accomplishing these tasks, the teams should monitor the

contractor's activities on behalf of user communities and prepare test data sets to

verify system interfaces. Each DAAC Development Team should validate that DAAC's

operational capability to use the evolving EOSDIS system as each of the program

releases is implemented. Finally, NASA should provide the DAACs with modest

funding to respond to specific user needs so that the DAACs will be able to parallel

the evolution of the user community's ability to manipulate, integrate, and model

data.

********

[A7]

Appendix C: Panel Members and Biographies

PANEL TO REVIEW EOSDIS PLANS

Charles A. Zraket, Chair, Center for Science and International Afairs, Harvard University

D. James Baker, Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated

Kenneth I. Daugherty, Defense Mapping Agency

Richard E. Hallgren, American Meteorological Society

John E. Hopcroft, Cornell University

Kenneth C. Jezek, Ohio State University

Anita K. Jones, University of Virginia

Thomas R. Karl, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Ethan J. Schreier, Space Telescope Science Institute

Gael F. Squibb, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Jeffrey D. Ullman, Stanford University

Staff'

Richard C. Hart, Space Studies Board

Monica B. Krueger, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

Norman Metzger, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

Lorraine W. Wolf, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Document IV-17

Document Title: Berrien Moore III, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space,

University of New Hampshire, and Jeff Dozier, Center for Remote Sensing and
Environmental Optics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Executive Summary,

“Adapting the Earth Observing System to the Projected $8 Billion Budget:

Recommendations from the EOS Investigators,” 14 October 1992.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This document, the results of the EOS Payload Advisory Panel deliberations, focused on making the

EOS program fit into the procrustean bed of $8 billion over ten years; the program had recently been

reduced to $11 billion from $17 billion. This so-called rescoping, or descoping, necessitated, among

other things, a redesign of most of the EOS platforms to fit on a Delta launch vehicle, rather than the

larger Atlas IIAS. The panel’s recommendations include several reductions in the complexity of EOS

instruments and a subsequent reduction in the quality of possible scientific observations. 

[title page]

Adapting the Earth Observing System to the

Projected $8 Billion Budget: Recommendations from

the EOS Investigators

Edited by

Berrien Moore III

Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

and

Jeff Dozier

Center for Remote Sensing and Environmental Optics

University of California

Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3060

October 14,1992

********

[1]

1 Executive Summary: Synopsis of Recommendations for the $8 Billion Program

We believe that a properly structured $8 billion funding profile through the rest of

this decade is enough to design and put in place the initial components of the Earth

Observing System, NASA’s major contribution to the Global Change Research Program,

whose purpose is to study and understand natural and anthropogenic changes in the

Earth System. The EOS program will include an integrated space-based observing

system, creation of a global data base of crucial measurements that span a 15-year

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 629
630 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

period, development of better predictive models so that plausible changes can be

understood, and a comprehensive data and information system that fosters synergistic

interactions between observations and models and enables and encourages

interdisciplinary research.

We note, however, that the descope of EOS to $8 billion requires difficult tradeoffs

to maximize science in a cost driven program. One key choice is the amount of

contingency held to handle unexpected problems in instrument development and

changing science requirements driving the specifications for the instruments and data

system. This contingency must be balanced against the savings that would result from

complete elimination of instruments and their associated scientific information.

We favor reducing this contingency and therefore accepting a loss in future EOS

flexibility. The reduction last year from $17 billion to $11 billion has already reduced EOS

to a minimum set of instruments to pursue the focused objective of global climate change.

In this reduction the measurement capabilities of the remaining instruments were

significantly reduced and further reductions are not reasonable.

The increase in risk associated with this reduction in contingency is implicitly

mitigated because EOS is a long-term measurement program, with instruments flown on

five-year intervals. Consequently, instrument development problems or changes in science

specifications could be handled in the next versions of the instruments. The first copies

of some instruments may be deficient. For example, instruments with detector arrays may

have some failed detectors at launch, or instrument noise may be greater than

specification. Some problems can be fixed in later data processing; others will require

correction in later versions of the instruments. Some level of resilience and flexibility,

however, must be maintained to allow EOS to be carried out under normal (expected)

levels of uncertainty in the budget and also to allow for the necessary technology

developments that benefit US. competitiveness.

At $8 billion, EOS must depend increasingly on our European and Japanese

partners. Failure to accomplish planned international cooperation on ADEOS, POEM,

TRMM, and their follow-on missions will leave gaping holes in the international Earth

Observing System. We note that in the $8 billion program the U.S. is relinquishing to

international partners the development of new advanced technologies in laser and active

microwave remote sensing. Finally, any further budget cuts will require wholesale

elimination of information critical to understanding global climate change.

In developing our recommendations we considered carefully the proposals of the

Red/Blue Team. Their recommendations are carefully constructed and we applaud their

efforts. Generally, the Payload Advisory Panel concurs with the Red/Blue Team. There

are, however, important differences. We summarize the differences by highlighting some

of the Panel’s recommendations and contrasting them to those of the Red/Blue Team.

Our recommendations are discussed more fully in the major sections that follow this one.

The major recommendations that deal with program additions (Sections 1.1-1.4) are

discussed roughly in priority order. The [2] recommendation (Section 1.6) about the

Wide Band Data Collection System may lead to an additional deletion and cost saving and

is considered high priority.
1.1 High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer

• The Panel recommends that the current HIRIS science investigation continue as

planned through its projected completion in 1994. This effort will provide the

foundation for imaging spectrometry of canopy chemistry, and other applications in

the Earth sciences, whether such measurements remain in EOS, migrate to Landsat

8, or find some other venue.

The Red/Blue Team recommended cancellation of HIRIS. The Payload Advisory

Panel concurs that the original HIRIS is too expensive for an $8 billion program; however,

we believe that a solid case exists for an imagining [sic] spectrometer with spectral

resolution and spectral coverage of HIRIS, but with lower spatial resolution. Our

recommendation seeks to learn more fully the basis and strength for that case. In the body

of this Report, we make several specific recommendations about imaging spectrometry.

We do not recommend that development of the currently envisioned HIRIS II instrument

be accelerated, but we do recommend a modest study of a new imaging spectrometer to

help estimate future costs of a lower-spatial resolution instrument, while the science

requirements for canopy chemistry are better defined and while the use of imaging

spectrometer data in other important Earth science applications is further explored.

1.2 Instruments for Stratospheric Chemistry and Dynamics

• The Payload Advisory Panel supports the Red/Blue Team proposal to fly the

EOSCHEMISTRY package in about 2002. EOS-CHEMISTRY with HIRDLS, MLS,

SAGE III, and SOLSTICE satisfies all minimum requirements. If SAFIRE is

substituted for MLS, the mission satisfies all minimum requirements except for ClO

measurement. A timely selection between MLS and SAFIRE should be done; the 

• We recommend that two SAGE flights be carried out by the year 2000. Continuity of

the data record will be more useful if later flights can overlap previous ones. We also

reiterate the need to have simultaneous flights with both polar and inclined orbits to

achieve global spatial distributions. Because of its enhanced capabilities, the Panel

recommends flights of SAGE III rather than SAGE II as soon as possible.

Global stratospheric measurements of temperature, winds, aerosols and clouds, long

lived trace gasses, some radical and most reservoir species are needed, because these

quantities can vary strongly both spatially and seasonally. Long-term, high-precision,

continuous monitoring of ozone, temperature and some reservoir gasses is needed for

global trends. Measurements and mapping at fine spatial resolution are required to

examine the mixing process in the polar vortex, troposphere-stratosphere exchange, and

to resolve localized stratospheric synoptic scale events that can produce important

localized regions of heterogeneous chemical reactions and ozone depletion.

ESA’s POEM-ENV package, likely to fly in 1998, may include GOMOS, MIPAS and

SCIAMACHY and will measure many of the required species, but it lacks capability to

measure [3] the key radical OH, measures ClO only under ozone hole conditions where

the concentration exceeds 1 ppb, and does not measure key reservoir species in the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 631
chlorine and bromine families (HCl and HBr). None of the POEM-ENV instruments

provide the high horizontal resolution data available from HIRDIS.

The ESA measurements will contribute to our understanding of stratospheric

processes and to monitoring global trends, and the flight of ESA’s POEM-ENV in about

1998 followed by the flight of EOS-CHEMISTRY post 2000 would provide a valuable time

series of many important stratospheric variables. Currently we have insufficient

information about the sensitivity and precision of the constituent measurements and the

risk associated with the ESA instruments. As a consequence, the Payload Advisory Panel

plans to invite the principal investigators of MIPAS, GOMOS, and SCIAMACHY to address

the panel about the space heritage and risk associated with the instruments, and the

sensitivity and precision of the measurements of temperature, aerosols and constituents

that will be possible.

Finally, the Payload Advisory Panel iterates the recommendation made previously by

itself and by the Atmospheres Panel. We recognize that this additional flight of SAGE is

above and beyond the Red/Blue Team recommendation.

1.3 Measurements of Tropospheric Aerosol

• We recommend that the proposed MISR polarization measurement on the EOS AM1 be included expeditiously by the EOS Project to further the capability of deriving

global distributions of aerosol properties from space.

Tropospheric aerosols have been posed as a possible paradigm for understanding

many of the dominant discrepancies between patterns of temperature increase that are

measured versus inferred from climate models for global warming. EOS observations can

make important progress to the resolution of this issue by global mapping of tropospheric

aerosol opacities on a time scale of a few days out to interannual.

The EOS aerosol workshop in December 1991 recommended an assessment of the

capability of EOSP under realistic conditions through simulation and field ground truth

measurements to provide unique additional information through its polarization

capability. A preliminary assessment is currently being carried out by the EOSP team

which, if successful, supports the inclusion, as recommended by the Red/Blue Team, of

EOSP on the second EOS-AM platform.

The MISR team proposes to add a polarization measurement on the EOS AM-1

platform through a relatively minor enhancement of its MISR instrument. The data would

be used by the EOSP team to refine and validate their algorithms for deriving global fields

of aerosol opacities using polarimetry.

1.4 Solar Irradiance Monitoring

• We recommend that plans be made for prompt flight (within the next 3-4 years) of

solar monitoring from a small satellite or a flight of opportunity. A flight would need

to occur within the next several years if it is to have a good chance of connecting with

UARS. The method for continuation of solar monitoring after this first “gap filler”

should be determined soon, i.e., within the next year or so.

632 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[4]

• Solar spectral variability is an important aspect of solar variability for climate

purposes. Climate forcing due to changes of solar irradiance depends on the

spectrum of the changes. To a large degree, the arguments about the need for

overlap of successive instruments applies to monitoring of the spectrum, as well as

the total solar irradiance. The length of existing record at risk due to a potential

gap in monitoring is much less for the spectral radiance. We recommend that

plans for prompt flight of continued solar monitoring include SOLSTICE as well

as ACRIM.

Solar monitoring of irradiance variability is crucial for issues of long-term climate

change. Satellite monitoring during the past decade confirms the existence of significant

total solar irradiance variations, of about 0.1%, and it is important to know whether there

are larger variations on longer time scales. Measurement of solar irradiance change relies

on instrumental precisions [sic]. Consequently, temporal overlap of the instruments is

required. The Shuttle ACRIM calibration is aimed at this problem, but it is not proven

that this experiment will eliminate the need for overlapping instruments to provide an

adequate long-term record. Moreover, of the solar irradiance instruments currently flying

the one with the potential for longest life is probably ACRIM II on UARS; however, it is

unlikely that its lifetime will be more that [sic] a few years.

The first identified flight following the Red/Blue Team recommendation of ACRIM

(and SOLSTICE) is on CHEMISTRY 2002, which implies a large gap in solar monitoring.

1.5 Descoping or Failure to Fund Major Instruments: AIRS, MODIS, LAWS, EOS

SAR

1.5.1 Descoping of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

• We support the Red/Blue Team’s recommendation to reduce AIRS from two

spectrometers to a single spectrometer. We caution, however, that the modifications

eliminate some important measurements of cloud emissivity and water vapor at fine

vertical resolution near the surface. AIRS can still provide temperature and humidity

profiles at the accuracy needed to improve climate modeling and numerical weather

prediction.

AIRS has been reduced from two spectrometers to a single spectrometer, which

effectively cuts the spectral coverage by half. Elimination of full spectral coverage will

possibly reduce the accuracy of the spectral calibration in some IR channels. In addition,

the signal-to-noise requirements and the resulting NE∆T, which had been relaxed

previously to 0.35°C in the 15 μm region and 0.2°C in the 4 μm region must now revert

to the original requirements of nearly 0.1°C throughout the spectrum. This results from

the reduction of detector elements that previously provided the required accuracy and

redundancy by co-addition of their signals. The end result is an intrinsically less reliable

focal plane with more demanding requirements on optics, detectors, filters, and signal-tonoise ratios to achieve the goals of AIRS for EOS and NOAA.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 633
634 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

The loss of AIRS full spectral coverage will result in gaps for determining the infrared

spectral emissivity of clouds and the surface. We have also lost the opportunity to test and

verify a new concept for determining humidity (from daytime observation in the 3.4 μm

region) with a vertical resolution of just a few hundred meters above the surface, and we

have relinquished the capability to map globally the horizontal distribution of several

important trace atmospheric gasses.

[5] With strict adherence to the original signal-to-noise requirements, we believe that

AIRS can still achieve its basic science goal to provide temperature and humidity profiles

with the same accuracy and resolution originally specified.

1.5.2 Descoping of the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)

• Because of the pivotal role of the MODIS instrument in supporting other

instruments and in providing key products for several land, ocean, and atmosphere

studies, we urge that Project and Program proceed carefully before instituting any

further reductions in the specifications and capability of MODIS.

The original MODIS was descoped in the previous restructuring by eliminating the

tilting instrument, MODIS-T. The current instrument is being further reviewed and

contingency is being cut. Among the suite of descope options being considered are

detector performance, band-to-band and focal plane-to-focal plane registration, and inflight calibration. The MODIS Science Team is considering the implications of the

suggested descope.

1.5.3 Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (LAWS)

• We encourage NASA to develop interagency and international partnerships,

involving the LAWS team, that would lead to achieving measurements of the

tropospheric wind field.

The LAWS instrument will provide critical information on the tropospheric wind

field. However, its flight requires both a separate platform and additional funding.

1.5.4 Multipolarization, Multifrequency Synthetic Aperture Radar (EOS SAR)

• We encourage NASA to develop interagency and international partnerships to design

and build a multifrequency, multipolarization SAR that will address the broad science

objectives of global climate change.

EOS SAR is required to measure globally biomass, soil moisture, snow accumulation,

and polar ice dynamics. The proposed EOS SAR instrument has been descoped to provide

the minimal capability to measure key parameters in ecosystem dynamics, hydrology, solid

Earth, and cryospheric science.
1.6 Wide Band Data Collection System (WBDCS)

• At the next Payload Advisory Panel Meeting, the WBDCS Team should be prepared

to justify the inclusion of the WBDCS on an EOS platform in the context of other

EOS priorities.

The Payload Advisory Panel recognized the potential value for the direct broadcast

of geophysical data using a satellite relay system. Earthquake monitoring, tsunami

warning, snow-fall data, and real-time alert of volcanic eruptions are some of the potential

fields that [6] would benefit from such a system. The Red/Blue team recommends the

WBDCS for flight on PM-1. As currently defined, however, the Panel felt unable to

endorse the flight of the WBDCS on any specific EOS platform without additional

information on data rate requirements and the necessary tracking capabilities of the

ground stations.

1.7 Scatterometer Data for EOS

• The Payload Advisory Panel reaffirms the necessity of flying an NSCAT-class

scatterometer throughout the EOS time frame. Specifically, the Panel encourages

continued discussions between NASA and NASDA for the flight of NSCAT-2 on the

ADEOS-II mission, scheduled for launch in 1999. Such a flight, and its follow-ons,

assures continuity of the time series of ocean wind measurements begun by

NSCAT/ADEOS-I and will provide a unique data set through simultaneous

scatterometer, microwave radiometer, and ocean color measurements.

Scatterometer measurements of wind velocity (both speed and direction) are crucial

for studies of the ocean’s role in climate variability, wind-forced upper ocean circulation

and heat transport, regional and basin-wide air-sea interaction, marine meteorology, and

ocean productivity. In the operational arena, scatterometer measurements of surface wind

velocity can be assimilated into regional and global atmospheric forecast/analysis systems

to yield improved weather forecasts.

Because climatically important oceanic and air-sea interaction processes occur over a

wide range of temporal and spatial scales, measurements of key dynamic variables must be

obtained frequently and with high resolution extending over long periods and having

extensive coverage. The sampling characteristics of a two-swath, NSCAT-class

scatterometer in the ADEOS orbit allow coverage of more than 95% of the global oceans

every two days with 50 km resolution. NSCAT-2 will be a near-copy of NSCAT (in terms of

frequency, measurement technology, sampling, and ground processing); launch on

ADEOS-II (before the planned end of the ADEOS-I mission) will ensure a continuous,

multi-year data set of consistent wind velocity measurements.

1.8 Satellite Radar Altimeter

• We recommend that NASA proceed immediately to identify and secure funding to

proceed with a joint U.S./France TOPEX Follow-On mission to launch in 1998.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 635
636 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

• As an alternative, the concept of moving the EOS-ALTIMETRY mission forward to

near 1998 should be examined. The possibility of combining TOPEX follow-on and

EOS-ALTIMETRY along with the option for flying the GLAS in this period offer the

possibility of cost savings in the overall cost profile of the Mission to Planet Earth.

The importance of altimeter data in developing an understanding of ocean

circulation has led to the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The accuracy of the TOPEX seasurface height measurement is not matched by any current or previous satellite altimeter

missions. To evaluate changes in global ocean circulation patterns and global mean sealevel over decadal time scales requires that the EOS-ALTIMETRY missions preserve the

height measurement accuracy of the TOPEX/Poseidon system.

[7] Although the currently considered concept of a CNES provided solid state altimeter

and a DORIS tracking system for POD provide a promising approach, it is important that

the capabilities of the CNES package meet TOPEX/Poseidon standards. The Panel will

continue to monitor the TOPEX follow-on mission.

The most pressing issue concerns funding for TOPEX follow-on. To meet a 1998

launch date, TOPEX follow-on would need to begin Phase C/D in FY 1995. This means

that efforts must begin in early 1993 to identify funding. Since this mission should be

funded under the Earth Probe line, it is critical that the Earth Probe line in FY95 be

maintained at the FY94 year plus inflation. Such a mission would have the broad support

of the oceanographic community, is critical to a number of global change objectives, and

should be of relatively low cost, given the joint France/U.S. involvement.

The Red/Blue Team recommendation supported only an ALTIMETRY mission in

2002 and did not address or recommend a more timely oceanographic mission.

1.9 International Instruments on EOS Platforms

1.9.1 ASTER

• ASTER should be flown, to provide subpixel variability of surface temperature, mineral

composition, surface topography, and three-dimensional mapping of volcanic plumes.

• ASTER should be flown out of phase with Landsat 7 for eight-day interleaved

coverage.

• Cooperation with NASDA, whereby we fly ASTER on EOS AM-1 and they fly NSCAT

on ADEOS and CERES and LIS on TRMM, is crucial to the EOS mission’s dynamical

observations.

Given the possibility that Landsat 7 will fly in 1997 or 1998, the role and cost of ASTER

must be carefully examined. The Panel discussed the issues associated with ASTER and

concluded that Landsat 7 is complimentary to ASTER. It does not replace the need for ASTER.

1.9.2 MIMR

• Given the possibility that new microwave radiometers may be flown by the U.S.

Department of Defense, ESA, and NASDA in 1998-2000, we need to consider the

desirability of overlap of so many similar instruments.
ESA is considering building MIMR for both EOS PM-1 and POEM AM spacecraft. A

decision on this plan may be made at the European Ministers meeting in November. This

issue needs to be revisited at the next Payload Advisory Panel Meeting.

1.10 EOS Data and Information System

1.10.1 EOS Data Products

• The Red/Blue Team has started the process of refining the list of science data

products to be provided in EOSDIS. However the EOS investigators cannot

relinquish responsibility [8] for this task. Hence the science panels and instrument

teams of the EOS Investigators’ Working Group must systematically develop the list

of core data products, including science requirements, algorithm heritage,

alternative approaches, and intermediate products.

• The EOS Project must work with the appropriate EOS investigators to better estimate

the data system loads associated with each product, and consider whether the data

product should be produced routinely on [sic] only on demand, and whether the

coded algorithm could be distributed instead of the calculated data product.

Evaluation of the relationship between the cost of EOSDIS and the list of highpriority data products requires analysis of the science, algorithms, products, and the

associated requirements on EOSDIS for systems engineering, processing, archive, and

distribution. The EOS IWG recognizes that it must play an active role in the definition and

development of EOS data products.

1.10.2 Transition from Version 0 to Version 1

• The EOS Project must work with the science community in the development of the

transition from EOSDIS Version 0 to Version 1 to ensure that necessary services are

maintained and that required capabilities are added in an orderly manner. The

transition must be examined in the context of the types of science problems and

information system technology that will be available in the mid-1990s.

The release of Version 1 is scheduled to occur 2 years after the release of Version 0.

The EOS Project must adequately plan for the transition between these two efforts, to

ensure that the Version 0 capabilities evolve smoothly into Version 1. The ECS contractor

must study the designs, results, and experience from the Version 0 effort and assess the

feasibility of using Version 0 products in the development of Version 1. The specific steps

in the transition—determined by the EOS Project, the EOS contractor, and the EOSDIS

Advisory Panel—must be based on these assessments, experience at the DAACs, science

user feedback, technical factors, and cost.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 637
638 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

1.10.3 EOSDIS User Model

• The EOS Project must develop a user model—numbers of users and their

characteristics—that is based on investigators’ proposed work with EOS instruments,

on existing scientific data production systems, and on processing scenarios and

benchmarks.

• The EOSDIS IV & V (Independent Verification and Validation) contract must

support the EOS Project’s effort to examine the system from the scientific users’

viewpoints. It must not be merely a requirements-tracing exercise.

Establishment of users’ requirements for EOSDIS is difficult, because they will

change as the interaction between the Earth and information science communities

improves and as scientists gain experience in using the tools developed by the ECS

contractor. To evaluate the effectiveness of EOSDIS from the scientists’ perspectives, endto-end scenarios and benchmarks will be needed that use representative data sets to

address science issues, to evaluate the functional capabilities of EOSDIS and measure the

performance of the system.

[9] 1.10.4 Effects of Budget Reductions on EOSDIS

• The EOS IWG (through its EOSDIS Advisory Panel) must examine the architecture,

design, and assumptions of the newly selected contractor, and analyze the cost sensitivity

of the system’s attributes. The IWG can then assess where costs might be reduced.

The significant steps in meeting the 30% reduction include reduction of the suite of

data products available at launch to about 100 Level 2 products and about 100 additional

Level 3 and 4 products and deferred migration of existing data sets into Version 0 (in cases

were the data are available through an existing operational system), and reduction in

contingency.

1.10.5 Other Procurements: EDOS, ECOM, IV&V

• NASA should design flexibility into EOSDIS to support network data delivery via

networks whenever economically feasible and plan for the insertion of NREN

technology in EOSDIS when it is operationally available.

• The IV&V contract must provide specific analysis and testing functions appropriate

for the evolutionary development of EOSDIS.

Late this fall, NASA plans to begin other procurements related to EOSDIS:

EROS, EOS Data and Operations System, to bring data from the EOS satellites and deliver

Level 0 data to ECS;

ECOM, EOS Communications, to establish networks, especially for operational delivery of

spacecraft data;
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 639

IV&V, Independent Verification and Validation.

We are particularly worried about networks, both for connecting investigators to the

DAACs and for interconnection among investigators. We no longer view physical media as

the “normal” mode of delivering data to scientists.

We recommend that the IV&V contract provide specific analysis and testing functions

appropriate for the evolutionary development of EOSDIS, to assure that the design of the

system fully and correctly implements the requirements, that evolutionary changes are

implemented consistently and correctly to best meet the scientists’ needs, and that costly

redesigns are avoided.

1.10.6 Data Assimilation in EOSDIS

• The EOS IWG and the broader science community must evaluate the scientific

requirements for assimilated data available through EOSDIS, so that the processing

loads can be accommodated.

The computational requirements for data assimilation (production of level 4 data

products) are huge. It is now not possible to define the computing requirements precisely,

because of the needs to define the demand for assimilated data products and their quality

specifications. All [10] these needs are evolving, and many of them are rapidly changing

disciplines of research and development.

The research-quality data sets that are needed for NASA Earth science applications

require a level of internal physical and chemical consistency that is far beyond that

achieved in present day data products used for numerical weather prediction. The data

sets are expected to be used for problems with time scales of years to decades, instead of

hours to days. The data sets will be used for problems far more difficult than the problem

of prediction. Furthermore, many more types of data (e.g., constituent, land-surface, and

oceanic) will be assimilated.

Document IV-18

Document Title: “NASA Management Instruction 1102.16,” 28 June 1993.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This document describes in brief the roles and responsibilities of the NASA Associate Administrator of the

Office of Mission to Planet Earth. Of interest is that the associate administrator also had responsibility

for the institutional management of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

[1] NASA NMI 1102 .16

MANAGEMENT Effective Date June 28, 1993
640 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

INSTRUCTION Expiration Date June 28, 1997

Responsible Office: Y/Office of Mission to Planet Earth

SUBJECT: ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY - ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

FOR MISSION TO PLANET EARTH (AA/MTPE)

1. OBJECTIVES OF POSITION

a. Provide overall planning, directing, executing, and evaluating of NASA Mission to

Planet Earth Program.

b. Provide institutional management of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

2. ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

a. The Office of Mission to Planet Earth is a Program Office, and the AA/MTPE

reports to the Administrator.

b. The basic organization of the office of Mission to Planet Earth is shown on

Attachment A.

c. The Office of Mission to Planet Earth will support and actively encourage cultural

diversity in the composition and development of its workforce.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

The AA/MTPE has the following responsibilities and is delegated authority to take

such action as necessary to carry out assigned functions within such limitations as

may be established by the Administrator, applicable laws, and regulations. In the

execution of these responsibilities, the AA/MTPE will coordinate, as appropriate,

with other NASA program and functional offices and Field Installations.

a. Programmatic Responsibilities

(1) Develops the Mission to Planet Earth programs within NASA that are directed

toward obtaining a scientific understanding of the entire Earth system on a global

scale by describing how its component parts and their interactions have evolved,

how they function, and how they may be expected to continue to evolve on all

time scales. These programs include the following areas:

[2] (a) The Flight Systems Division is responsible for the development of all

MTPE flight systems, including the Earth Observing System (EOS), Earth

probes, Space Shuttle and aircraft payloads: development of National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operational flight systems

on a reimbursable basis; and serves as the liaison to the office of Space Flight

for Space Transportation System (STS) matters, Office of Space Science for

Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) matters, and office of Life and

Microgravity Sciences and Applications for flight systems interfaces.

(b) The Operations, Data and Information Systems Division is responsible for the

Management of mission operations, data systems development, applications

and data management for MTPE programs, including the nonflight elements

of EOS, and serves as the liaison to the Office of Space Communications.

(c) The Science Division is responsible for the management of all science

research efforts and the definition of flight programs related to MTPE and
serves as liaison to the Office of Aeronautics for investigating the

environmental impact of aviation. The research and analysis program will

include process studies, modeling, data analysis, assessment activities, and the

aircraft support program.

(d) The Technology Innovation and Advanced Planning Division is responsible

for providing technology infusion in flight systems and instruments and will

serve as liaison to the office of Advanced Concepts and Technology, the

Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, and other Government agencies

involved in relevant advanced technology development.

[3] (2) Manages the MTPE programs and policies, including the planning,

developing, advocating, monitoring, and overseeing to ensure completion

within approved resources and schedule, subject to final review by the

Administrator.

(3) Includes the following primary line responsibility:

(a) Detailed scientific and technical definitions of specific flight and groundbased programs, including development of and commitment to, Agency

cost and schedule plans for their accomplishment.

(b) Presentation, advocacy, and defense of these programs and related

policies within NASA, the Administration, and to Congress.

(c) General management of these programs at the responsible Field

Installation to ensure that scientific, technical, schedule, and resource

commitments are met.

(4) Coordinates the MTPE programs with other NASA organizations and other

NASA Associate Administrators to ensure the optimum use of resources and

facilities to accomplish the goals of the Agency.

(5) Maintains relationships with universities, the scientific community, industry,

other U.S. and foreign Government agencies, and international

organizations. Selects MTPE flight investigations and investigators.

(6) Coordinates the MTPE programs, facilities, and functions with the Office of

Safety and Mission Assurance to ensure safety, reliability, maintainability, and

quality assurance.

b. Institutional Management Responsibilities. The overall institutional

management of GSFC is the responsibility of the AA/MTPE. Major

organizational changes and key personnel assignments that have a direct

impact on programmatic responsibilities of other Officials-in-Charge of

Headquarters Offices will be coordinated with the affected officials. In view

of the major involvement in operations at GSFC [4] on the part of the Office

of Space Communications (Code O) and the office of Space Science (Code

S), the AA/MTPE will establish a mechanism to involve these Associate

Administrators in the institutional management of GSFC sufficiently to

ensure the representation of their interests.

4. LINE OF SUCCESSION

Those officials authorized to act for the AA/MTPE are designated in Attachment B.

[omitted]

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 641
642 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

[Signed by Daniel S. Goldin]

Administrator

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Organization Chart.

B. Authority to Act, for the Associate Administrator for

Mission to Planet Earth.

DISTRIBUTION:

SDL 1

Document IV-19

Document Title: Letter from Representative Robert Walker, Chairman of the House

Committee on Science, to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, 6 April 1995.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Oversight of the Executive Branch is an important responsibility of Congress. This letter from the

chairman of the House Committee on Science refers to a similar letter written on the same day to the

presidents of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, requesting a study of NASA’s EOS.

(See Document IV-20.) This letter not only requests information from NASA on the status of NASA’s

EOS, but it also raises specific concerns regarding the overall direction of the program.

April 6, 1995

The Honorable Dan Goldin

Administrator

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Mr. Administrator:

The Committee on Science is rapidly approaching the time when we will be forced to

make a series of important decisions regarding the funding for programs within the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. One of the issues that has caused me

some concern is the scientific and technical justification for the Earth Observing System

which is a part of the Mission to Planet Earth program.
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 643

I am asking the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering to undertake an

independent, and much broader look at the United States Global Research Program and

as a part of that study they will also be looking at MTPE/EOS.

However, as the Administrator of NASA I would appreciate it if you would initiate an

immediate review of MTPE/EOS to respond to the following concerns:

1. Is the science that is being conducted as a part of the MTPE/EOS program

fully justified on strictly scientific terms? Has it been fully peer-reviewed?

2. In the planning process for implementation of MTPE/EOS are there active

measures being taken to fully ensure that we are continually re-evaluating

both scientific and technical options? Is new scientific knowledge being

introduced to ensure that science breakthroughs are utilized?

[2]

The Honorable Dan Goldin

April 6, 1995

Page 2

Are new technologies being considered and integrated such as

miniaturization or inclusion of appropriate sensors on platforms of

opportunity such as Iridium?

3. What assurances are there that you have done an adequate job in

thoroughly scrubbing all elements of the program to ensure that there

are no additional CIESIN type undertakings included in MTPE/EOS?

4. Is the current program adequately scoped to ensure that the data

generated by MTPE/EOS will be appropriately processed, and will all of

that data be properly archived and made fully available for use by the

scientific community?

Based on the current legislative schedule it would be particularly helpful to the

Committee if your findings could be made available to us no later than late summer of

this year. If there are any questions concerning this request, or if there is a need for

additional guidance or information please feel free to call on Mr. David Clement, Chief of

Staff, at 202-225-8772.

Cordially,

[signed]

Robert S. Walker

Chairman
644 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Document IV-20

Document Title: Congressman Robert Walker, Chairman of the House Committee on

Science, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Robert

White, President, National Academy of Engineering, 6 April 1995.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

The National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering had a major role in

designing NASA’s MTPE and its EOS. They also had, and maintain, a role in the design of the U.S.

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). This letter requests a review of both the USGCRP and

MTPE. In particular, in light of the major part NASA’s satellite systems play in gathering data for

the USGCRP, this letter requests an assessment of NASA’s role, through the MTPE and the EOS, in

the USGCRP.

April 6, 1995

Dr. Bruce Alberts,

President, National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Robert White,

President, National Academy of Engineering

2101 Constitution Avenue

Washington, DC 20418

Gentlemen,

One of the issues the Committee on Science will examine this year is the U.S Global

Change Research Program. I am therefore requesting a study of that program by the

National Research Council's Board on Sustainable Development. A review of the program

in this time frame is also called for under Public Law 101-606, the Global Change

Research Act of 1990. I suggest that these efforts be merged.

It is my understanding that the National Research Council's Board on Sustainable

Development has responsibility for continuing scientific and engineering technical

guidance to the Federal Government on the programs and plans of the USGCRP. In my

capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Science I have similar oversight jurisdiction for

the USGCRP in the United States House of Representatives.

Over the years I have had a strong interest in this interagency scientific program and have

had a specific interest in its major space based observational component, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration program titled Mission to Planet Earth, and the
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 645

subprogram entitled the Earth Observing System. It is apparent that the USGCRP could

make significant contributions to the improvements of scientific understanding of the

Earth system and I believe that it could provide critical information to help us understand

the fundamental nature of climate change.

[2]

Dr. Alberts & Dr. White

April 6, 1995

Page 2

In response to a number of conversations I have had with senior members of the scientific

community I firmly believe that the success of long-term programs such as the USGCRP

and smaller programs such as MTPE must be based on continual evolution in response to

new scientific insights and now [sic], and expanded opportunities provided by

technological and scientific innovation. In addition, programs such as USGCRP and

MTPE can, and should be responsive to new challenges posed by both national and

international changes in public policy.

Much has changed on both the national and international scenes since these programs

were first proposed. Needless to say, one of the most significant changes is the current

critical review of all government programs in view of budget issues and our own national

security. As the Committee moves toward making basic decisions on the future of our

National investment in science and technology I would request that the Chair of the

Board of Sustainable Development be directed to organize a comprehensive review of the

United States Global Change Research Program and the Mission to Planet Earth/Earth

Observing System programs within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This review will serve as the major review of these programs called for under Public Law

101-606, the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

Because of the large magnitude of the NASA effort in the USGCRP it is suggested that this

effort be supported by and coordinated with the NASA Administrator. I particularly want

to note that the linkage and integration between the NASA efforts and the remainder of

the USGCRP are absolutely essential and critical to the success of the larger program.

However, it is also important that there be active coordination with all other key Federal

participants such as the Subcommittee on Global Change of CENR.

As Chairman of the Committee I am particularly interested in receiving:

1. A review of the scientific progress to date and an assessment of the

implications of those scientific insights for future USGCRP and

MTPE/EOS activities;

2. An assessment of the current observational strategy for the USGCRP,

with particular attention to the role of NASA's Earth Observing

System. This assessment should include consideration of any
[3]

Dr. Alberts & Dr. White

April 6, 1995

Page 3

adjustments that might be necessary to respond to: (i) recent

improvements in scientific understanding, (ii) the needs of the general

user community, and, (iii) the requirement for the EOSDIS to develop

into an operational system routinely accessed by various users versus

the need to rapidly incorporate new and emerging technologies.

3. An assessment of USGCRP and MTPE/EOS plans for data and

information management in the context of efficiently addressing:

(i) the needs of the scientific community, (ii) the rapid evolution of

data and information management technologies, and (iii)

opportunities to provide new scientific information products to

support economic development and public policy needs, and

4. An assessment of where efficiencies are most likely to be found in

terms of: (i) convergence of systems and activities across agencies,

(ii) integration of space based and in situ programs, (iii) increased

reliance on international partners, and, (iv) utilization of

commercial capacity or capability or the privatization of EOSDIS.

Based on the current schedule of the Committee and the normal budget cycle of the

Federal programs we are charged with overseeing, your initial findings and any guidance

should be received by the Committee not later than September of this year, and I would

strongly suggest that any possible preliminary findings that might be available at earlier

dates would be extremely helpful and deeply appreciated.

I hope that you will be able to respond favorably to this request and if there are any

questions or clarifications required please do not hesitate to contact the Committee Chief

of Staff, Mr. David D. Clement, at 202-225-8772.

Cordially,

[signed]

Robert S. Walker

Chairman

Document IV-21

Document Title: NASA Technical Memorandum 4679, “Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture

Radar: Current Status and Future Directions,” Report to the Committee on Earth

646 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Sciences, Space Studies Board, National Research Council, April 1995. 

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This memorandum on the promise of synthetic aperture radar for supporting Earth science research

was prepared to support the National Research Council’s review of satellite synthetic aperture radar

technology research within the United States.

[title page]

NASA Technical Memorandum 4679

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical Information Office

April 1995

Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radar:

Current Status and Future Directions

A Report to the Committee on Earth Sciences

Space Studies Board

National Research Council

D. L. Evans, Editor

J. Apel E. Kasischke

R. Arvidson F. Li

R. Bindschadler J. Melack

F. Carsey B. Minster

J. Dozier P. Mouginis-Mark

K. Jezek J. van Zyl

********

[iii]

Preface

In June 1994 NASA’s Office of Mission to Planet Earth (OMTPE) identified the need

for a broadly scoped review of the nation’s civilian spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radar

(SAR) program, and requested the Committee on Earth Studies (CES) of the Space

Studies Board (SSB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to undertake such a review.

The Board was charged with answering the following questions:

(1) Is multiparameter SAR the optimum spaceborne approach to characterize the

critical geophysical parameters identified by the interdisciplinary Spaceborne

Imaging Radar-C, X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SIR-C/X-SAR) Earth science

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 647
team, and if not, are the data products nevertheless of credible utility in Earth

science? For example:

• How well can SAR be used to estimate biomass, characterize vegetation type,

characterize forest stand maturity, clear-cut, or regrowth?

• How well can SAR be used to characterize snow-water equivalent, distinguish

between new and refrozen ice, or estimate ice volume?

• How well can SAR characterize oceanographic features and parameters such as

internal waves, oil slicks, wave direction, and air-sea interaction?

• How well can SAR characterize soil moisture?

8 How well can SAR characterize geologic features such as rock

type/composition, and surface texture?

(2) With respect to all of the above questions, how important are the multiple

wavelength, multi-polarizing, variable-incidence angle capabilities to these

characterizations?

(3) What is the potential of spaceborne radar interferometry in topographic mapping

and surface change monitoring connected with natural hazards?

(4) What is the complementary nature of a spaceborne radar interferometry project to

monitoring crustal strain and deploying dense arrays of Global Positioning System

(GPS) receivers in selected areas of seismic hazard?

(5) What are the priorities in SAR technology development which are critical not only

to NASA’s maintaining leadership in spaceborne SAR technology, but to providing

societally relevant geophysical parameters?

(6) What is the priority of SAR science in the context of the overall national and

international Earth observing areas?

(7) With the answers to these questions as backdrop, how might the international

space program community make the best use of its resources while satisfying

individual programmatic requirements through joint planning and cooperation in

future SAR flight projects?

(8) What would an appropriate role be for NASA in such an international SAR

program? For example:

[iv]

• What would an appropriate role be for the NASA Earth Observing System Data

and Information System (EOSDIS) in such a program?

• How could the SIR-C/X-SAR or the EOS SAR Science Team expertise be used?

This report was prepared as background material through a series of disciplineoriented workshops held throughout the fall of 1994. Science Discipline Panel

648 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
workshops and meetings, held in Late October and early November focused on Questions

1-4. The Technology Panel addressed Question 5 during two separate meetings on

November 15 and 29. An Interagency panel formed to help address Questions 6-8 will

report separately. The Chairmen of the Discipline Panels met on December 5, 1994 to

discuss the report format and their key findings. Because of the broad interest in this

subject, attempts have been made to solicit input and comments on this material from as

broad a community as time allowed, including the international community. However, this

should only be considered a “snapshot” of a rapidly evolving field, as new results are

reported on a continuing basis.

********

[1-1]

1-Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

This report provides a context in which questions put forth by NASA’s Office of

Mission to Planet Earth (OMTPE) regarding the next steps in spaceborne synthetic

aperture radar (SAR) science and technology can be addressed. It summarizes the stateof-the-art in theory, experimental design, technology, data analysis and utilization of SAR

data for studies of the Earth, and describes potential new applications.

This report is divided into five science chapters and a technology assessment. The

science chapters are Ecology, Hydrology, Marine Science and Applications, Ice Sheets and

Glaciers, and Solid Earth Sciences and Topography. Each Chapter outlines key science

questions in the context of Mission to Planet Earth that can be addressed with SAR data.

In addition, the chapters summarize the value of existing SAR data and currently planned

SAR systems, and identify gaps in observational capabilities that need to be filled to

address the scientific questions. Both demonstrated and potential capabilities are

described, with appropriate references cited. Both NASA and non-NASA sources of SAR

data are included, and the importance of multiple wavelengths, multiple polarizations,

and variable incidence angles are substantiated for each measurement. A summary of

sensors is included as an Appendix. Cases where SAR provides complementary data to

other (non-SAR) measurement techniques are also described.

The chapter on technology assessment outlines SAR technology development which

is critical not only to NASA’s providing societally relevant geophysical parameters, but to

maintaining competitiveness in SAR technology, and promoting economic development.

RECOMMENDATIONS

SAR data provide unique information about the health of the planet and its

biodiversity, as well as critical data for natural hazards and resource assessments.

Interferometric measurement capabilities uniquely provided by SAR are required to

generate global topographic maps, to monitor surface topographic change, and to

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 649
monitor glacier ice velocity and ocean features. Multiparameter SAR data are crucial for

accurate land cover classification, measuring above-ground woody plant biomass,

delineation of wetland inundation, measurement of snow and soil moisture,

characterization of oil slicks, and monitoring of sea ice thickness.

The suite of spaceborne SAR systems and programs currently envisioned by the

international community provides an important framework for addressing key science

issues and applications. However, additional activities, and

interferometric/multiparameter measurement capabilities are required for long-term

environmental monitoring and commercial applications.

This report recommends NASA take an aggressive leadership role in an international

SAR program to meet these needs. Specific near-term steps should be to:

(1) Establish interagency and international SAR science teams. These teams would be

funded to exploit data from both NASA and non-NASA sources, and would be

charged with development and testing/validation of new applications, both scientific

and commercial in nature.

[1-2]

(2) Initiate an advanced technology effort. The initial focus of such a program should be

on lowering the costs of the operational elements and exploiting the functionality of

SAR. The NASA airborne radar (AIRSAR) which flies on the NASA DC-8 should be

the focus of this activity.

(3) Design an evolvable flight program. The long-term objective of such a program is an

operational interferometric, multiparameter spaceborne SAR for long-term

environmental monitoring and commercial applications. Immediate steps toward this

goal are to initiate an interferometric spaceborne mission, and to continue

multiparameter measurements through additional flights of the Spaceborne Imaging

Radar-C, X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SIR-C/X-SAR) as a free-flyer or on the

Space Shuttle.

Document IV-22

Document Title: Office of Science and Technology Policy Concept Paper, “The Global

Observing System,” 18 April 1995.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Document IV-23

Document Title: Task Force on Observations and Data Management, “Concept for an

Integrated Global Observing Strategy,” 9 February 1996.

650 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Document IV-24

Document Title: Letter from Robert T. Watson, Associate Director for Environment and

Co-Chair, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, to Dr. Charles F. Kennel,

Associate Director for Mission to Planet Earth, NASA, 22 March 1996.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

This set of documents illustrates the initial discussions over the development of an Integrated Global

Observing Strategy. As Document IV-22 shows, the concept began as an International Global

Observing System, which connoted to some a new entity, requiring significant new investment. The

concept soon evolved into an International Global Observing Strategy. The key feature of the concept

is that scientists should attempt to find ways to integrate the many different forms of data that

scientists are collecting throughout the globe into data products that reflect the condition of the Earth

and changes taking place in Earth systems. After about a year of discussion, the Global Observing

Strategy was accepted by the CEOS and other stakeholders in the global Earth observations

community, and a CEOS committee formed to find ways to implement it.

Document IV-22

[cover letter, dated July 17, 1995]

MEMORANDUM TO: CENR Task Force on Observations and Data Management

Co-Chairs

FROM: Robert T. Watson

D. James Baker

SUBJECT: International Global Observing System

In January of this year, the Office of Science and Technology Policy formed an ad hoc

interagency group to develop a concept paper on an international Global Observing System

(GOS) for Earth observations. The conclusion of this group, contained in the attached paper,

is that creation of such a system has many potential benefits and is worthy of further study.

There has been a significant expansion of Earth observations funding and capability

over the last decade. The United States, Japan, and several European and Asian nations

have extensive space-based operational and research Earth observation programs which

will extend into the future. These same nations and many others support ground based

Earth observation sites and networks around the world. Although much has been

accomplished, current and planned measurements still fall short of meeting the

requirements of the major international science programs, including the World Climate

Research Program and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. In spite of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 651
the continuing need to increase both the quantity and quality of Earth system

measurements, further budget expansion in this area is very unlikely.

Improving the effectiveness of international cooperation holds significant promise

for continuing to improve global-scale Earth observations, even without significant

increases in available funding. While international coordination of these efforts is

generally accepted as necessary and desirable, and, in some cases, already well established

as practice, there is considerable opportunity for improvement. Commitment to full and

open data exchange and creation of a mutually agreed framework for the definition,

planning and conduct of such observations could lead to a more efficient division of labor

among implementing agencies around the world.

As the co-chairs of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Research,

we request the Task Force to define a strawman international GOS framework and create

a plan for organizing. U.S. civil Earth observations efforts in this context. An important

element of this plan should be improving the US support for, and thus the effectiveness

of, relevant existing international planning mechanisms, such as the United Nations

Global Climate, Ocean, and Terrestrial Observing Systems and the space agency Earth

Observations International Coordination Working Group. The draft plan should be

submitted to us no later than November 1, 1995.

Attachment

cc: CENR Subcommittee Chairs

[1] THE GLOBAL OBSERVING SYSTEM

Introduction

Understanding the processes which govern the Earth system is essential in enabling us

to safeguard, maintain and improve this system for our use and that of our descendants. The

United States is committed to a broad range of programs which observe the Earth system

and use these observations to model, predict, and identify trends in the future behavior of

the system. We all – individuals, families, companies, academic research institutions and

governments – use the results of these efforts to adjust our social and economic patterns to

improve the quality of our lives and to improve our economic situation.

For decades the United States has supported observations of the atmosphere, land,

and ocean. Such observations are conducted routinely across the United States, in the

overlying atmosphere, in our coastal waters, in many other countries and in the deep

ocean. These in situ observations have been complemented in recent years by remote

sensing observations from aircraft and, increasingly, from space. In addition, new

observational capabilities have been developed within basic research programs.

Observational data is processed, analyzed, and provides input for the preparation of

products for our everyday use and our edification. For example, NOAA's National

Weather Service provides a wide range of prediction services including forecasts of

weather and climate; NOAA's National Ocean Service provides forecasts of ocean and

coastal tides and currents; and the Department of Agriculture provides crop forecasts.

Observational data is also essential for research conducted by university and Federal

laboratory scientists on the origin of the planet, the impact of ocean circulation on the

atmosphere, the formation of storms, and the development of icebergs.

652 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Advances in scientific theory, when combined with improvements in observing

systems and great increases in computer capacity, now enable scientists to model the

Earth's atmosphere, land, and ocean processes on a regional and global scale with steadily

improving reliability. However, to conduct such modeling most effectively requires the

development of comprehensive regional and global databases which, in turn, require us

to improve and expand our observations of the planet, both geographically and over time.

These new applications require us to obtain data for a wide variety of parameters. For

example, in the atmosphere it is important to measure, among other parameters, the

temperature, chemical composition, and cloud cover throughout the atmospheric

column. At the land and ocean surface, we need to observe such variables as winds,

precipitation, incident radiation, precipitation, vegetation and ice cover. In the oceanic

water column, observations of temperature, pressure, salinity, mixed-layer depth, and

currents are all important.

Needs and Opportunities for Improved Coordination

As operational and scientific communities come to rely on these new observing

systems, there is a need to identify and compile the observational requirements of the

various user communities, both national and international (focusing on commonalties

among them), and outline the observational capabilities necessary to fulfill these

requirements, in order to assure that all key measurements are being made and that

unnecessary duplication is avoided. As these requirements and other needs for

observational data are identified, it is essential that they are [2] brought to the attention

of national and international agencies with responsibilities for observational systems.

This process includes considering ways in which existing capabilities can be

improved and/or expanded to meet these requirements, while avoiding building separate

new systems, and evaluating complementary capabilities of remote sensing and in situ

observational systems to obtain needed data and information.

Scientists in the United States, working together with their counterparts in other

countries, have begun planning for new observing systems directed at the Earth's

atmosphere, ocean and land. These are called the Global Climate, Ocean, and Terrestrial

Observing Systems (GCOS, GOOS, and GTOS, respectively), all of which will provide for

both in situ and remote sensing observations.

It is essential to move towards planning, development, and implementation of these

systems both nationally and internationally within a global, multidisplinary (sic) approach

which minimizes duplications, redundancies, and inefficiencies among separate

observing systems and more closely links those communities that generate requirements

with those that operate the observing systems. The goal of such an approach is a

comprehensive Global Observing System (GOS).

A Global Observing System

The Global Observing System (GOS) would be an internationally coordinated system

of mutually funded experimental and operational space-based and in situ data

acquisition, archive and distribution systems and programs for Earth observations and

environmental monitoring. The GOS would be created through the mutual agreement of

participating countries to contribute discrete elements of the overall system within an

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 653
agreed comprehensive framework. Such a system is necessary in order to efficiently

acquire continuous, global, well-calibrated quantitative data about the Earth for

applications in meteorology, oceanography, geology and geophysics, natural disaster

reduction, terrestrial ecology, biology, atmospheric science, and climate change research.

Integration of existing and potential capabilities into a coherent worldwide

observing system will require: 1) integrating and prioritizing requirements from multiple

user communities; 2) providing systematic requirements-capabilities analysis; 3) providing

a comprehensive framework for Earth observations in which members can commit to

providing specific discrete elements; and 4) providing coordination within and between

the satellite and in situ observing system communities.

An early requirement in GOS implementation is to define an appropriate scope or

focus for the system which serves as a basis to prioritize or limit the types of measurements

made by the system. This scope must cut across operational and research users, but must

also provide a paradigm for prioritizing required observations within the comprehensive,

and overwhelming, list of all measurements that are significant for overall Earth system

studies. 

[3] Given the potential difficulty in prioritizing a comprehensive set of observational

requirements, member countries may decide to develop the GOS through an incremental

approach which ultimately evolves into a comprehensive system (e.g. initially focusing on

climate, land cover, ocean color, etc.). The GOS could focus initially on a limited set of

basic measurements (including many of those currently being made on a routine basis),

which could be expanded as the system developed and countries become comfortable

with the process.

Physical Infrastructure

The GOS would build on the existing operational systems, which currently include

satellites provided by the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and in situ observation systems from

most countries of the world, the data from which is voluntarily exchanged through systems

and procedures developed in the WMO and IOC. This global constellation of operational

geostationary and polar orbiting satellites is the backbone of the GOS space component.

Current and planned research missions, such as UARS, Topex/Poseidon, ERS, JERS,

ADEOS, Radarsat, EOS, Envisat, TRMM, Meteor, and others are expected to demonstrate

new capabilities that could provide the basis for future operational observations. Extensive

in situ data collection activities take place around the world such as WWW, GAW, UNEP

GEMS and GRID, and IOC GLOSS, IGOSS, and IODE. To support the essential ongoing

research in Earth system science, all useful data must be calibrated, documented, retained

and available for retrospective analysis as well as for routine operational uses. The GOS

should thus also include a distributed data and information system to collect, process,

maintain, and distribute the data and products to the full user community.

Some physical elements will require redundancy and assurance of uninterrupted

service to support operational requirements. Other elements may be operated for discrete

periods of time as demonstrations of technology or to support one-time research

campaigns. Others may attempt to provide continuous service but, to reduce costs, the

system may accept the risk of possible temporary interruptions in case of failures. For

certain climate variables, temporary losses may not be critical. A set of operating

654 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
principles should be established at the beginning and accepted by all participants as a

condition of their incorporation into the system.

Role of the Private Sector 

While governments undertake mutual commitments to provide discrete elements of

the overall system, direct involvement of private, commercial entities, should be encouraged

when governments determine that their needs can best be met through the private sector.

Ultimate responsibility for the system should remain with governments, as the system is

intended to meet public needs for basic information about the Earth and its environment.

Functions

Efficiently collecting Earth observations data for multiple uses demands work in

three key areas. First, coordination of various user groups with varying, yet sometimes

overlapping, data requirements will be necessary in order to promote the formation of

integrated requirements for environmental observations. This will help agencies to

respond more effectively to the needs of the science and operational communities.

Second, there must be a commitment by countries participating in GOS to meet

observational requirements on a long-term and continuous basis, and to coordinate with

each other in doing so. Finally, a commitment to collectively meet integrated

observational requirements will require coordination of various system operators (both in

situ and space-based) in order to minimize [4] duplication and allow assessment of in situ

vs. space-based approaches. It should be recognized in such an effort that in some cased

[sic] redundant systems or a multiplicity of approaches may be necessary (e.g. use of

redundant systems in remote, harsh environments).

Some aspects of these three essential functions for the GOS are currently being done

by existing groups or mechanisms. These groups should be incorporated into the GOS

approach to the greatest extent possible. A prime requirement of the GOS is creating a

mechanism to better translate the program recommendations of these groups (e.g.

GCOS, GTOS, GOOS) into national activities.

Approach

Once consensus can be reached among international partners on the fundamental

need for a GOS and a concept of the system, there are at least two distinct approaches to

GOS implementation. The first way envisages the participating countries acting in concert

under an agreed strategy or framework through existing groups (or modified existing

groups). This approach would involve initial informal discussions nationally and

internationally which could result in more formal meetings or statements. The goal of this

approach would be to reach international consensus on the general framework of the

GOS and to pursue implementation of the system through selected groups (while

focusing attention away from ineffectual groups or mechanisms).

Alternatively, after the initial steps leading to consensus among participating

countries, GOS members could decide to conclude a more formal agreement to ensure

that the system is implemented and operated consistent with its intended purposes. A

major challenge in Earth observations is persuading countries to develop and modify their

long-term plans and investments jointly, thus requiring these countries to share

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 655
responsibility with others for the collection of key data sets. Present uncertainties about

the commitments of countries to execute their national plans results in some national

systems that are duplicative on an international scale. In order to generate effective

interdependence (and the consequent cost savings), an intergovernmental coordinating

mechanism could be part of the implementation approach of the GOS. A formal

commitment to the long-term provision of space-based and in situ monitoring capabilities

would provide more formal support for these existing informal and non-binding

coordination groups.

Such an agreement could suffice as a guide for national programs which would

codify goals and operating principles, and designate existing mechanisms through which

members could coordinate programs.

If participating countries believe that there is a need for a mechanism through which

countries make specific commitments to undertake certain observations, coordinate

programs, and resolve issues, they may decide to approach the GOS implementation

through an international agreement with an associated oversight structure that would

have sufficient authority to take actions needed to achieve efficient operations and high

quality services. This mechanism would include senior level representatives of

governments providing the funding and/or other resources for the system and would

provide the formal authority and ultimate decision-making. This oversight mechanism in

which commitments are made could be an integrating element across existing groups

such as GCOS, GTOS, GOOS, and CEOS (which could continue to perform many of the

assessment, planning, and coordination functions).

[5] Next Steps

The U.S. should take the lead in defining the concept, structure and implementation

steps for the GOS. While national and international implementation should proceed in

parallel, many aspects of the international implementation of GOS (e.g. consensus

building) do not depend on the specific national elements finally endorsed as GOS

contributions (i.e. the U.S. component to the GOS). The following are proposed national

and international steps in the process of establishing the GOS.

• OSTP will brief the CENR Task Force on Observations and Data Management late April

1995; GOS concept paper, approved by principals of the informal OSTP drafting group,

will be circulated for wider interagency review.

• In May/June 1995, OSTP will host an informal meeting of key international scientists

and policy-level individuals in order to discuss the GOS concept, structure and

implementation steps.

• By fall of 1995, the CENR Task Force should develop a comprehensive strategy for GOS,

reflecting the input from informal national and international discussions.

• The CENR Task Force should arrange a workshop to discuss the GOS concept and

implementation plans with wider U.S. community (e.g. scientists, academia,

operational users, private sector). Involvement of the National Academy of Science

should be encouraged.

• Strategy should have firm recommendations on structure, role of existing

mechanisms and groups, and identification of any new agreements or mechanisms

required for GOS.

656 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
• As the U.S. Secretariat for GCOS, GTOS, and GOOS, the CENR Task Force should

designate representatives to meet with the heads of those organizations and solicit

their views on the GOS. Discussion of the GOS concept should be placed on the

agenda for upcoming meetings of the Joint Scientific and Technical Committees of

the three systems as well as meetings of the sponsoring organizations (e.g. UNEP,

WMO, IOC, ICSU).

• In addition to the above-listed specific implementation steps, efforts should be made to

obtain the endorsement of the GOS concept by the following international groups by the

end of 1995:

-- Committee on Earth Observation Satellites Plenary

-- International Group of Funding Agencies 

-- Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations (G-7)

-----------------------------------------------

In the context of this paper, the term "Global Observing System" is used to define a

concept for an integrating framework of space-based and in situ observations and should

not be confused with the existing WMO Global Observing System.

Document IV-23

[cover letter pg. 1]

[stamped: “RECEIVED, Feb 20 1996, NOAA/NESDIS/IA]

Reply to Attn of: YM

Dr. D. James Baker

Co-Chair, Committee on Environment

and Natural Resources

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Washington, DC 20230

Dear Dr. Baker:

In your memorandum of July 17, 1995, you and Dr. Watson requested the Task Force

on Observations and Data Management (TFODM) create a plan for organizing U.S. civil

Earth observations in the context of an integrated global observing system. Enclosed is

the "Concept for an Integrated Global Observing Strategy" developed in response to

your request.

This document is the product of an interagency effort within the TFODM, led by Jim

Rasmussen as the chair of the TFODM's Integrated Observing System Working Group. It

proposes an overall aim for an Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS), a rationale

for integrated global observations, and guidelines for U.S. and international

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 657
implementation. In this document, we have exchanged the term "strategy" for "system" to

reflect that we are essentially proposing a framework in which national governments and

international organizations can commit to providing observation systems that are

elements of an internationally accepted observing strategy. The document concludes with

a schedule of next steps.

In our roles as TFODM Chairman and Vice-Chairman, we have already met with

some of our counterparts internationally and received generally positive responses to this

initiative. Additionally, we have briefed the Board on Sustainable Development of the

National Academy of Sciences and have had initial discussions concerning their potential

role in reviewing the IGOS concept as it evolves.

[2] We are continuing to work on scientific and technical definition of possible IGOS

components, and look forward to working with you in the continued national and

international development of the IGOS.

Sincerely,

[signed] [signed]

Charles F. Kennel Robert S. Winokur

Chairman, Task Force on Vice-Chairman, Task Force on

Observations and Data Management Observations and Data Management

Enclosure

cc: CENR Subcommittee Chairs

[An identical letter was sent to Dr. Robert T. Watson, Co-Chair, CENR.]

[1] CONCEPT FOR AN INTEGRATED GLOBAL OBSERVING STRATEGY

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources 

Task Force on Observations and Data Management

FOREWORD

The environment, including physical climate and managed or natural ecosystems,

affects every aspect of society and economy. The environment is often viewed as both a

resource and a risk factor. Minimizing environmental risks while sustaining maximum

environmental resources requires understanding the processes that govern the Earth

system. The diversity and complexity of the Earth system has led to the development of

diverse observing systems. These systems may be broadly defined as either long-term

continuous observing systems or time-limited experimental observing programs. They are

focused on specific needs for a variety of applications and scientific disciplines, including

meteorology and climatology, oceanography, geology and geophysics, marine and

terrestrial ecology and biodiversity, atmospheric chemistry, human health and geography.

The concept of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) has arisen from a

realization that the integration of existing and new observing capabilities into a coherent

system, or family of systems, would most efficiently serve the needs of society. A reliable

cost effective source of global data would constitute a valuable resource for a variety of

important applications such as understanding and predicting environmental stresses,

658 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
planning the allocation of energy resources, and assessing agricultural productivity. To

accomplish this goal, the IGOS will address three important tasks. The first is coordinating

the recommendations of user groups, with different yet sometimes overlapping data

requirements, to promote the implementation of multi-purpose observing and data

systems. Since environmental monitoring often spans national boundaries, the second

task will be to ensure coordinated national commitments to the long-term

implementation of the various components of a coherent global system. Lastly, a similar

coordination effort will be required of operating agencies, including both space-based

and in situ observing systems and their associated data systems, in order to minimize

duplication and enhance the complementary nature of each component. These three

tasks constitute the purpose of IGOS.

This paper is intended as a U.S. contribution to the international effort to organize

systematic programs for global observation of atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial

variables. Recognizing the extensive worldwide effort which is addressing the issue of

global climate change and its consequences, it takes into account the international plans

that have been developed for overlapping Global Climate, Ocean and Terrestrial

Observing Systems, and the programmatic plans of operating and/or funding agencies of

many nations. In this perspective, it is particularly important to design a single integrative

framework that could lead to effective [2] task-sharing, agreements among these agencies.

The strategy in IGOS underlines its intended role in coordinating the mechanism for

setting priorities.

It is also essential that the proposed scientific and technical programs be explicitly

and clearly linked to services deliverable to society, with emphasis on short-term

applications as well as longer-term needs to grow more food, enhance public health,

safeguard transport systems, maintain clean air and water, promote economic

development and expand human knowledge. This is the objective and vision the IGOS

concept is aiming to capture.

1. INTRODUCTION

Understanding of the global Earth system, the atmosphere, land and oceans, has

progressed to the point where we can use this knowledge to predict future climatic

variations and change with some degree of reliability, or at least to assess the probability

of natural hazards, and thus adjust our daily practice and long-term plans in order to

improve the quality of our lives and our economic situation. Global observations of a wide

range of environmental parameters are needed to characterize the current state of the

Earth system, identify significant trends and predict future changes, as they affect

economic activities and the quality of life.

A vast amount of environmental data is already being acquired and exchanged for a

variety of applications from air quality control to tide predictions, from the assessment of

the frequency of seismic hazards to weather forecasting. Existing operational data

acquisition, analysis and distribution systems, such as the World Meteorological

Organization's (WMO) World Weather Watch (WWW), already constitute an essential but

far from complete source of information for scientific studies and assessments of the

global Earth system and climate. Many existing surface-based observing systems are

focused on national territories, leaving major gaps over the "global commons" such as the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 659
open ocean, and thus falling short of providing an adequate determination of the global

environment and its characteristics such as climate.

Scientists from many countries are working together to plan new observing systems

directed at the Earth's atmosphere, ocean and land. These are called the Global Climate,

Ocean and Terrestrial Observing Systems, all of which will provide both in situ and remote

sensing observations. The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) is intended to

acquire systematic lone-term observations to monitor and characterize aspects of climate

in the atmosphere and ocean and over land. In addition to climate-related oceanic

observations required for GCOS, the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) is a longterm program to acquire oceanic observations to monitor living marine resources, the

coastal zone environment and the health of the ocean, as well as to continue providing

marine meteorological and operational ocean observations. IGOS involves only the

climate module of GOOS. The Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) is being

designed to document changes in land use and terrestrial ecosystems in support of

sustainable development.

It is essential try move toward planning, development and implementation of these

system, both nationally and internationally, within a global multi-disciplinary approach

which minimizes duplications, redundancies and inefficiencies among separate observing

systems and more closely links thee communities that generate requirements with those

that [3] operate observing systems and deliver useful products. While international

coordination of these efforts is generally accepted as desirable and, in some cases, is

already well established as normal practice, there is considerable opportunity for

improvement. In particular, commitment to full and open data exchange and the

formulation of a mutually agreed framework for the planning and implementation of

such observation programs would lead to more effective sharing of tasks among the

implementing agencies around the world.

The goal of the Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) is to create an

international mechanism for consultations among responsible implementing agencies in

order to translate the program recommendations of GCOS, GOOS, GTOS and other

relevant scientific bodies into nationally-funded activities fitting within a common

framework. The overall aim of this framework is to: Acquire information of global Earth

system phenomena needed for assessment of changes in the global environment,

prediction of climatic variations and long-term climate change, strategic management of

renewable natural resources and guidance of long-term investments.

2. RATIONALE FOR INTEGRATED GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS

Much of what is currently known about the Earth's climate, environment and natural

resources is actually based on the analysis of data acquired for applications, such as

weather and river flow forecasting, crop predictions, the establishment of tide tables or

the assessment of environmental impacts on health. However, these existing data sources

do not fully meet the requirements for characterizing or monitoring global Earth system

processes, which can be distinctly different from requirements for regional or global

operational applications.

Understanding Earth system mechanisms requires long-term consistent global

observations. Existing observing systems have often been developed independently, each

660 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
focused on a specific application and/or geographical domain. The Integrated Global

Observing Strategy, on the other hand, is conceived from the outset to characterize

coupled Earth system processes on a global scale, as required to understand and predict

global environmental phenomena.

Earth system processes involve a considerably wider range of parameters than are

routinely observed for existing applications. Examples of the measurements that will be

needed include chemical agents that affect the production and destruction of ozone both

in the stratosphere and troposphere, solar irradiance and the concentrations of

greenhouse gases and aerosols that are basic climate forcing factors, observations of the

thermal structure and circulation of the world oceans, and soil moisture and vegetative

state that affect plant growth, evaporation, precipitation, and land use.

Furthermore, adequate provisions need to be made for long-term consistency of the

data, based on stable absolute calibration standards and uniform processing schemes. Or

the capability for re-analyzing archived records using a uniform procedure at a later time.

Finally an Integrated Global Observing Strategy must assure adequate sampling of

climate variability and the environment, on the relevant time-scales. [4] This implies

systematic (but not necessarily continuous) observation over long periods of time and ties

to historical data bases, as well as resolving (at least in a statistical sense) rapidly changing

environmental processes such as those linked to the diurnal and seasonal cycles.

The Integrated Global Observing Strategy described here would reach existing

operational observing systems and provide essential required data on basic environmental

parameters. with appropriate consistency in time and uniformity in space, for both

applications and scientific studies. On the other hand, the Integrated Global Observing

Strategy is not a substitute for research observation programs, like intensive field studies,

oceanographic observation campaigns using research vessels, or one-of-a-kind

experimental satellite missions, that are indispensable in acquiring a deeper scientific

insight into Earth system processes.

3.0 GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

A prime requirement for the IGOS is the creation of a mechanism to better translate

into national contributions the recommendations of international planning groups for

the GCOS, GOOS and GTOS. The IGOS would be established through the mutual

agreement of participating nations to contribute discrete elements of the system, within

an internationally agreed framework. While effective international coordination already

exists in some instances, there is considerable opportunity for improvement. The

formulation of a mutually agreed framework for the planning and conduct of relevant

national observations and international data exchange can lead to more efficient sharing

of tasks among implementing agencies around the world.

The IGOS would include and build upon existing operational observing and data

systems, which currently include environmental satellites and numerous in situ observation

systems or networks maintained by all countries of the world for a variety of applications,

as well as procedures developed for the voluntary exchange of environmental data. The

IGOS would concentrate on additions and improvements, and more effective utilization of

existing observing and data systems in order to provide enhanced observations of basic

environmental parameters, and ensure adequate global coverage.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 661
The IGOS is meant to foster and ensure consistent long-term records of basic

environmental data for a diversity of practical applications and multi-disciplinary scientific

studies, and would encourage, but not explicitly organize, one-of-a-kind field observation

campaigns or experimental satellite projects specifically intended for scientific

investigation of particular processes or phenomena.

The activities included in the IGOS are expected to be contributed by national

governments to serve long-term general interests of all nations of the world: For this

reason, the U.S. should advocate that data acquired should be distributed in accordance

with the principle of full and open international exchange of environmental data and

products, adopted by several intergovernmental bodies and other national and

international entities.

It is important that the global data sets derived in the concept of IGOS are linked to

the more regional and local observations networks and data sets, so that these embedded

data can be interpreted in the wider global context.

[5] While governments would undertake mutual commitments to provide the elements

of an overall system, the involvement of commercial entities would be encouraged when

governments determine that requirements can best be met through the private sector.

Ultimate responsibility for the system would remain with governments, as the system is

intended to meet public needs for basic information about the Earth and its environment.

3.1 U.S. IMPLEMENTATION

In July 1995 the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR)

assigned the Task Force on Observations and Data Management (TFODM) the

responsibility to define a conceptual global observing system framework and create a plan

for organizing U.S. civil Earth observations in this context. The Task Force had earlier

established a Secretariat and three working groups (Integrated Observing Systems, User

Needs, and Data Management) to act as the catalyst for coordinating the global, national

and regional observing and data system requirements and plans of the CENR

Subcommittees and U.S. federal agencies, and serve as the primary CENR interface for

international consultations on planning and implementation of a global observing system

and its related data management system. This includes coordination with the planning

efforts underway by the international scientific and intergovernmental agencies (e.g.

WMO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission [IOC], the United Nations

Environment Programme [UNEP] and the International Council of Scientific Unions

[ICSU]), as well as by the space agencies (through the Committee on Earth Observation

Satellites [CEOS]). Coordination will be undertaken with the established international

scientific research and observations programs (e.g., World Climate Research Programme

[WCRP], International Geosphere and Biosphere Programme [IGBP], GCOS, GODS,

and GTOS) to synthesize and to assess broad user needs, and to analyze the opportunities

for minimizing unnecessary redundancies and filling gaps. The U.S. planning process is

outlined in Fig. 1.

662 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
[6] This process will require Task Force initiatives aimed at bilateral and multilateral

international coordination of global observations and data management plans and

proposed programs, including specific missions, sensors, and related in situ and groundbased measurements in order to seek consensus on mutually supportive initiatives; and

will provide a means for coordination of implementation plans with involved U.S. federal

agencies and the scientific community. Overall scientific oversight and guidance will be

solicited through interactions with the National Research Council's (NRC) Board on

Sustainable Development (BSD), and its Committee on Global Change Research

(CGCR), in consultation with the Space Studies Board (SSB), the Ocean Science Board

(OSB). and the Board on Atmosphere Sciences and Climate (BASC). The responsibilities

of the respective Task Force Working Groups and its Secretariat are outlined in sections

3.1.1 through 3.1.4.

3.1.1 USER NEEDS WORKING GROUP

The User Needs Working Group (UNWG) will coordinate and synthesize the needs

(requirements) of U.S. users of global, regional, state and local scale observations and

data. These user needs will originate from the CENR subcommittees, the federal agencies

and other sources such as the Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development

Indicators (IWGSDI) and the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Specific UNWG

responsibilities will include:

• working with the individual CENR subcommittees to develop, refine, and prioritize

coordinated user need statements for global. regional, state and local observations and data;

• identifying the time and space sampling, coverage, accuracy and continuity

requirements, and data availability for key environmental indicators;

• assessing the adequacy of existing and planned observing and data sources; developing

recommendations for remedial actions including budget initiatives and direct support by

the Task Force;

• advising on the evolving needs of the broad user community for environmental and

natural resources data and information.

3.1.2 DATA MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP

The Data Management Working Group (DMWG) will coordinate CENR efforts to

develop and use federal data and information systems and standards to promote

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 663

OSTP

CENR

TFODM

• IOSWG

• UNWG

• DMWG

CENR

TFODM

INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL

OBSERVING STRATEGY

PLANNING & COORDINATION

MECHANISM

NRC BOARDS

GUIDANCE STRATEGY

Fig. 1 US PLANNING PROCESS FOR IGOS
environmental and natural resources data system inter-operability. Included within the

specific responsibilities of the DMWG will be:

• coordination of the data and information systems, standards, and policies being

implemented and used by participating agencies for CENR programs, such as the Global

Change Data and Information System, while cooperating with other efforts such as the

Government Information Locator System, the National Environmental Data Index

program, and the Federal Geographic Data Committee;

[7]• international coordination of data and information systems, services, and policies to

support CENR requirements for international data and information exchange;

• coordination of the development of data and information products to meet the needs

identified by the User Needs Working Group; specific tasks assigned to it by the Task

Force, particularly for advice and support in assessing and meeting the data and

information management requirements of the Task Force;

• coordination with the other Task Force working groups and with the Committee on

Geophysical and Environmental Data (CGED) of the National Academy of Sciences.

3.1.3 INTEGRATED OBSERVING SYSTEM WORKING GROUP

The Integrated Observing System Working Group (IOSWG) will coordinate the

Federal agency planning for satellite and ground-based observing program elements to

meet the requirements of the CENR Subcommittees, as synthesized by the User Needs

Working Group and other scientific advisory bodies. Specific responsibilities include:

• taking the lead in the planning and interagency coordination for U.S. participation in

the Integrated Global Observing Strategy;

• working with the Task Force's Secretariat, federal agency planning offices for GCOS,

GOOS, and GTOS, and the NRC Boards and their various sub-groups to coordinate the

planning for satellite, ground-based and in situ components of the international effort;

• identifying with the UNWG observational requirements that are not being met and

recommending possible corrective actions;

• addressing specific observing systems issues assigned by the Task Force Chair, including

the calibration of instruments and continuity of observations.

3.1.4 SECRETARIAT

A Secretariat, established by the Task Force and representative of the interests of Task

Force member agencies, will support the activities of the Task Force (and its Working

Groups). It will operate in accordance with a work plan approved by the Task Force and

will fulfill other responsibilities as assigned. In carrying out these duties, the Secretariat

may establish ad hoc interagency panels with limited objectives. Acting at the direction of

the Task Force and in accordance with the strategy outlined in the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) concept paper on the Global Observing System, the

Secretariat will facilitate the CENR interface for international consultations on scientific

planning and implementation of the Integrated Global Observing Strategy. This includes

coordination with the planning efforts underway by intergovernmental organizations

(e.g., WMO, IOC and UNEP), as well as by the space agencies (through CEOS) and with

the international scientific programs (WCRP and IGBP). The U.S. position on these

664 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
matters will be developed and relined through deliberations of the CENR Task Force

Working Group, and approved by the Task Force itself.

[8] 3.2 INTERNATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

The strategy for the international implementation of a truly integrated global

observing system will require a very high level mechanism to ensure that:

• The overall strategy is science-driven and emphasizes the delivery of useful products as

its goal.

• Priorities are set and commitments are made by each, participating nation or mulftinational consortium (e.g. regional satellite organization) so that a practical, effective and

coordinated program evolves.

• The specific requirements emanating from more narrowly focused planning groups

(e.g. GCOS, GOOS, GTOS, IGBP, WCRP, etc.) are considered in an integrated context,

and resource commitments are coordinated in such a way as to optimize the

implementation of the systems and to ensure that critical elements of the global system

are indeed implemented through international cooperation.

It is envisaged that U.S. representation to this "high level integrating mechanism"

would be arranged under auspices of the OSTP, thus ensuring inter-agency cooperation

within the broad US CENR community. Likewise OSTP would seek to arrange

participation from other nations in this mechanism at all levels, as an effective IGOS

would require some degree of partnership among implementing agencies and

governments. One possible framework for initiating this mechanism is the Group of Seven

Industrialized Nations (G-7). The mechanism would be informal at first, but evolve toward

a standing body with a secretariat supporting it as soon as international agreement on the

structure and function of this body is agreed. The global community of nations could be

included in this effort through participation of specific intergovernmental organizations

such as WMO, UNESCO/IOC and UNEP among others. International implementation

approaches will be addressed by CEOS and the in situ community in two international

workshops on IGOS planned during 1996.

An initial step in the strategy toward developing the international implementation of

an integrated global observing capability will be to reach international agreement on the

overall operational and research rationale for the global system and to identify, in priority

order, the elements required to be implemented and their general sequence. It is

proposed that NRC's Boards be engaged to provide the scientific guidance needed to

develop the initial U.S. recommendations and proposed initial contribution to this

important first step (see section 3.1). ICSU could be asked to organize the international

review and adoption of the overall scientific rationale.

The high level integrating mechanism would also define and coordinate the

specific national and multinational contributions to the overall integrated system by

obtaining national commitments toward implementing specific elements according to

an agreed schedule. These commitments would address specific requirements of GCOS,

GOOS, and GTOS, but have the added dimension of treating the global environment

in an integrated way and meeting the requirements through sharing the responsibilities

among participating nations and by addressing, in a synthesized way, broad global

environmental interests. This would avoid implementing limited and potentially

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 665
NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

duplicative systems that in might be designed and deployed for more narrowly defined

objectives.

The international implementation strategy must be designed to be flexible and

evolutionary. It will have to be inclusive in order to take advantage of the scientific

planning and disciplinary strength of the GCOS, GOOS, GTOS and other research (e.g.

IGBP and USGCRP) and operational programs and systems (e.g. WMO/WWW). It must

have authority to set priorities and put in place a scheme so that resources are committed

to address these priorities effectively.

The functioning of the IGOS is illustrated in Fig 2. The planning and coordination

mechanism at the international level would be reflected at the national level through the

national representation to CEOS, GOOS, GCOS, GTOS, etc., the implementing agencies

(e.g. NASA, NOAA, NSF, DOE, DOI, EPA etc.) and the scientific oversight (NRC) as

proposed in section 3.1 above.

3.3. SCHEDULE

The provisional schedule for IGOS planning and implementation is: 

• July '95 Task Force on Observations and Data Management assigned IGOS

responsibilities

• Oct '95 Informal international discussions with CEOS and GCOS

• Oct '95 Request to NRC/BSD for oversight of IGOS scientific planning

• Feb '96 Preliminary IGOS Conceptual Plan submission to CENR

• Spring '96 IGOS Scientific Rationale Review through NRC Board on Sustainable

Development (BSD) and other NRC Bodies as appropriate

666
• Mar '96 First international workshop on IGOS strategic planning (CEOS lead;

Seattle, WA. March 27-28, 1996)

• TBD. Second international workshop on IGOS strategic planning

(GCOS/GOOS/GTOS, IGFA and others; Geneva)

• TBD Draft proposal for international implementation framework for IGOS

• Feb'97 Symposium on Integrated Observing Systems, American Meteorological

Society Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, February 2-7, 1997

Document IV-24

[no pagination]

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

March 22, 1996

Dr. Charles F. Kennel

Associate Administrator

for Mission to Planet Earth

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546

Dear Charlie:

The purpose of this letter is to endorse your effort to develop an internationally agreed

strategy for integrated global Earth observations. I have discussed this issue with Dr. D. James

Baker, my co-chair on the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of

the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and we both agree that this initiative

should be pursued. The CENR Task Force on Observations and Data Management chaired

by you and Dr. Robert Winokur of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

should continue to coordinate U.S. agency participation in this activity.

It is clear that future development of U.S. observing systems, both space-based and

in situ, must be well coordinated with complimentary efforts undertaken by other nations,

building on the excellent record of international cooperation achieved to date in the

study of the Earth's environment. Improving the integration of the planning and

implementation of observing systems in response to user requirements should benefit

both funding agencies and users.

I think the appropriate next step is to begin informal discussions with our international

colleagues about their perspectives on an integrated strategy. The concept paper drafted by

your Task Force provides a useful overview of many of the issues implicit in devising such a

strategy. It should serve as an excellent starting point for international discussions.

I have requested Mr. Peter Backlund to continue staffing this issue for the NSTC.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 667
668 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

Sincerely,

[signed]

Robert T. Watson

Associate Director for Environment

and

Co-Chair, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

CC: NOAA/Dr. Baker

NOAA/Dr. Winokur

Document IV-25

Document Title: Rear Admiral J. J. Dantone, Jr., U.S. Navy, Memorandum for Under

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), “Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission

with Attached Memorandum of Understanding Between NASA and the Defense Mapping

Agency,” 8 July 1996.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

NASA and the Department of Defense have always cooperated on programs of mutual interest. This

document reproduces the memorandum that specified the terms under which the Defense Mapping

Agency and NASA were to cooperate in the production of a high-quality digital terrain elevation

model. The project involved using the C-band microwave Shuttle synthetic aperture radar (SAR)

modified with a boom extended horizontally from the Shuttle payload bay to make possible an

interferometric SAR, capable of modeling the surface of Earth with high precision. The system also

included a cooperative mission with the German space agency that used an X-band antenna. 

[no page number]

[stamped “8 Jul 1996”]

DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY

MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ACQUISITION AND

TECHNOLOGY)

SUBJECT: Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM)

1. The Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) have completed negotiations on a Memorandum of

Understanding for the cooperative flight of the SRTM on the NASA Space Shuttle. This

mission will provide DMA with terrain height data from which we will generate near-global

Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) in support of military requirements.
2. SRTM will be a reflight, scheduled for May 2000 on the NASA Space Shuttle, of the

Spaceborne Imaging Radar/C-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) hardware, modified

with a boom and additional antenna to operate as an interferometer. The instrument will

be capable of collecting near-global, contiguous SAR and Interferometric SAR (IFSAR)

data covering all land areas between approximately 60° North and 56° South latitude that

can be processed to generate terrain height data with approximately 16 meters absolute

vertical accuracy at 1 second or arc latitude and longitude. DMA will receive

Interferometric Terrain Height Data and C-Band SAR data in the form of orthorectified

image strips. The terrain height data generated from the mission will satisfy the elevation

requirements for the DMA product DTED Level 2.

3. DMA is very pleased with this initiative to obtain data in support of Department of

Defense requirements for world terrain elevation data. We appreciate the strong support

that you and the senior leadership of the Department have given this endeavor.

4. Enclosed is a signed copy of the Memorandum of Understanding.

Enclosure a/s [signature]

J. J. DANTONE, Jr.

RADM, USN

cc:

USD(C)

DUSD(SPACE)

ASD(C31)

Chairman, JROC

Joint Staff (J-5)

REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING: [hand-checked]

Headquarters

8613 Lee Highway

Fairfax, Virginia 22031-2137

**********

[no page number]

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

AND

THE DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY

FOR A COOPERATIVE FLIGHT OF THE

SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSION

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 669
ARTICLE I: GENERAL

1. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (hereinafter referred to as NASA)

and the Defense Mapping Agency (hereinafter referred to as DMA) desire to extend fruitful

cooperation of previous joint projects and affirm their mutual interest in carrying out

further cooperative activities for Earth sciences. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

(SRTM) will consist of the Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C (SIR-C) and, following negotiations

with the German (DARA) and Italian (ASI) Space Agencies, the X-Band Synthetic Aperture

Radar (X-SAR). Both instruments will be modified to operate as interferometers. The

concept for SRTM has been developed in conjunction with scientists and engineers from

NASA, DMA and other Department of Defense (hereinafter referred.to as DOD) agencies.

SIR-C/X-S AR were flown on NASA’s SRL-1 and SRL-2 missions in April and October 1994.

2. The primary objective of SRTM will be to measure the topographic surface of the

Earth. SRTM will produce terrain height data for use by the civilian and defense

community as provided herein.

ARTICLE II: PURPOSE

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) defines the terms and conditions under which

NASA and DMA agree to cooperate on the SRTM mission. SRTM is described in the October

11, 1995 SRTM cost review package (See Attachment 1). Specifically, this MOU describes the

managerial, technical, and operational interfaces between NASA and DMA that will be

necessary to ensure continuation of and compatibility between their respective activities.

ARTICLE III: SCOPE

SRTM will be a reflight, on the NASA Space Shuttle, of the SIR-C/X-SAR hardware,

modified with a boom and additional antenna to operate as an interferometer. The

instrument will be capable of collecting near-global, contiguous SAR and Interferometric

SAR (IFSAR) [2]data covering all land areas between approximately 60° north and 54°

south latitude that can be processed to generate terrain height data with approximately 16

meter absolute vertical accuracy at 1 second of arc latitude and longitude. The terrain data

generated from the mission will satisfy the terrain height data set specifications, referred to

as Interferometric Terrain Height Data-2 (ITHD-2), described in Attachment 2.

ARTICLE IV: AUTHORITY

1. The authority for NASA entering into this MOU is Section 203(c) of the National

Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)).

2. The authority for DMA entering into this MOU is 32 Code of Federal Regulations

(C.F.R) Part 399.

ARTICLE V: NASA RESPONSIBILITIES

670 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 671

1. To implement this cooperative program, NASA will, in accordance with the SRTM

Implementation Plan to be developed, carry out the following responsibilities:

a) Provide the existing SIR-C/X-SAR hardware in functional condition, as well as any

infrastructure necessary for a reflight of such;

(b) Design the SRTM system in cooperation with DMA, secure or fabricate the

necessary additional components, and modify the existing SIR-C hardware and

software to operate as an interferometer;

(c) Integrate and test the SRTM system and prepare for launching by the Space Shuttle;

(d) Design and implement necessary ground systems for mission operations, SAR and

IFSAR data processing, and generating the registered C-band scansar digital elevation

model (DEM) data sets;

(e) Negotiate with DARA and ASI to provide for the upgrade, delivery, and

integration of the interferometric X-SAR instrument, along with the necessary

ground systems, mission operations and data processing support, and exchange of

data consistent with Article VIII of this agreement and Article IX of the NASA/DARA

SIR-C/X-SAR MOU as amended;

(f) Launch the SRTM system in late FY 2000 or earlier on the Space Shuttle in

accordance with the schedule as defined in the SRTM Implementation Plan;

[3] (g) Continue to examine and consult with DMA on alternatives for an earlier

launch in either FY 1998 or FY 1999 consistent with Attachment 3 (letters between the

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Administrator of

NASA);

(h) Operate the SRTM system, acquire, calibrate and process the SAR and IFSAR data

for each ascending and descending pass over land areas, and generate a strip of DEM

data sets in accordance with the schedule defined in the SRTM Implementation Plan

under development;

(i) Produce a mosaic of the strips of DEM data sets from each ascending and

descending orbit and use them to generate an ITHD-2 data set for DMA;

(j) Provide to DMA the C-Band SAR data from ascending and descending orbits into

orthorectified image strips that can be made into a mosaic (image data will be

provided in National Image Transfer Format-2 (NITF-2)); and,

(k) Consistent with Article VIII, archive and distribute data from SRTM:
672 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

ARTICLE VI: DMA RESPONSIBILITIES

1. To implement this cooperative program, DMA will, in accordance with the SRTM

Implementation Plan to be developed, carry out the following responsibilities:

(a) Function as a liaison to the DOD community for SRTM;

(b) Represent DOD by defining the data processing priorities;

(c) Provide technical guidance to NASA for preparation and delivery of data sets to

DMA;

(d) Provide technical review of SRTM, and appropriate representation at NASA

SRTM design reviews in accordance with the schedule outlined in the SRTM

Implementation Plan;

(e) Provide the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with the best available digital

topographic data base that will facilitate the verification of SRTM terrain height data

during the processing;

(f) Function as liaison to solicit support for SRTM-related joint research with the

Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) in the use of High Performance Computing

Centers (HPCC) for generation of SRTM global data sets free of usage fees to NASA;

[4] (g) Validate the terrain height data from NASA and populate the terrain height

data base for DMA accordingly;

(h) Produce a 3 second of arc latitude and longitude data set from the ITHD-2 data

set; and,

(i) Provide to NASA copies of the ITHD-2 data set and any data set generated from it

for distribution. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VIII, NASA shall not be

restricted from agency access to and use of any data set derived from SRTM.

Consistent with Article VIII, provide copies of the ITHD-2 data set and any data set

generated from it to other parties.

ARTICLE VII: POINTS OF CONTACT [omitted]

ARTICLE VIII: DATA RIGHTS AND RELEASE

1. It is the intent of the parties that no data from SRTM will be classified.

2. For purposes of Titles 5 and 10 of the United States Code, the raw phase history

information, ITHD-2, and strip DEM with 30 meter spatial resolution outside the United

States are under the control of DOD.
3. NASA retains the right to distribute raw (amplitude) and processed image data

obtained from SRTM. The data will be archived in the appropriate NASA data center and

made available to all users without restriction and at no more than the cost of fulfilling

the user request.

4. Terrain height data greater than or equal to three seconds of arc latitude and

longitude generated from SRTM may be released and distributed by NASA and DMA

without restrictions.

5. Raw phase history information, terrain height data of 1 second of arc latitude and

longitude (i.e., ITHD-2 data sets), or strip DEM with 30 meter spatial resolution, over the

United States may be released and distributed by NASA and DMA without restrictions.

6. Release of raw phase history information, terrain height data of 1 second of arc

latitude and longitude (i.e., ITHD-2 data sets), or strip DEM data sets with 30 meter spatial

resolution outside the United States will be in accordance with guidelines developed and

agreed jointly by DMA and NASA, provided nothing in these guidelines shall prevent

DOD from releasing this data for national security or security assistance purposes. The

Parties will consult at least annually to review these guidelines.

[7]

ARTICLE X: LIABILITY

1. The purpose of this clause is to establish a cross-waiver of liability between the Parties

and their related entities, in the interest of encouraging participation in the exploration

exploitation, and use of outer space. This cross-waiver of liability shall be broadly

construed to achieve this objective.

2. As used in this cross-waiver, the term:

(a) “Party” means a person or entity that signs this agreement;

(b) “Related Entity” means:

(i) a contractor or subcontractor or a Party at any tier;

(ii) a user or customer of a Party and any tier; or

(iii)a contractor or subcontractor of a user or customer of a Party at any tier.

“Contractor” and “Subcontractors” include suppliers of any kind;

(c) “Damage” means:

(i) bodily injury to, or other impairment of health of, or death of, any person;

(ii) damage to, loss of, or loss of use of any property;

(iii)loss of revenue or profits; or

(iv) other direct, indirect, or consequential damage;

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 673
674 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

(d) “Payload” means any property to be flown or used on or in the Shuttle; and

(e) For the purposes of this Agreement, “Protected Space Operations” means all

launch vehicle and payload activities on Earth, in outer space, or in transit

between Earth and outer space done in implementation of this Agreement.

Protected Space Operations begins at the signature of this Agreement and ends

when all activities done in implementation of this Agreement are completed. It

includes, but is not limited to:

(i) research, design, development, test, manufacture, assembly, integration,

operation, or use of: the Space Shuttle, transfer vehicles, payloads, related

support equipment, and facilities and services.

(ii) all activities related to ground support, test, training, simulation, or

guidance and control equipment and related facilities or services. “Protected

Space Operations” excludes activities on Earth which are conducted on

return from space to develop further a payload’s product or process for use

other than for Shuttle-related activities necessary to complete

implementation of this Agreement.

[8] 3. (a) Each Party agrees to a cross-waiver of liability pursuant to which each Party

waives all clams against any of the entities or persons listed in sub-paragraphs

(i) through (iv) of this section based on damage arising out of Protected Space

Operations. This cross-waiver shall apply only if the person, entity, or property

causing the damage is involved in protected space causing the damage is

involved in protected space [sic] operations under a NASA agreement for

Shuttle services and the person, entity, or property damaged is damaged by

virtue of its involvement in protected space operations under a NASA

agreement for Shuttle services. The cross-waiver shall apply to any claims for

damage, whatever the legal basis for such claims, including but not limited to

delict and tort (including negligence of every degree and kind) and contract,

against:

(i) another Party;

(ii) any party who has signed a NASA agreement that includes Shuttle

services;

(iii)a related entity of another Party;

(iv) the employees of any of the entities identified in sub-paragraphs (i) and

(iii) of this section.

(b) In addition, each Party shall extend the cross-waiver of liability as set forth in

sub-paragraph (a) of this section to its own related entities by requiring them, by

contract or otherwise, to agree to waive all claims against the entities or persons

identified in paragraphs (a)(i) through (a)(iv) of this section.

(c) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, this cross-waiver of

liability shall not be applicable to:
(i) claims between a Party and its own related entity or between its own

related entities;

(ii) claims made by a natural person, his/her estate, survivors, or subrogees

for injury or death of such natural person, except when a subrogee is one

of the Parties;

(iii)claims for damage caused by willful misconduct;

(iv) intellectual property claims;

(v) contract claims between the Parties based on the express contractual

provisions of this Agreement;

(vi) claims for damage based on a failure of the Parties of their related

entities to flow down the cross-waiver. 

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create the basis for a claim or suit

where none would otherwise exist.

[9] ARTICLE XI: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

NASA and DMA agree that any dispute as to the interpretation or implementation of this

Agreement shall be resolved through consultation between the points of contact identified

in Article 7. Any dispute not resolved at this level shall first be referred to the NASA

Associate for Mission to Planet Earth and the Director of DMA for resolution. Any dispute

which cannot be resolved at this level shall be referred to the NASA Deputy Administrator

and the DOD Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology for settlement.

ARTICLE XII: ENTRY INTO FORCE, DURATION AND TERMINATION

This agreement shall enter into force upon the last signature and shall remain in force for

eight years after the launch of SRTM. The agreement may be amended at any time by

mutual written agreement and may be terminated by either of the consenting parties after

ninety (90) days notification of intent to terminate.

For DMA: For NASA:

[signature] [signature]

J. J. Dantone, Jr. W. F. Townsend

Rear Admiral, USN Deputy Associate Administrator for

Mission to Planet Earth (Programs)

Date [handwritten “8 Jul 96”] Date [handwritten “6/7/96”]

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 675
Document IV-26

Document Title: NASA, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America and the National

Space Development Agency of Japan for Joint Development of the Tropical Rainfall

Measuring Mission,” 20 October 1995.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

The success of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) results in large part from the

partnership between NASA and NASDA in the design and execution of this mission, which was

designed to gather detailed observations of rainfall in the tropics, regions that are generally poorly

covered by Earthbound observations of precipitation. NASA provided four instruments, including the

Microwave Imager for the spacecraft, and NASDA provided one, the Precipitation Radar. NASDA

launched TRMM on 27 November 1997 from Tanegashima Space Center aboard an HII rocket. In

addition to specifying the contributions of both parties to the agreement and various legal

arrangements, this document specifies the data exchange policies that govern the partnership. (See

Appendix.)

[title page]

Memorandum of Understanding

between the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

of the United States of America

and the

National Space Development Agency of Japan

For Joint Development of the

Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission

[2]

CONTENTS

Preamble

I. Purpose

II. Mission Description and Participation

676 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
III. NASA Responsibilities

IV. NASDA Responsibilities

V. Program and Project Management

VI. Scientific Investigations

VII. Funding and Limits of Obligation

VIII. Data Distribution

IX. Coping with Anomaly in Development Phase and Schedule Impacts

X. Coping with Anomaly In-Flight

XI. Personnel Accommodation

XII. Necessary Equipment

XIII. Transfer of Technical Data and Goods

XIV. Inventions and Patent Rights

XV. Customs and Taxes

XVI. Public Information

XVII. Liability

XVIII. Registration

XIX. Settlement of Disputes

XX. Implementing Arrangements

XXI. Amendment

XXII. Entry into Force, Duration and Termination

Appendix IEOS Data Exchange Principles

[3]

Preamble

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America

(hereinafter referred to as “NASA”) and the National Space Development Agency of Japan

(hereinafter referred to as “NASDA”), together hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”,

Recognizing that tropical rainfall is essential to the distribution of water throughout the

Earth system, and over two-thirds of the worldwide precipitation occurs in the tropics,

releasing the energy that helps to power the global atmospheric circulation which shapes

both weather and climate;

Recognizing that tropical rainfall also plays a key role in the sporadic "El Niño" climate

anomalies that trigger floods and droughts around the world, and measuring tropical

rainfall from the Earth's surface is difficult because of its high variability, and moreover,

surface observations are not feasible over the vast ocean and jungle regions of the tropics;

Noting that advances in technology now make it possible to obtain these essential

measurements from space;

Considering that in 1972, the first imaging microwave radiometer orbits on NASA's

Nimbus-5 gave evidence that instantaneous rainfall rates could be measured from space,

and in the early 1980's, the Communications Research Laboratory of Japan (hereinafter

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 677
referred to as "CRL") developed an airborne microwave radar and radiometer system to

investigate the interference of rain in satellite-to-ground communications;

Recalling that in 1986, the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Science Steering

Group, a team of experts in atmospheric, oceanic, and remote sensing sciences, began

investigating the scientific justification and implementation process of a satellite mission

to study systematically tropical rainfall, and in early 1987, NASA, NASDA, and CRL

instituted a study of the feasibility of implementing TRMM as a Joint space project;

Considering that the resulting three-year TRMM mission is a part of a systematic,

integrated program designed to increase the extent and accuracy of rainfall and latent

heat measurements and provide strides in weather and climate research;

Noting that the goals of TRMM are as follows:

(1) to advance the Earth System Science objective of understanding the global energy

and water cycle by means of providing distributions of rainfall and inferred heat over

the global tropics; [4]

(2) to understand the mechanisms through which tropical rainfall and its variability

influence global circulation and to improve our ability to model these processes in

order to predict global circulation and rainfall variability at monthly and longer time

scales; and

(3) to evaluate a space-based system for rainfall measurement; and

Noting that NASA and NASDA will share data from TRMM for research, operational and

other uses under the terms of the International Earth Observing system (IEOS) Data

Exchange Principles (DEP) contained in the Appendix to this MOU.

Considering the above mentioned circumstances, have agreed as follows:

Article I - Purpose

The Purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as the

"MOU") is to establish the terms and conditions under which NASA and NASDA will

cooperate in the joint development, launch, operations and use of the Tropical Rainfall

Measuring Mission (hereinafter referred to as "TRMM") for peaceful purposes.

Article II - Mission Description and Participation

1. The primary objective of the TRMM Project is to measure the distribution and

variability of tropical rainfall and latent heat releases on a monthly basis for three

years to advance the scientific understanding of the global energy and water cycles.

678 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 679

2. Accordingly, an observatory (hereinafter referred to as the "TRMM Observatory"),

consisting of a satellite to be provided by NASA, carrying four NASA-provided

instruments and one NASDA-provided instrument, is planned for launch in 1997. The

TRMM Observatory shall be launched using an H-II launch vehicle provided by

NASDA for injection into a near-circular orbit at a nominal initial altitude of 380

kilometers with an inclination of 35 degrees. Launch shall be from the Yoshinobu

Launch Complex of NASDA's Tanegashima Space Center located on the

Tanegashima Island of Japan (hereinafter referred to as the “launch site”).

3. After an initial checkout period and a reduction in altitude to 350 kilometers, the

TRMM Observatory is planned to be operated for three years at a nominal altitude of

350 km. The TRMM Observatory shall be operated by NASA utilizing its Tracking and

Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) for command, control, data acquisition, and

routine tracking. Science data received at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

(GSFC) shall be processed by the TRMM Science Data and Information System

(TSDIS) and the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS).

Science data will also be sent to the NASDA Earth Observation Center and processed

by the TRMM Data Processing System and Earth Observation Information [5] System

(EOIS). The NASDA-provided Communications and Broadcasting Engineering Test

Satellite (COMETS) shall be included in an experimental manner to relay mutually

selected mission data from the TRMM Observatory to the Japanese ground station

located at Tsukuba, Japan.

Article III - NASA Responsibilities

To implement this cooperative program, NASA shall use its best efforts to carry out the

following responsibilities:

1. Development of Instruments

Design, develop, produce, calibrate and space-qualify the following rainfall

instruments which, together with the NASDA-provided Precipitation Radar (PR) are

primary to the TRMM mission success criteria:

a. TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI)

b. Visible Infrared Scanner (VIRS)

In addition, design, develop, produce, calibrate and space-qualify the following EOS

instruments, which are Flights of Opportunity for the NASA EOS Program

c. Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) 

d. Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS)

These four instruments together will be referred to as the “NASA-provided instruments.”

The TMI and VIRS together with the PR will be referred to as the "rainfall instruments"

and data obtained from these instruments will referred to as the "rainfall data."
2. Development of and Integration of Instruments with the TRMM Spacecraft

a. Design, develop, produce, and space-qualify the TRMM spacecraft;

b. Integrate the NASA-provided instruments and the NASDA-provided

Precipitation Radar (PR) with the TRMM spacecraft to create the TRMM

Observatory;

c. Provide NASDA with a spacecraft interface simulator designed to verify the

PR-to-spacecraft interfaces with regard to command and data handling

software, optical signals, bus hardware, and the non-optical functions;

d. Provide NASDA with a TRMM spacecraft-to-PR drill template and a set of test

kinematic mounts; [6]

e. Obtain all necessary national and international radio frequency approvals for

TRMM for U.S. territory and in-orbit operations at the appropriate time;

f. Provide NASDA with a NASA User Test System designed to show

TRMM/COMETS system compatibility with regard to command and

telemetry data; and

g. Provide necessary support to NASDA for the import of test pyrotechnic

devices into the United States.

3. Shipping and Launch Site Activities

a. Provide all shipping and handling of the TRMM Observatory until the TRMM

Observatory is handed over to NASDA for H-II integration, and package and

ship the TRMM Observatory, including the test equipment needed at launch,

to the launch site;

b. Perform all required post-shipping tests of the TRMM Observatory at the

launch site;

c. Perform the radio-frequency (RF) end-to-end test at the launch site for

command and telemetry flow;

d. Support NASDA in its application for the Reaction Control System (RCS)

special loading license, as necessary;

e. Provide the hydrazine fueling and pressurization of the Reaction Control

System (RCS) of the TRMM Observatory;

f. Support a mutually-agreed-upon integration and test program for the TRMM

Observatory, with the H-II launch vehicle;

g. Determine TRMM Observatory readiness for launch;

680 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
h. Maintain a launch team at the launch site to perform all observatory-related

launch activities; and

i. Pack and ship all materials to be returned from the launch site to GSFC.

[7]

4. Operation after the Separation of the TRMM Observatory from the Launch Vehicle

a. Control the TRMM Observatory after separation from the launch vehicle,

which includes control and monitoring of all instruments including the PR;

b. Utilize and operate the TDRSS and GSFC institutional support facilities for

communications, tracking, telemetry and command links to the TRMM

Observatory;

c. Utilize and operate the Mission Operations Center at GSFC to support the

operation of the TRMM Observatory, and to assure successful mission

control;

d. Perform an initial on-orbit check-out of the TRMM Observatory with NASDA

supporting the planning and data analysis for the PR checkout;

e. Plan and conduct the operation of TRMM including the PR with the support

of NASDA for PR planning and PR engineering data analysis;

f. Plan and conduct calibration and validation to verify performance of NASAprovided instruments;

g. Operate the TRMM Observatory as required to perform mutually-agreedupon telemetry, tracking and command and science data experiments

designed to demonstrate successfully the capability of NASDA's COMETS

data relay satellite and meet Space Network Interoperability Panel (SNIP)

demonstration testing objectives; and

h. Operate the TRMM Observatory after the 3 year mission life for possible

extended duration. Termination of the operation and the disposal of the

TRMM Observatory shall be decided with agreement from NASDA.

5. Data System

a. Design, develop, and operate the NASA TSDIS to capture, produce,

distribute, and archive all mission data in accordance with the International

Earth Observing System (IEOS) Data Exchange Principles (DEP) in the

Appendix;

b. Provide all PR housekeeping data and other data necessary to check the PR

status, as mutually agreed;

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 681
c. Receive TRMM mission data at White Sands Complex (WSC) and produce

TRMM Level Zero Processed (LZP) data; [8]

d. Provide LZP data, NASDA-requested Quick Look (QL) data, NASA-provided

instrument calibration data and the other necessary data to perform data

processing at NASDA, as mutually agreed;

e. Provide the higher level products other than LZP data to NASDA when

available, as mutually agreed;

f. Provide ground truth data to NASDA, as mutually agreed;

g. Provide NASDA with NASA algorithms used to generate standard products,

as mutually agreed;

h. Provide NASA's catalogue data to NASDA, as mutually agreed; and

i. Establish the network interfaces mutually agreed with NASDA for providing

some of mission data, mission operation information through EOSDIS-EOIS

communication lines.

6. Safety

NASA shall comply with NASDA's safety requirements and safety instructions, with

assistance from NASDA.

7. Other

a. Develop and maintain instrument-to-spacecraft interface control specifications,

mission specifications, Operation and Interface Specification (OIS), and flight

operation plans, as detailed in the TRMM Implementation Plan (TRMM IP);

b. Hold meetings and reviews periodically in the United States of America, as

required and mutually agreed to carry out the responsibilities set forth by this

MOU;

c. Exchange personnel and information with NASDA, as needed, to address

engineering, operations, and science issues; and

d. Consult with NASDA on arrangements related to radio-frequency interference

issues.

[9]

Article IV – NASDA Responsibilities

To implement this cooperative project, NASDA shall use its best efforts to carry out the

following responsibilities:

682 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
1. Development of Instrument

a. Design, develop, produce, calibrate, and space-qualify the PR;

b. Provide all shipping and handling of the PR, from Japan to the integration site at

GSFC, including the test equipment required for integration and testing at GSFC;

c. Perform all post-shipping tests of the PR at the integration site (GSFC), as

mutually agreed;

d. Support a mutually-agreed-upon integration and test program of the PR with the

TRMM Observatory; and

e. Pack and ship the PR ground support equipment (GSE) to be returned from

GSFC to Japan.

2. Development of Launch Vehicle and Launch Site Facilities

a. Design, develop, produce and space-qualify the H-II launch vehicle including the

Payload Attach Fitting (PAF);

b. Deliver a test PAF to the GSFC for NASA to perform structural test and

integration test of the TRMM Observatory;

c. Deliver a flight PAF to GSFC to perform interface testing of the H-II and the

TRMM Observatory and transport the flight PAF to the launch site for integration

with the TRMM Observatory;

d. With the support of NASA, provide six test pyrotechnic devices; and

e. Provide the facilities required at the launch site to perform all launch operations,

as mutually agreed.

3. Shipping and Launch Site Activities

a. Provide the launch vehicle including the launch vehicle test equipment required

at the launch site; [10]

b. With NASA support, integrate the TRMM Observatory with the H-II launch vehicle;

c. Perform launch operations of the launch vehicle at the launch site;

d. Provide NASA with Self Contained Atmosphere Protection Equipment (SCAPE)

suits for hazardous operations, as mutually agreed;

e. Provide necessary support to NASA for transportation and launch site activities in

Japan related to the TRMM Observatory, as mutually agreed;

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 683
684 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

f. Provide real-time launch operation information to the designated NASA data

pick-up point at a mutually-agreed-upon point, as mutually agreed;

g. Support the RF end-to-end test, including obtaining all necessary radio frequency

approvals required by the Government of Japan;

h. Apply for Reaction Control System (RCS) special loading license with support

from NASA and support NASA in the RCS hydrazine fueling and pressurization,

as mutually agreed;

i. Determine when all launch systems are ready for launch; and

j. Launch the TRMM Observatory to the mutually-agreed-upon insertion orbit and

deploy the TRMM Observatory from the launch vehicle.

4. Operation after the Separation of the TRMM Observatory

a. Support planning and data analysis for PR initial on-orbit check-out;

b. Integrate PR operation requests and support NASA's planning and conducting of

PR operations including data analysis to verify proper instrument operations;

c. Utilize and operate the COMETS Data Relay Satellite and Tsukuba Space

Center/NASDA to perform mutually-agreed-upon TRMM/COMETS data relay

capability experiments; and

d. Plan and conduct calibration and validation to verify performance of the PR. [11]

5. Data Systems

a. Design, develop, and operate the NASDA TRMM data system to capture,

produce, distribute and archive all PR mission data and other sensor mission data,

as mutually agreed, in accordance with the IEOS DEP in the Appendix;

b. Provide the processed data of PR and other sensor products to NASA, as mutually

agreed, when available;

c. Provide NASA with the PR calibration data and ground truth data, as mutually

agreed;

d. Provide NASA with NASDA algorithms used to generate standard products, as

mutually agreed;

e. Provide NASDA’s catalogue data to NASA, as mutually agreed; and

f. Establish the network interfaces mutually agreed with NASA for providing the

mission operation information through EOSDIS-EOIS communication lines.
6. Safety

NASDA is responsible for the overall safety control of the launch, including the TRMM

launch operation at Tanegashima Space Center performed by NASA. NASDA shall assist

NASA in its efforts to comply with Japanese safety regulations.

7. Other

a. Develop and maintain spacecraft-to-launch vehicle Interface Control

Specifications (ICS), launch operation ICS, TRMM/COMETS ICS, a

TRMM/COMETS experiment plan and procedure, and PR Instrument

Operation Documents as detailed in the TRMM IP;

b. Hold meetings and reviews periodically in Japan, as required and mutually

agreed, to carry out the responsibilities set forth by this MOU;

c. Exchange personnel and information with NASA, as needed, to address

engineering, operations, and science issues; and

d. Provide necessary support to NASA on arrangements related to radio-frequency

interference issues.

[“Article V – Program and Project Management” section omitted]

[“Article VI – Scientific Investigations” section omitted]

[“Article VII – Funding and Limits of Obligation” section omitted]

[15]

Article VIII - Data Distribution

1. NASA and NASDA shall share all TRMM data and make such data available to other

users for research, operational and other uses under the terms of the IEOS DEP

(contained in the Appendix to this MOU). The shared data shall include all products

from the NASA-provided instruments, the NASDA-provided instrument, and ground truth

data used to validate the TRMM products.

2. For the purposes of the DEP, NASA and NASDA are joint Data Providing Agencies

(DPAs) for the TRMM instrument data and agree that such data shall be distributed to all

users without restriction, in a manner consistent with applicable laws and regulations.

3. NASA and NASDA shall each create and maintain a catalogue of TRMM data

acquired and processed at their facilities, exchange this information by means of

standardized formats, and make it freely available to users. NASA and NASDA shall

establish interoperative capability between their respective catalogue systems.

4. The analyzed results from TRMM shall be made available to the general scientific

community through publication in appropriate journals or presentations at scientific

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 685
conferences as soon as possible and consistent with standard scientific practices. The

publication shall indicate thereon, as appropriate, that the publication is based on results

obtained from the joint NASA-NASDA TRMM mission. Each Party shall take necessary

measures that NASA, NASDA or their related researchers shall provide a copy of reports

and/or publications to the other Party freely. And in the event such reports or

publications are copyrighted, both Parties shall take necessary steps that NASA and

NASDA shall be granted a royalty free right under the copyright to reproduce, use, and

distribute such copyrighted work for their purpose by the copyright holder.

[“Article IX – Coping with Anomaly in Development Phase and Schedule Impacts” section

omitted]

[“Article X – Coping with Anomaly In-Flight” section omitted]

[“Article XI – Personnel Accommodation” section omitted]

[“Article XII – Necessary Equipment” section omitted]

[“Article XIII – Transfer of Technical Data and Goods” section omitted]

[“Article XII – Necessary Equipment’ section omitted]

[“Article XIII – Transfer of Technical Data and Goods’ section omitted]

[“Article XIV – Inventions and Patent Rights” section omitted]

[“Article XV – Customs and Taxes” section omitted]

[“Article XVI – Public Information” section omitted]

[“Article XVII – Liability” section omitted]

[“Article XVIII – Registration” section omitted]

[“Article XIX – Settlement of Disputes” section omitted]

[“Article XX – Implementing Arrangements” section omitted]

[“Article XXI – Amendment” section omitted]

[“Article XXII - Entry into Force, Duration and Termination” section omitted]

[24]

Appendix

IEOS DATA EXCHANGE PRINCIPLES

The Data Exchange Principles contained in this document establish the basis on which the

Agencies listed below (hereinafter referenced as the "Agencies") will share the data from the

International Earth Observing System (IEOS) among themselves and make such data

available to other users. These Agencies are the four Agencies who are responsible for the

Earth Observation programmes of the Space Station partners and who will act as

Delegations with respect to implementation of the Principles, along with the operational

organisations closely related to them. The Agencies are: the European Space Agency (ESA)

along with the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

(EUMETSAT) [to be confirmed]; the United States National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) along with the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA); the Japanese Science and Technology Agency (STA) along with

the National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA), the Ministry of International

Trade and Industry of Japan (MITI), the Japan Environment Agency (JEA), and the Japan

Meteorological Agency (JMA); and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA).

686 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
The IEOS is currently composed of the following platforms and their corresponding Earth

Observation instruments which are listed in the IEOS Implementation Plan: the NASA

Earth Observing System (EOS), beginning with EOS-AM1; the ENVISAT-1 element of the

ESA Polar Orbit Earth Observation Mission (POEM) programme; the NOAA Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental Satellites (POES), beginning with NOAA-N; the Japanese Earth

Observing System (JEOS) beginning with the Advanced Earth Observing Satellite

(ADEOS); and the NASA/Japanese Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). The

IEOS Agencies will endeavor to include future Earth Observation missions, as appropriate,

within the IEOS framework, including application of these Data Exchange Principles.

Any Agency may propose an addition to the IEOS. With the unanimous agreement of all

Agencies, a new element may be added to the IEOS and its provider may become an

Agency for purposes of these Data Exchange Principles.

The following Principles address the criteria of access and utilisation of data from the

above platforms. Modalities of implementation will be agreed by the parties in the IEOS

Implementation Plan. Detailed Terms and Conditions for the practical execution of these

Principles will be documented in the IEOS Implementation Plan and agreed by the

Agencies. The definitions attached to these Data Exchange Principles are an integral part

of them, and will be referred to for the correct implementation of all arrangements and

cooperative activities carried out in the IEOS. [25]

1. All IEOS Data will be available for peaceful purposes to all users on a nondiscriminatory basis and in a timely manner.

2. There will be no period of exclusive data use. Where the need to provide validated

data is recognized, any initial period of exclusive data use should be limited and

explicitly defined. The goal should be release of data in some preliminary form within

three months after the start of routine reception of instrument data.

3. All IEOS Data will be available for the use of each of the Agencies and its designated

users at the lowest possible cost for non-commercial use in the following categories:

Research, Applications, and Operational Use for the Public Benefit.

4. Agencies which designate users for Research Use and for Applications Use will do so

through an Announcement of Opportunity or similar process. The designation will

include a definition of the data to be provided. Research Users shall be required to

submit their results for publication in the scientific literature and Applications Users

shall be required to publish their results in a technical report and both shall be required

to provide their results to the designating Agency and to the Data Providing Agency.

5. Any of the Agencies may designate national users of the respective countries or

Member States of the Agencies as it deems appropriate to be given access to all IEOS

data at the lowest possible cost for Non-commercial Operational Use for the Public

Benefit, provided the designating Agency assumes responsibility for ensuring that all

the terms and conditions for data use are met. This use will have to be reported to the

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 687
Data Providing Agency on the basis of commonly agreed criteria including type,

usage, and final destination of the data. Designation of users outside the national

territory of the Agencies or their member states (e.g., international organisations and

agencies in non-participating countries) for Non-commercial Operational Use for the

Public Benefit will be done only with the agreement of the Data Providing Agency.

6. For purposes other than 3 above, the specified data will be made available in

accordance with terms and conditions to be established by the Data Providing Agency.

7. Each Data Providing Agency will fulfill the data requests of the other Agencies and

their designated users to the maximum extent possible. In the event that these data

requests exceed the Data Providing Agency's capacity, the Data Providing Agency and

the designating Agency will pursue alternative arrangements to fulfill such requests.

8. All data required by the Agencies and their designated users will be made available on

condition that the recipient agrees to applicable intellectual property rights terms

and conditions and/or proprietary rights consistent with these Data Exchange

Principles, and ensures that the data shall not be distributed to non-designated

parties, nor used in ways other than those for which the data were provided, without

the written consent of the Data Providing Agency. [26]

9. Any of the Agencies may delegate some of its functions to other entities; in which case,

such Agency will remain responsible for ensuring compliance with these Data

Exchange Principles.

10. Agencies will harmonise criteria and priorities for data acquisition, archiving, and

purging, in consultation with other relevant organisations.

Definitions

The following Definitions apply in the context of these Principles:

Applications Use of data is a limited proof of concept study toward: 1) the solution of an

applied program to demonstrate the utility of the data; or 2) the demonstration of the

operational use of the data.

Data refers to original Earth observation sensor output and higher level products created

from it by the Data Providing Agency as part of the standard set of products.

Data Providing Agency is the Agency which has primary responsibility for the distribution

of data from a particular instrument or is the owner of such data. The Data Providing

Agency will be defined in agreements between the operator of the platform carrying the

instrument and the instrument provider should the two be different.

Lowest Possible Cost for designated users is no more than the additional cost of

resources, above the cost of the normal planned data system operations required to fill a

specific user request. These costs may include media, labour, expenses for operating and

maintaining equipment, as well as delivery charges for mail or electronic transmission.

688 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 689

The above costs should not include non-recurring costs such as research, development,

and space segment capital cost. However, it may include a reasonable amount towards

additional capital cost of data provision.

Non-commercial Use is the utilisation of data to provide a service for the public benefit as

distinguished from conferring an economic advantage on a particular user or group of

users.

Non-commercial Operational Use for the Public Benefit is the utilisation of data to

provide a regular service for the public benefit as distinguished from conferring an

economic advantage on a particular user or group of users. An example is the use of data

to carry out a mandate of environmental observation and prediction. These activities can

be carried out by national or international agencies or other entities designated by these

agencies to support their public benefit mandate. Such a user may be requested by the

Data Providing Agency and/or the designating Agency to provide a periodic status report

back to them. [27]

Non-discriminatory Basis means that all users in a clearly defined data use category can

obtain data on the same terms and conditions, and the categories are defined in such a

way that all potential users will be included in categories with access to the data.

Research Use of data is utilisation of data in a study or investigation which aims to

establish facts or principles.

Document IV-27

Document Title: Letter from W. F. Townsend, Acting Associate Administrator for Mission

to Planet Earth, to Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, “Name Change,” 24 November

1997.

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

In late 1997, as part of a general reorganization of NASA’s offices, NASA Administrator Daniel

Goldin directed the Office of Mission to Planet Earth to change its name to the Earth Science

Enterprise. This memo codifies that change, but it also raises other possible names for the office in an

effort to make the name more descriptive of its true focus. Mr. Goldin chose not to change his mind.

The memo illustrates the difficulty of describing in a program title the breadth of NASA’s Earth science

research.

[no page number]

[Stamped Nov 24 1997]
TO: A/Administrator

FROM: Y/Acting Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth

SUBJECT: Name Change

We are preparing all the necessary material to formalize changing the name of the

Enterprise from Mission to Planet Earth to Earth Science, as you requested in the October

30, 1997 Senior Management Council Meeting. However, before we submit the necessary

NASA Program Directive change for your signature, I wanted to make sure that we take

maximum advantage of this opportunity to select a new name that is more descriptive of

what we really do. In that regard I want to call to your attention other possibilities that you

should at least consider. We have identified several candidates, including pros and cons

for each. The candidates and key considerations follow. In order that we can move

expeditiously to complete the name change, please check your preference.

[CHECKED] Earth Science. Your choice clearly has the virtue of brevity as well as

parallelism with Space Science. However, most of the public associates Earth Science with

geology, so this title will not readily communicate the breadth of our research. It also does

not distinguish the applications potential that is clearly different from Space Science.

___________ Earth Science & Applications. This option acknowledges directly that there

are near-term practical uses of the information we generate. It may cause confusion with

the European Space Agency (ESA). This is my personal preference.

___________ Earth System Science. This option more accurately conveys the breadth of

our research, though it requires some explanation. It also provides some distinction from

other research agencies with less breadth. It does not recognize our applications efforts.

___________ Earth System Science & Applications. Somewhat longer, but not out of line

with the titles of two of the other three Enterprises.

_____________Other

We have polled our advisory committee and conclude that any of these alternatives

are workable.

[2] With either your indication that you prefer to stick with Earth Science or a new

preference, we will move immediately to make the office documentation changes required

by NHB 1101.3, and begin using the new name in all our publications and correspondence.

[signature]

W. F. Townsend

Concurrence: [signature] [handwritten] 12/11/97

Daniel S. Goldin Date

Administrator

cc:

Z/Mr. A. Ladwig

Y/Mr. M. Mann

YF/Mr. M. Luther

YM/Mr. D. Norton

YS/Dr. N. Maynard

690 NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM
Biographical Appendix

A

Loren W. Acton (1936– ) earned a B.A. degree from Montana State University in 1959 and a Ph.D. from the

University of Colorado in 1965. Trained as a solar physicist, Dr. Acton was a Payload Specialist aboard STS51F/Spacelab 2. STS-51F carried 13 major experiments in astronomy, astrophysics, and life sciences. In 1985, he

was the Senior Staff Scientist with the Space Sciences Laboratory, Lockheed Research Laboratory in Palo Alto,

California. See “Acton, Loren W.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History

Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

Bruce Michael Alberts (1938– ) earned a B.A. in biomedical sciences from Harvard College in 1960 and a Ph.D.

in biophysics from Harvard University in 1965. Since 1993, he has served as the President of the National

Academy of Sciences and as Chairman of the National Research Council. See Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th

Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

B

D. James Baker (1937– ) served as Administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration in the Department of Commerce from 1993 to 2001. See Who’s Who in America, 1996, New

Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1996.

Bodo Bartocha (1928– ) earned his B.S. in 1951, M.S. in 1953, and Ph.D. (inorganic chemistry) in 1956. He

has served as an adjunct professor in the Arizona Research Laboratory of the University of Arizona since 1993.

Previous positions include: Head, Propellant Branch, U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, 1958 to 1961; Director

of Research and Acting Director, Development, Research, and Development Management, Propellant Plant,

1961 to 1964; Deputy Chief Scientist, International Research and Development Management, Office of Naval

Research, 1964 to 1966; Assistant Technology Director, Advanced Planning and Development, Naval Ordnance

Station, 1966 to1967; Staff Associate and Deputy Head, Office of Planning and Policy Studies, Policy Analysis,

National Science Foundation, 1967 to1970; Deputy Executive Secretary, Executive Council, Management, 1970

to1971; Executive Assistant to the Assistant Director, National and International Programs, 1971; and Fellow,

American Association for the Advancement of Science. See “Bartocha, Bodo,” in American Men and Women of

Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Jacques Maurice Beckers (1934– ) earned his Ph.D. from the University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, in 1969,

and immigrated to the United States in 1962. He currently holds a position with the National Solar Observatory,

Sacramento Peak, in Sunspot, New Mexico. Other positions include: Senior Researcher at the National Solar

Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, where he served as Director from 1993 to 1998; Astrophysicist with the

European Solar Observatory, Germany, 1988 to 1993; Director, Advanced Development Program, National

Optical Astronomy Observatory, 1984 to 1988; and Director, Multiple Mirror Telescope Observatory, 1979 to

1984. He is a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.

See “Beckers, Jacques Maurice,” in Who’s Who in America, 1956, 10th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s

Who, 1955. 

James M. Beggs (1926– ) was nominated by President Reagan on 1 June 1981 to become the sixth Administrator

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Beggs took his oath of office on 10 July 1981. Prior to his

appointment as NASA Administrator, he had been Executive Vice President and a Director of General Dynamics

Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri. He served with NASA from 1968 to 1969 as Associate Administrator, Office of

Advanced Research and Technology. From 1969 to 1973, he was Undersecretary of Transportation. He went to

Summa Corporation, Los Angeles, California, as Managing Director of Operations and joined General Dynamics

in January 1974. Before NASA he also had been with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, in Sharon, Pennsylvania,

and Baltimore, Maryland, for 13 years. His resignation from NASA was effective 25 February 1986. Since leaving

NASA, Mr. Beggs has worked as a consultant. See “Beggs, James M.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 691
Orville George Bentley (1918– ) earned a B.S. from South Dakota State College in 1942, an M.S. in biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1947, and a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in 1950. Dr. Bentley

served as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Science and Education from 1982 to 1989. See Who’s Who in

America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

Lloyd V. Berkner (1905–1967) was involved in most of the early spaceflight activities of the United States.

Trained as an electrical engineer, he was interested in atmospheric propagation of radio waves, but after World

War II became a scientific entrepreneur of the first magnitude. He was heavily involved in the planning for and

execution of the International Geophysical Year in 1957 and 1958, and served in a variety of positions in

Washington, DC, where he could influence the course of science policy. See “Berkner, Lloyd V.,” biographical

file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Warren Walt Berning (1920– ) is a physicist by training but also an expert in meteorology. He is currently a

Senior Scientist at the Physical Science Laboratory of New Mexico State University. In 1947, he started a career

with the Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground as a Meteorologist, and stayed until 1950.

From 1950 through 1967, he worked as a Physicist at Aberdeen. See “Berning, Warren Walt,” in American Men

and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Charles A. Berry earned a B.A. degree from the University of California Berkeley in 1945, an M.D. from the

University of California Medical School in San Francisco in 1947, and an M.A. in public health from the Harvard

School of Public Health in 1956. He began working with NASA in 1958 when he participated in the selection and

flight monitoring of the Mercury 7 astronauts. From 1963 to 1971, Berry served as Director of Medical Research

and Operations at the Johnson Space Center. In 1971, Dr. Berry became NASA Director for Life Sciences at NASA

Headquarters, where he remained until retirement in 1973. See “Berry, Charles A.,” biographical file, NASA

Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

J. David Bohlin (1939– ) has been the Senior Scientific Program Executive at NASA Headquarters since 1996.

Prior to his current position, he served as Chief Scientist of the Space Physics Division from 1990 through 1995

and as Chief of Solar Physics from 1978 through 1990. He started his career in 1970 with the Naval Research

Laboratory as an Astrophysicist of Solar Physics. See “Bohlin, David J.,” in American Men and Women of Science,

1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

George E. Brown, Jr., (1920–1999) (D-CA) served in the House of Representatives from 3 January 1963 to 

3 January 1971, and then again from 3 January 1973 to the present. He chaired the House Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology for a number of years, and currently is its ranking minority member. See

Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1996, Alexandria, VA: CQ Staff Directories, Inc., 1997.

C

Anthony J. Calio (1936– ) earned a B.A. in physics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1953. Calio also did

graduate work in physics at the University of Pennsylvania and the Carnegie Institute of Technology. Dr. Calio

joined NASA in 1963 and began work at the Electronics Research Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Calio

became Director of Science and Applications at the Johnson Space Center in 1969. From 30 November 1975 to

1 October 1977, Dr. Calio served as the Deputy Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Science at NASA

Headquarters. On 1 October 1977, Dr. Calio became NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, where he remained until becoming Deputy Administrator for the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration in 1981. In 1985, Calio became Administrator of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, where he remained until 1987, when he departed to work in private industry. See

“Calio, Anthony J.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Alastair Graham Walter Cameron (1925– ) is an astrophysicist/educator. He received his B.S. and Ph.D.

degrees in Canada before coming to the U.S. in 1959, and became a naturalized citizen in 1963. He was an assistant professor of physics at the University of Iowa, in Ames, from 1952 to 1954, and served as Senior Scientist at

the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York from 1961 to 1966. Since 1997, he has served as the Donald

692
H. Menzel Professor of Astrophysics at Harvard University. He is the recipient of the 1983 Distinguished Public

Service Medal from NASA, the 1988 J. Lawrence Smith Medal from the National Academy of Sciences, the 1989

Harry H. Hess Medal, the 1994 International Astronomical Union (IUA) Meteorological Society Leonard Medal,

and was the 1997 American Astronomical Society (AAS) Russell Lecturer. Professional memberships include the

National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American

Geophysical Union, the American Astronomical Society, and the International Astronomical Union. See

“Cameron, Alastair Graham Walter,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s

Who, 1999. 

Richard Charles Canfield (1937– ) started his career as a visiting scientist at the High Altitude Observatory of

the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He left the center in 1969. At the Sacramento Peak Observatory

he worked as an Astrophysicist from 1970 to 1976, an Associate Resident Physicist from 1976 to 1980, and a

Resident Physicist from 1980 to 1985. He has been an Astronomer at the University of Hawaii since 1985.

Professional memberships include the American Astronomical Society and the International Astronomical

Union. See “Canfield, Richard Charles,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New

Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

James (Jimmy) Carter (1924– ) was the thirty-ninth President of the United States, from 1977 to 1981. He was

a naval officer and a businessman before entering politics. A member of the Georgia State Legislature from 1962

to 1966, he was Governor of Georgia from 1971 to 1975. See “Carter, Jimmy,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Talbot Albert Chubb (1923– ) is an authority in geophysics and astrophysics. From 1959 through 1981, he

headed the Upper Air Physics branch of the Naval Research Laboratory. He has been the President of Research

Systems, Incorporated, since 1981. See “Chubb, Talbot Albert,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99,

20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

John F. Clark (1920– ) was an Electrical Engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory from 1942 to 1958. His

experiences at the laboratory varied from rocket experiments to measuring the electrical properties of Earth’s

atmosphere. He is an authority in atmospheric and space sciences and applications, and joined NASA in 1958

as Chief of the Ionospheric Physics Program Office. From 1963 to 1965, he served as Deputy Associate

Administrator for Space Sciences and Applications at Headquarters. From 1962 to 1965, he concurrently served

as Chairman of NASA’s Space Science Steering Committee. He was Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center

from 1965 until he retired in 1976. See “Clark, John F.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection,

NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

France Cordova (1947– ) earned a B.A. in English from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in physics from the

California Institute of Technology. From 1979 to 1989, Cordova served as Staff Scientist in the Earth and Space

Science Division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. She subsequently became Deputy Group

Leader of the Space Astronomy and Astrophysics Group at Los Alamos. Cordova left Los Alamos to become a

professor at Pennsylvania State University and later became head of the Astronomy and Physics Department. She

was on extended leave from her post while serving as NASA Chief Scientist from 1993 to 1996. See “Cordova, Dr.

France,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

D

Joseph John Dantone, Jr., (1942– ) earned a B.S. from the United States Naval Academy in 1964 and an M.S.

in aerospace engineering and material management from the Naval Postgraduate School in 1971. He served as

Deputy Director of the National Reconnaissance Office from 1994 to 1996. He also served as Director of the

Defense Mapping Agency from 1996 to 1997 and as Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency from

1997 to 1998. See Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

Robert James Davis (1929– ) is an authority on stellar astronomy and is currently an astrophysicist at the

Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory. At Harvard University, he earned a B.A. in 1951, an M.A. in 1956, and a

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 693
Ph.D. (in astronomy) in 1960. See “Davis, Robert James,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th

Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

William Gould Dow (1896–2000) was an emeritus professor of electrical engineering and computer science

at the University of Michigan. During his tenure, he was responsible for creating and organizing thirteen laboratories and research units, including space physics research, plasma engineering, and Cooley electronics.

He also served on the panel of scientists who helped form NASA in the late 1950s. See “Dow, William Gould,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Hugh Latimer Dryden (1898–1965) was the Director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

(NACA) from 1947 until the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1958.

He was named Deputy Administrator of the new aerospace Agency, created in response to the Sputnik crisis.

Before NACA, he was Associate Director of the National Bureau of Standards, where he had served since 1918

in scientific research. Influenced by Dr. Joseph S. Ames, who for many years was Chairman of the NACA and a

pioneer in aerodynamics, Dryden undertook a study of fluid dynamics at the Bureau of Standards while continuing his courses at the Johns Hopkins University Graduate School. His laboratory work was accepted by the university, and he received the degree of doctor of philosophy in 1919. He served as the NASA Deputy

Administrator until his death on 2 December 1965. For further information on Hugh Dryden, see Michael Gorn,

Hugh L. Dryden’s Careeer in Aviation and Space (Washington, DC: Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 5, 1996)

or Richard K. Smith, The Hugh L. Dryden Papers, 1898–1965, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Library, 1974.

Richard B. Dunn (1927– ) earned a B.M.E. from the University of Minnesota in 1949, an M.S. in 1950, and a

Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1961. He is an authority on astronomy and mechanical engineering, and currently is a Physicist at the National Solar Observatory, Sunspot, New Mexico. See “Dunn, Richard B.,” in American

Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Andrea K. Dupree (1939– ) is currently the Associate Director of the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard

University. She has served as the Senior Astrophysicist for the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory since 1979.

She received her B.A. from Wellesley College in 1960 and her Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard in 1968. She

was the 1972 Phillips Lecturer for Haverford College and was awarded the 1973 Bart J. Bok Prize by Harvard

University. Her professional experiences include research fellow for the Harvard College Observatory; Research

Associate; Senior Research Associate for astronomy and astrophysics; member of the Space and Earth Science

Advisory Board, NASA; member, Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences; lecturer, Harvard

University; and member, executive committee, American Association for the Advancement of Science. While at

the observatory, she produced a report entitled “Interaction Between Solar Physics and Astrophysics.”

Professional memberships include the American Astronomical Society, Vice President in 1988; the International

Astronomical Union (IAU); the Committee on Space Research; and the American Association for the

Advancement of Science. See “Dupree, Andrea K.,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New

Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

E

John Allen Eddy (1931– ) has served as the Senior Scientist and Director of the Office of Interdisciplinary Earth

Studies, National Center of Atmospheric Research, since 1986. He received his B.S. degree from the U.S. Naval

Academy in 1953 and his Ph.D. (astrogeophysics) from the University of Colorado in 1962. Other positions held

include Physicist, National Center for Atmospheric Research; professor adjunct, University of Colorado; and

Research Associate, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Professional memberships include the

American Astronomical Society; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American

Geophysical Union; Sigma Xi; and the International Astronomical Union. See “Eddy, John Allen,” in American

Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Burton I. Edelson (1926–2002) was NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications between

1982 and 1988. He earned his B.S. from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1947 and served for twenty years in the ser694
vice. He then returned to school and received a Ph.D. from the University of California at San Diego in 1969.

Thereafter he worked with the Communications Satellite Corporation for fourteen years before coming to

NASA. See “Edelson, Burt I.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office,

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Krafft A. Ehricke (1917–1984) was an aeronautical engineer and physicist, and one of the members of the

German V-2 rocket team that surrendered to the United States Army in the closing days of World War II brought

to the United States as a nucleus of America’s postwar rocket development program. In 1947, he worked for the

Army’s missile program under Dr. Wernher von Braun. From 1956 to 1965, he worked for the Convair division

of the General Dynamics Corporation, where he had a major design and management role in the development

of the Atlas and Centaur rockets. He later served as the Chief Scientific Adviser to the space division of Rockwell

International Corporation, the builder of the Apollo manned spacecraft and the Space Shuttle. See “Ehricke,

Krafft A.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

F

Lennard A. Fisk was the Chief Scientist of NASA prior to his retirement in 1993. Before this appointment, he

served as the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, and was responsible for planning and

directing NASA programs, including the institutional management of the Goddard Space Flight Center in

Greenbelt, Maryland, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. From 1971 to 1977, he was an

Astrophysicist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Prior to NASA, he was the National Academy of

Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Goddard from September 1969 to June 1971. He also had served as

Vice President for Research and Financial Affairs at the University of New Hampshire. See “Fisk, Lennard A.,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

James C. Fletcher (1919–1991) was the Administrator (1971–1977) of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration who gained the approval of the Nixon Administration on 5 January 1972 to develop the Space

Shuttle as the follow-on human space flight effort of the Agency. He also served as NASA Administrator a second time (1986–1989), following the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on 28 January 1986. Fletcher received

an undergraduate degree in physics from Columbia University and a doctorate in physics from the California

Institute of Technology. After holding research and teaching positions at Harvard and Princeton universities,

he joined Hughes Aircraft in 1948, and later worked at the Guided Missile Division of the Ramo-Wooldridge

Corporation. In 1958, Fletcher co-founded the Space Electronics Corporation in Glendale, California. He was

later named Systems Vice President of the Aerojet General Corporation in Sacramento, California. In 1964, he

became President of the University of Utah, a position he held until he was named NASA Administrator in

1971. Dr. Fletcher died at his home in suburban Washington on 22 December 1991. See “Fletcher, James C.,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

David J. Forrest is a research associate professor in the Institute of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS), and the

Space Science Center at the University of New Hampshire. He received his Ph.D. in physics from UNH in 1969.

His thesis work involved the design, fabrication, and flight of three different balloon experiments. Since then he

has been involved in at least six balloon experiments, some as the project scientist and some as a senior mentor

for young scientists. In 1971, he became the Instrument Scientist for the Gamma Ray Experiment on NASA’s

OSO-7 mission. In mid-1970, he designed, and was the Experiment Scientist and the UNH technical manager

for, the Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) for NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission. The GRS experiment was delivered on time and within budget, and was the first of six instruments delivered and integrated onto the SMM

spacecraft. The GRS operated without a single failure for nearly 10 years, from launch in 1980 until the SMM

reentry in late 1989. See “Forrest, David J.,” at http://www.catsat.sr.unh.edu/personnel/dforrest.html on the Internet. 

Lawrence William Fredrick (1927– ) is an eminent part of the faculty at the University of Virginia,

Charlottesville. His tenure with the university spans four decades. From 1965 to 1995, he taught astronomy. In

1995, he became a research professor. He was a member of the American Astronomical Society from 1969

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 695
through 1980. A published writer with expertise in the field of astronomy, he received his B.A. (1952) and M.A.

(1954) from Swarthmore College, and his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania (1959). See “Fredrick,

Lawrence William,” in Who’s Who in America, 1956, 10th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1955. 

Herbert Friedman (1916–2000) earned his Ph.D. in physics from the Johns Hopkins University in 1940. He conducted his first experiments in rocket astronomy with a V-2 rocket in 1949. He performed hundreds of experiments including the traced solar cycle variations of x-rays and ultraviolet radiations from the Sun, and the

measured ultraviolet fluxes of early-type stars. Dr. Friedman received the National Medal of Science, the Nation’s

highest honor for scientific achievement, as well as other numerous awards and merits. His scientific and technical contributions include 50 patents and about 300 published papers. He served on many science advisory

committees, including the President’s Science Advisory Committee, the General Advisory Committee of the

Atomic Energy Commission, and the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. See “Friedman,

Herbert,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Edward Allan Frieman (1926– ) earned a B.S. from Columbia University in 1946, an M.S. in physics from

Columbia University in 1948, and a Ph.D. in physics from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1952. An educator by profession, he served as Vice Chairman of the White House Science Council from 1981 to 1989. He also

served on the Defense Science Board from 1984 to1990. In 1992, he became Vice President of the Space Policy

Advisory Board. He also served as Chairman of the NASA Earth Observing Systems Engineering Review from

1991 to 1992. See Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

G

Riccardo Giacconi (1932– ) became head of the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute in 1981 and served

through launch in 1990 on STS-31. Prior to Hubble, he served as Associate Director of the High Energy

Astrophysics Division at the Harvard University Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. A pioneer in the field of xray astronomy, he led the team that launched UHURU, the first x-ray satellite, in 1970. See “Giacconi, Riccardo,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Peter A. Gilman received his B.A. from Harvard College (1962) and his S.M. (1964) and Ph.D. (meteorology,

1966) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His professional experiences include: assistant professor

of astrogeophysics and lecturer at the University of Colorado; adjunct professor of astrophysics, planetary, and

atmospheric science; member, Solar and Space Physics Committee, Space Science Board, National Academy of

Sciences; Chairman, Advanced Study Program, Head, Solar Variability Section, and Director, High Altitude

Observatory; and Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Professional memberships

include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the

American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the International Astronomical Union.

See “Gilman, Peter A.,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R.

Bower, 1998. 

Harold Glaser (1924– ) is an authority of theoretical physics. Early in his career he worked as a Senior Physicist

in the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University (from 1952 through 1954). From 1954 through

1957, he was Head of the Theoretical Analysis Section of the System Analysis Branch of the Naval Research

Laboratory. He joined NASA in 1966 as the Deputy Chief of Solar Physics in the Office of Space Science and

Applications. From 1975 through 1980, he was the Director of NASA’s Terrestrial Programs. See “Glaser,

Harold,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

T. Keith Glennan (1905–1995) was the first Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

formally established on 1 October 1958, under the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. Within a short

time after NASA was formally operational, Glennan incorporated several organizations involved in space exploration projects from other federal agencies to ensure that a viable scientific program of space exploration could

be reasonably conducted over the long term. A resident of Reston, Virginia, for twenty years, after his retirement

in the late 1980s he moved to Mitchellville, Maryland, and died there on 11 April 1995. See “Glennan, T. Keith,”

696
biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Harry J. Goett (1910– ) earned a degree in physics from Holy Cross College in 1931 and another in aeronautical engineering from NYU in 1933. After holding a number of engineering posts with private firms, he became

a Project Engineer at Langley Aeronautical Laboratory in 1936. He later moved to Ames Aeronautical

Laboratory and was Chief of the Full-Scale and Flight Research Division from 1948 to 1959. He was Director of

the Goddard Space Flight Center from 1959 to 1965 and then became a Special Assistant to NASA Administrator

James E. Webb. Later he was Director for Plans and Programs at Philco’s Western Development Labs in

California. A position with Ford Aerospace and Communications ended with his retirement. See “Goett, Harry

J.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Leo Goldberg (1913–1987) was the Director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory from 1971 to 1977. He served

as a professor of astronomy and as Director of the observatory at the University of Michigan and Harvard

University from 1948 to 1971. A former president of the International Astronomical Union and the American

Astronomical Society, he received three degrees, including his Ph.D., from Harvard University. See “Goldberg,

Leo,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC. 

Daniel S. Goldin (1940– ) initiated a revolution to transform America’s aeronautics and space program. To

date, he is NASA’s longest-serving Administrator. Before coming to NASA, Goldin was Vice President and

General Manager of the TRW Space and Technology Group in Redondo Beach, California. During his twentyfive-year career at TRW, Goldin led projects for America’s defense and conceptualized and managed production

of advanced communication spacecraft, space technologies, and scientific instruments. He began his career at

NASA’s Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, in 1962 and worked on electric propulsion systems for human

interplanetary travel. See “Goldin, Daniel S.,” Administrator file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA

History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Richard Mead Goody (1921– ) earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in 1949. Dr. Mead worked as a professor of applied sciences at Harvard University from 1958 to 1991. He also served as Director of the Blue Hill

Observatory from 1958 to 1970. See Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s

Who, 1999.

Albert Gore (1948– ) was the forty-fifth Vice President of the United States. He was elected as President

Clinton’s Vice President in 1992 after serving in the House of Representatives (D-TN) from 1977 to 1985 and

the Senate from 1985 to 1993. He graduated with a degree in government, with honors, from Harvard College

in 1969 and attended Vanderbilt Law School after serving in the Vietnam War. As Vice President, he worked with

Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin on the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission to establish an agreement for

Russian participation in the International Space Station. In 2000, he received the Democratic nomination for

President of the United States. See “Gore, Albert,” biographical file and “Gore, Albert,” space statements file,

NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Charles F. Green received his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Kansas, and in 1915 joined the

University of Illinois as a graduate assistant in mathematics. World War I interrupted his work, and he enlisted

in the Air Corps, serving overseas as a test pilot. Upon his return, he received his Ph.D. from the University of

Illinois and remained on the staff until joining General Electric in Schenectady, New York, in 1929. He was

among the group of experts sent to Europe early in 1945 to investigate engineering achievements of the Axis

powers. When he returned, he brought with him information on the Germans’ progress in guided missiles and

jet aircraft, which he obtained by visiting their military, industrial, and research centers. See “Green, Charles F.,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Milton Greenberg (1918– ) served as the Deputy Director of the United States Air Force Geophysics Research

Directorate from 1950 through 1954. In 1954, he became the Director and served until 1958. In 1957, he parEXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 697
ticipated in the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel. And from 1958 through 1986, he was President and

Chairman of GCA Corporation. See “Greenberg, Milton,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th

Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Jesse Leonard Greenstein (1909– ) received his A.B., A.M., and Ph.D. from Harvard University. He is an astrophysicist and has served as a Lee A. Dubridge Emeritus Professor of Astrophysics since 1980. Other professional

experiences include staff member, Hale Observatory; professional astrophysicist; fellow, National Research

Council, Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago; and research associate, McDonald Observatory, Chicago and

Texas. Professional memberships include the National Academy of Sciences, the American Astronomical Society,

the American Philosophical Society, the Royal Astronomical Society, and the Royal Belgian Academy of Science.

In 1972, he was chairman of the review board panel of the National Academy of Sciences report on “Astronomy

and Astrophysics for the 1970s.” See “Greenstein, Jesse Leonard,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99,

20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

H

Fred Theodore Haddock, Jr., (1919– ) is an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan. He received his

B.S. (1941) and M.S. (1950) degrees from the University of Maryland, and his honorary D.Sc. degree from

Southwestern, at Memphis, and Ripon College. He is an expert in radio astronomy. He started his career in 1941

with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory as a Physicist and Electronic Scientist. He has been associated with

NASA since the early 1960s, as a member of the Advisory Committee of Planetary and Interplanetary Science,

Office of Space Science; the Ad Hoc Working Group on Apollo Science Experiment and Training, 1962 to 1963;

the NASA Headquarters Astronomy Subcommittee, 1967 to 1969; consultant to the Office of Space Science and

Applications since 1970; the NASA Astronomy Missions Board, the Radio Astronomy Panel, 1968 to 1971; the Ad

Hoc Committee on National Astronomy Space Observance, 1970; the NASA Outer Planets Grand Tour Mission;

and the Radio Astronomy Team since 1971. He is a member of the American Astronomical Society, Vice

President 1961 to 1963; a fellow with the Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; a fellow with the Royal

Astronomical Society; and a member of Sigma Xi. See “Haddock, Frederick Theodore, Jr.,” in American Men and

Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

John W. Harvey (1941– ) was one of eight finalists selected to be Payload Specialists aboard STS-51F to perform experiments on Spacelab 2. He graduated from the University of Colorado and was a scientist at the Kitt

Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona. See “Harvey, John W.,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Karl G. Henize (1926–1993) received a B.A. degree in mathematics in 1947 and an M.A. degree in astronomy in

1948 from the University of Virginia, and his Ph.D. (astronomy) in 1954 from the University of Michigan. NASA

selected him as a Scientist-Astronaut in August 1967. He completed the initial academic training and the fiftythree-week jet pilot training program at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. He was a member of the astronaut

support crew for the Apollo 15 mission and for the Skylab 2, 3, and 4 missions, and Mission Specialist for the

ASSESS-2 Spacelab simulation mission in 1977. He has logged 2,300 hours of flying time in jet aircraft. He was

also a Mission Specialist on the Spacelab-2 mission (STS 51-F), which launched from Kennedy Space Center,

Florida, on 29 July 1985. In 1986, he accepted a position as Senior Scientist in NASA’s Office of Space Science.

See “Henize, Karl G.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Harry H. Hess (1906–1969) was one of the Senior Scientists involved in analyzing the lunar samples returned to

Earth by Project Apollo. Blair Professor of Geology at Princeton University, he was Chair of the Space Science

Board of the National Academy of Sciences during the Apollo era. See “Hess, Harry H.,” biographical file, NASA

Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Noel W. Hinners (1935– ) was trained in geochemistry and geology at Rutgers University, California Institute

of Technology, and Princeton University. He began his career in 1963 with Bellcomm, Inc., working on the

Apollo program, and came to NASA Headquarters in 1972 as the Deputy Director of lunar programs in the

Office of Space Science. From 1974 to 1979, he was NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science. He also

698
served, from 1979 to 1982, as Director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum, and he

was Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland between 1982 and 1987. He then

became Associate Deputy Administrator of NASA. He left the Agency in 1989 to join the Martin Marietta

Corporation as Vice President of Strategic Planning. See “Hinners, Noel W.,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Harry C. Holloway served as NASA’s Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

from 1993–1996, while on temporary assignment to NASA from the School of Medicine at the Uniformed

Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Holloway also served NASA in the capacities of chairman of the NASA aerospace medicine advisory committee and member of the U.S./U.S.S.R. joint

working group on space biology and medicine. See “Holloway, Harry C.,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Thomas Edward Holzer (1944– ) was a member of the ad hoc committee on the role of theory in space science from 1980 through 1982. He also served on the NASA-sponsored panel on solar terrestrial theory from

1978 through 1979. In 1989, he was chairman of a heliospheric SR&T review panel sponsored by the Space

Physics Division of NASA and served concurrently as a Senior Scientist at the High Altitude Observatory of the

National Center of Atmospheric Research and adjunct professor of astrophysics and planetary and atmospheric

science at the University of Colorado. See “Holzer, Thomas Edward,” in American Men and Women of Science,

1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

Robert Franklin Howard (1932– ), with his colleague Harold Zirin, attempted to build a 65-centimeter Solar

Optical Telescope (SOT) in the mid-1960s. Among his many positions, he served as Director of the National

Solar Observatory, Tucson, Arizona, from 1984 to 1988. From 1988 to 1998, he was an astronomer of the observatory and later assumed the status of astronomer emeritus. See “Howard, Robert Franklin,” in Who’s Who in

America, 1956, 10th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1955. 

Karl George Hufbauer (1937– ) is a science historian. He started his career in 1966 at the University of

California, Irvine, as an assistant professor, and then a professor. From 1984 through 1990, he worked for NASA

Headquarters as a contract historian. He is the author of Exploring the Sun, 1991, which won the Emme prize in

1993. See “Hufbauer, Karl George,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s

Who, 1999. 

James W. Humphreys earned a B.S. in chemical engineering from the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington,

Virginia. He subsequently received an M.D. from the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond in 1939 and an M.S.

in surgery from the University of Colorado in 1951. From 1967 to 1970, Dr. Humphreys served as NASA’s

Director of Space Medicine before his appointment as NASA Director of Life Sciences in the Office of Manned

Space Flight later in 1970. See “Humphreys, James W.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection,

NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Arthur James Hundhausen (1936– ) started his professional experience in 1964 in the theoretical division of

Los Alamos Science Laboratory. He has concurrently served as a Staff Scientist at the High Altitude Observatory

and a lecturer at the University of Colorado, since 1971. In 1976, he was a participant in the National Academy

of Sciences “Solar Physics Study.” See “Hundhausen, Arthur James,” in American Men and Women of Science,

1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

Wesley Huntress (1942– ) earned a B.S. in chemistry from Brown University in 1964 and a Ph.D in chemical

physics from Stanford University in 1968. Huntress subsequently began work on the science staff at California

Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). He left JPL and came to NASA where he served as

Assistant to the Director of the Earth Sciences and Applications Division, from 1988 to 1990. Dr. Huntress

directed the Solar System Exploration Division from 1990 to 1992. In 1993, he became Associate Administrator

for Space Science, where he remained until joining the Carnegie Institution of Washington staff in 1998. See

“Huntress, Wesley,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 699
J

Roy Jackson (1919– ) earned a B.A. degree in mechanical engineering with an aeronautical option from

Stanford University in 1941. He served as section head in the wind tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center during World War II while in the Navy. Jackson worked in various posts at Northrop from 1953 to 1970. Jackson

served as NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology from 1970 to 1973. After leaving

NASA, Jackson again worked at Northrop as the Vice President of Program Management. See “Jackson, Roy,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Kenneth A. Janes is a professor of astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences at Boston University. He

received his B.A. degree from Harvard College, his M.S. degree from San Diego State University, and his Ph.D.

from Yale University. In 1976, he was the Study Director of the “Solar Physics Study” of the National Academy of

Sciences. See “Janes, Kenneth A.” at http://www.bu.edu/htbin/webph/query.pl?id=X4876&ret

Robert T. Jones designed swept-back wings in 1944 while working as a scientist for the National Advisory

Committee for Aeronautics. Pivoting them back created less wind resistance, allowing for supersonic speeds with

the same engine power. Virtually every commercial and military jet uses the design today. He also invented the

oblique wing, a new design that is thought to improve fuel economy and increase airspeed. See “Jones, R. T.,”

biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Walton L. Jones, Jr. (1918– ) earned a B.S. degree in 1939 and an M.D. in 1942 from Emory University. Dr.

Jones came to NASA in 1964 on detail and remained until his retirement from the Navy in 1966. Before NASA,

he served as Director of the Aviation and Medicine Technical Division of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and

Surgery, and as Aerospace Medical Advisor to the Bureau of Aeronautics. Dr. Jones served as Director of NASA’s

Biotechnology and Human Research Division, later became Deputy Director for Life Sciences, and then

Director of the Office of Occupational Medicine. See “Jones, Walton L., Jr.,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

K

W. W. Kellogg (1917– ) was a meteorologist with the Rand Corporation between 1947 and 1959. He has held

a senior position with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, since 1959. See Who’s

Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

Charles F. Kennel (1939– ) earned a B.A. from Harvard College in 1959 and a Ph.D. in astrophysical sciences

from Princeton University in 1964. Before coming to NASA, Dr. Kennel was a tenured member of the University

of California, Los Angeles, Department of Physics since 1967. He served as NASA Associate Administrator for

Mission to Planet Earth from 1993–1996. In 1998, Dr. Kennel was appointed to the NASA Advisory Council

(NAC). In 2001, he became Chair of the NAC. See “Kennel, Charles F.,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

George A. Keyworth II (1939– ) was Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science

Advisor to President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1986. Formerly the head of the Los Alamos Scientific

Laboratory, Keyworth earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Duke University in 1968. He began work at Los

Alamos after graduation and remained there until 1981. See “Keyworth, George Albert II,” 1986 Current

Biography Yearbook, pp. 265–68.

Mukul Ranjan Kundu (1930– ) is a scholar of solar and stellar radio physics and supernova remnants. He

received his B.S., with honors, from the University of Paris. He is a member of the editorial board of solar physics,

received the 1978 U.S. Senior Scientist Award from the Humbolt Foundation, and was the 1989 American

Physics Society Fellow. He also is a member of the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical

Union, and the International Astronomical Union of Radio Science. A physics and astronomy educator, he is a

professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. The author of Solar Radio Astronomy, 1965, he was named

700
the National Academy of Sciences Fellow in 1967, 1974, 1975, and 1986. In 1976, he participated in the National

Academy of Sciences “Solar Physics Study.” See “Kundu, Mukul Ranjan,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed.,

New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999. 

James Edward Kupperian, Jr., (1925–1984) earned his bachelor’s degree in naval architecture, from the Webb

Institute, his master’s degree from the University of Delaware, and his doctorate in physics from the University

of North Carolina. He was a Physicist with the Naval Research Laboratory before joining NASA in 1959. From

1959 to 1970, he was Chief of the Astrophysics Branch at Goddard Space Flight Center. At Goddard he conceived

and planned the observatory series of spacecraft, including the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO). He

was the Project Scientist for the OAO. See “Kupperian, James Edward, Jr.,” in Who’s Who in America, 1980–1981,

41st Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1980. 

L

Louis John Lanzerotti (1938– ), physicist, received his B.S. from the University of Illinois, 1960; and his M.A.,

1963, and his Ph.D., 1965, from Harvard University. A postdoctoral fellow with Lucent Technologies Bell Labs,

he also served as a member of the technical staff of AT&T Bell Labs. His professional experiences include: member, Polar Research Board, National Research Council (NRC), 1982 to 1991; chairman, NRC’s Space Studies

Board, 1988 to1994; member, Ocean Studies Board, 1995 to 1999; member, NASA Physical Science Committee,

1975 to 1979; chairman, Space and Earth Advisory Committee; member, Advisory Committee on the Future of

the U.S. Space Program, 1990; and member, Vice President’s Space Policy Advisory Board, 1992 to 1993. He

coauthored Diffusion in Radiation Belts and co-edited two books on space physics. He is the recipient of the

Antarctic Service Medal, 1979, and NASA’s Distinguished Public Service Award, 1988 and 1994. He is a fellow of

the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers, the

American Physics Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement

of Science. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the International Academy of Astronautics,

and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. See “Lanzerotti, Louis John,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000,

54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999. 

Cecil Eldon Leith, Jr., (1923– ) is a physicist by education and career. He earned his B.A., in 1943, and his

Ph.D., in 1957, at the University of California, Berkeley. He started his career in 1946 as an Experimental

Physicist at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, and transferred to the Lawrence Radiation

Laboratory in Livermore, California, as a Theoretical Physicist. From 1968 through 1983, he worked as a Senior

Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, and participated in the National

Academy of Sciences “Solar Physics Study.” A fellow of the American Physics Society, he received the Meisinger

Award in 1967 and the Rossby Research Medal in 1982, while a fellow with the American Meteorological

Society. See “Leith, Cecil Eldon, Jr.,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis

Who’s Who, 1999.

William Liller (1927– ) is a scholar of archaeoastronomy. He earned his B.A. from Harvard College in 1949,

and his M.A. in 1950 and his Ph.D. (1953, astronomy) from the University of Michigan. In 1952, he was an assistant at the McMath-Hulbert Observatory, University of Michigan. From 1953 to 1960, he was an instructor, then

an assistant professor of astronomy at the University of Michigan. He has been the Robert Wheeler Willson

Professor of Applied Astronomy at Harvard University since 1970. Professional memberships include the

American Astronomical Society, the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, fellow with the American Association

for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the International Astronomical

Union, and the British Astronomical Association. See “Liller, William,” in American Men and Women of Science,

1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

Robert Peichung Lin (1942– ) is an academician in the fields of solar and space plasma physics and highenergy astrophysics. He earned his B.S. from the California Institute of Technology (1962) and his Ph.D.

(physics) from the University of California at Berkeley (1967). He started his career in 1967 as an assistant resident physicist at the University of California, and then he served as a resident physicist, from 1979 to 1988.

He participated in the National Academy of Sciences “Solar Physics Study” in 1976. From 1979 to 1988, he was

resident physicist. He has been the Associate Director of the Space Science Laboratory at the University of

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 701
California, Berkeley, since 1992. See “Lin, Robert Peichung,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99,

20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Richard Emery Lingenfelter (1934– ) received his B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1956.

He has been a Research Physicist at the University of California, San Diego, Center for Astrophysics and Space

Sciences, since 1979. His concentrations are astrophysics and cosmic ray physics. He was a professor in residence

at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the Department of Geophysics and Space Physics from 1969 to

1979. Concurrently, he worked in the Department of Astronomy from 1974 to 1979. See “Lingenfelter, Richard

Emery,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

Jeffrey L. Linsky (1941– ) earned his B.S., 1963, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his M.A.,

1965, and Ph.D. (astronomy), 1968, from Harvard University. He is an authority on space and solar physics, and

has taught at the University of Colorado in the Department of Astronomy, Planetary, and Atmospheric Science

as an adjunct professor since 1979. In tandem, he was a member of the Joint Institute of Laboratory Astrophysics

from 1968 to 1971. See “Linsky, Jeffrey L.,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New

Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

George M. Low (1926–1984), a native of Vienna, Austria, came to the United States in 1940 and received an

aeronautical engineering degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1948 and a master of science in the

same field in 1950. He joined the NACA in 1949 and specialized in experimental and theoretical research in several fields at Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory. He became Chief of Manned Spaceflight at NASA

Headquarters in 1958. In 1960, Low chaired a special committee that formulated the original plans for the

Apollo lunar landings. In 1964, he became Deputy Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, the

forerunner of the Johnson Space Center. He became Deputy Administrator of NASA in 1969 and served as

Acting Administrator from 1970 to 1971. He retired from NASA in 1976 to become President of Rensselaer, a

position he held until his death. In 1990, NASA renamed its quality and excellence award after him. See “Low,

G. M.,” Deputy Administrator files, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Alan M. Lovelace (1929– ) was born in St. Petersburg, Florida, and was educated at the University of Florida

in Gainesville. He received a B.S. degree in chemistry in 1951, an M.S. degree in organic chemistry in 1952, and

a Ph.D. degree in organic chemistry in 1954. Shortly after the Korean conflict, he served in the United States Air

Force from 1954 to 1956. He began his government career as a scientist at the Air Force Materials Laboratory

(AFML), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio. In January 1964, he was named Chief Scientist of the

Air Force Materials Laboratory and was named Director in 1967. In October 1972, he became the Director of

Science and Technology for the Air Force Systems Command at Headquarters, Andrews Air Force Base,

Maryland. In September 1973, he became the Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for

research and development. One year later, he left the Department of Defense to become the Associate

Administrator of the NASA Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology. He became Deputy Administrator after

the departure of George Low in June 1976. He retired from NASA in July 1981 and accepted a position as

Corporate Vice President of Science and Engineering with the General Dynamics Corporation at St. Louis,

Missouri. See “Lovelace, Alan M.,” Deputy Administrator files, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA

History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

M

Robert Moffat MacQueen (1938– ) received his B.S. from Rhodes College in 1960 and his Ph.D. from Johns

Hopkins University in 1968. He was a Senior Research Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

in Boulder, Colorado, from 1967 to 1990. In the early to mid-1970s he was the principal investigator on NASA’s

Apollo and Skylab programs, and from 1976 to 1979 he was the principal investigator for NASA’s Solar Maximum

Mission. From 1973 to 1976, he was a member of the Committee on Space Astronomy of the National Academy

of Sciences; from 1977 to 1979 he was a member of the Committee on Space Physics; and from 1983 to 1986 he

was a member of the Space Science Board. See “MacQueen, Robert Moffat,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th

Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999. 

702
Hans Mark (1929– ) became NASA Deputy Administrator in July 1981. He had previously served as Secretary

of the Air Force from July 1979 until February 1981 and as Undersecretary of the Air Force from 1977 to 1979.

In February 1969, Mark became Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, where

he managed research and applications efforts in aeronautics, space science, life science, and space technology.

He received a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1954. Born in Mannheim,

Germany, he came to the United States in 1940 and became a citizen in 1945. Upon leaving NASA, he became

Chancellor of the University of Texas-Austin. See “Mark, Hans,” Deputy Administrator files, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Franklin D. Martin is a native of China Grove, North Carolina. He received a B.A. in physics and math from

Pfieffer College, Misenheimer, North Carolina, in 1966 and his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Tennessee

in 1971. He began his career with NASA in 1974. Before joining NASA, he served as a Physicist with the Naval

Oceanographic Office and as an Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed. He was Assistant Administrator for the Office

of Exploration from 1988 to 1989. Prior to that appointment, in 1986 he was named Deputy Associate

Administrator for the Space Station Office. From 1983 through 1986, Dr. Martin was at NASA Goddard Space

Flight Center as the Director of the Office of Space and Earth Sciences. See “Martin, Franklin D.,” biographical

file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Daniel G. Mazur (1916–1984) earned his degree in electrical engineering from Worchester Polytechnic Institute

in Worchester, Massachusetts. He began his federal career with the Philadelphia Navy Yard and transferred to

Washington, DC, in 1946. Prior to joining NASA, as one of the first employees in 1958, he was at the Naval

Research Laboratory. In 1964, he received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement for his work on

communications satellites. He retired in 1973 as Associate Deputy Director for Engineering of the Goddard

Space Flight Center. See “Mazur, Daniel G.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA

History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Frank Bethune McDonald (1925– ) received his B.S. degree from Duke University (1948), and his M.S. (1951)

and Ph.D. (1955) degrees from the University of Minnesota. Professional memberships include the National

Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Physics Society. He was the Head of

the Fields and Particles Branch at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center from 1959 through 1970. From 1964 to

1989 he was, concurrently, Project Scientist for explorer satellites and high-energy astronomy observatories, and

served in 1976 as a participant in the National Academy of Sciences “Solar Physics Study,” and as the Chief of

the Laboratory of High Energy Astrophysics. See “McDonald, Frank Bethune,” in American Men and Women of

Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

John H. McElroy earned a B.S.E.E. from the University of Texas at Austin, an M.E.E. from the Catholic University

of America, and a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of America. McElroy began his NASA career in 1966 at

Goddard Space Flight Center, where he directed research on laser communication systems, tracking and radiometry, and advanced satellite communications technology. Dr. McElroy also served as Deputy Director of Goddard

Space Flight Center from 1980 to 1982. See “McElroy, Dr. John H.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

David Morrison came to NASA on an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) appointment from the University

of Hawaii and was named to the position of Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science in 1981. A

noted astronomer with a wealth of experience in space science programs, he was appointed Chief of the Space

Division at NASA Ames Research Center in 1994. See “Morrison, David,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Robert H. Moser (1923– ) earned a B.S. from Loyola University in 1944 and an M.D. from Georgetown

University in 1948. He served as Flight Controller for Project Mercury from 1959 to 1962. He was also a consulting member of the Project Gemini medical evaluation team from 1962 to 1966. He consulted for the Apollo

program from 1967 to 1973. From 1978 to 1982, he served as chairman of the life sciences advisory committee.

He was a member of the NASA Advisory Council from 1983 to 1988. He was a member of the advisory committee for the NASA Space Station program from 1988 to 1993. See Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New

Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 703
George E. Mueller (1918– ) was Associate Administrator for the Office of Manned Space Flight at NASA

Headquarters, 1963 to 1969, where he was responsible for the completion of project Apollo and for the initial

development of the Space Shuttle. He moved to the General Dynamics Corporation as Senior Vice President in

1969 and remained until 1971, became President of Systems Development Corporation (1971 to 1980), and later

Chairman and CEO (1981 to 1983). See “Mueller, George E.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Thomas A. Mutch (1931–1980) earned a Ph.D. in geology from Princeton University in 1960. Previously a professor of geological sciences at Brown University, he led the Viking spacecraft’s imaging “science team” from

1969 to 1977. He became the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science in 1979 and died in a 1980 climbing accident in the Himalayas. See “Mutch, Thomas A.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection,

NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Dale D. Myers (1922– ) served as NASA Deputy Administrator from 1986 until 1989. He had been

Undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy from 1977 to 1979. From 1974 to 1977, he was Vice President,

Rockwell International, and President, North American Aircraft Group, El Segundo, California. He was also the

Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight at NASA from 1970 to 1974. From 1969 to 1970, Mr. Myers

served as Vice President/Program Manager, Space Shuttle Program, Rockwell International. He was Vice

President and Program Manager, Apollo Command/Service Module Program, North American-Rockwell from

1964 to 1969. After leaving NASA in 1989, Myers returned to private industry. See “Myers, Dale D.,” NASA

Deputy Administrator Files, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

N

John E. Naugle (1923– ) was trained as a physicist at the University of Minnesota. He began his career studying cosmic rays by launching balloons to high altitudes. In 1959, he joined NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,

Greenbelt, Maryland, where he developed projects to study the magnetosphere. In 1960, he was named Manager

of NASA’s Fields and Particles research program. He later served as NASA’s Associate Administrator for the

Office of Space Science and as the Agency’s Chief Scientist before his retirement in 1981. See “Naugle, John E.,”

First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Science Experiments, Washington, DC: NASA SP-4215, 1991.

Homer E. Newell (1915–1983) earned his Ph.D. in mathematics at the University of Wisconsin in 1940, and then

he served as a theoretical physicist and mathematician at the Naval Research Laboratory from 1944 to 1958.

Concurrently, he was Science Program Coordinator for Project Vanguard and Acting Supervisor of the

Atmosphere and Astrophysics Division. In 1958, he transferred to NASA to assume responsibility for planning

and development of the new space science program. He soon became Deputy Director of Space Flight programs.

In 1961, he became Director of the Office of Space Science, and in 1963 he was named Associate Administrator

for the Office of Space Science and Applications. Over the course of his career, he became an internationally

known authority in the field of atmospheric and space sciences. He is the author of numerous scientific articles

and seven books, including Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4211,

1980). He retired from NASA in 1973. See “Newell, Homer E.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Gordon Allen Newkirk, Jr., (1928–1985) earned his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, with a concentration in

astrophysics. He began his career at Upper Air Research Observatory in 1953. In 1955, he joined the senior

research staff of the High Altitude Observatory. He remained there for three decades and, concurrently, from

1961 to 1965, was an adjunct professor of the Department of Astrogeophysics at the University of Colorado. From

1965 to 1976—by this time he had become Director of the High Altitude Observatory—he taught physics and

astrophysics. See “Newkirk, Gordon Allen, Jr.,” in Who’s Who in America, 1955, 9th Ed., New Providence, NJ:

Marquis Who’s Who, 1954. 

M. H. Nichols was on the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel in 1957 and worked at Palmer Physical Laboratory

at Princeton University. See “Nichols, M. H.,” at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4211/appen-b.htm

704
Arnauld E. T. Nicogossian (1936– ) earned an M.S. degree in aerospace medicine from Ohio State University,

an M.D. from Teheran University, and trained in internal medicine at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. Dr.

Nicogossian started at NASA in 1972 at the Johnson Space Center, where he conducted biomedical research and

was the Crew Surgeon for the Apollo Soyuz Test Project. He came to Headquarters in 1976 and established an

operational medicine and space medicine research program for the Space Shuttle and Space Station era programs. He also served as Chief Health and Medical Officer. In 1993, Dr. Nicogossian became Deputy Associate

Administrator for Space Flight Activities, Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and later became

Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences. Dr. Nicogossian also served as a Senior Advisor to

NASA Administrator O’Keefe before retiring in January 2003. See “Nicogossian, Arnauld E. T.,” biographical file,

NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Robert Wilson Noyes (1934– ) received his B.A. from Haverford College (1957) and his Ph.D. from the

California Institute of Technology in 1963. A prominent figure in the science community, his concentrations are

solar and stellar physics. He began his current career as a physicist for the Smithsonian Astrophysical

Observatory in 1962. Concurrently he was a lecturer of astronomy at Harvard University from 1962 until 1973

and Associate Director for the Center for Astrophysics from 1973 until 1980. He participated in the National

Academy of Sciences “Solar Physics Study.” His professional memberships include: the American Astronomical

Society and the International Astronomical Union. See “Noyes, Robert Wilson” in American Men and Women of

Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

O

Hugh Odishaw (1916–1984) became Assistant to the Director of the National Bureau of Standards from 1946 to

1954, served as Executive Director of the U.S. National Committee for the International Geophysical Year from

1954 to 1965, and became the Executive Secretary of the Division of Physical Sciences in the National Academy

of Sciences, 1966 to 1972. See “Odishaw, Hugh,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA

History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Goetz K. H. Oertel (1934– ) was educated in Germany but received his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland

in 1963. He started his career with NASA at Langley Research Center in 1963 as an Aerospace Engineer. From

1968 to 1975, he was NASA’s Chief of Solar Physics. From 1975 to 1983, he was the Director of the Defense and

Civilian Nuclear Waste Programs at the U.S. Department of Energy. Professional memberships include the

American Physics Society, the American Astronomical Society, the International Astronomical Union, the

Cosmos Club, and Sigma Xi. See “Oertel, Goetz K. H.,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence,

NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999. 

Bernard M. Oliver (1916–1995) earned a B.A. in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1935, an

M.S. in electrical engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1936, and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1940. Dr. Oliver codirected a NASA Ames Research

Center Cyclops summer study, which examined using radio telescopes to search for extraterrestrial life. Dr.

Oliver served as a Senior Manager for the NASA SETI effort, until congressional cancellation in 1993. Dr. Oliver

was a key player in finding private funding to continue the effort. He remained a Senior Scientist for the privatized project, called Phoenix, until his death in 1995. See “Oliver, Bernard M.,” biographical file, NASA

Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Frank Quimby Orrall (1925– ) earned his B.S. from the University of Massachusetts in 1950, and his M.A. in

1953 and Ph.D. (astronomy) in 1955 from Harvard University. His professional career began with a position at

the College Observatory of Harvard University in 1955 that ended in 1956. From 1956 to 1964, he was a Solar

Physicist at the Sacramento Peak Observatory. He participated in the 1976 “Solar Physics Study” of the National

Academy of Sciences. He also served as a professor of physics at the University of Hawaii. See “Orrall, Frank

Quimby,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 705
P

Thomas O. Paine (1921–1992) graduated from Brown University in 1942 with a B.A. degree in engineering. He

received his M.S. (1947) and Ph.D. (1949, physical metallurgy) degrees from Stanford University, and received

honorary degrees from Brown University, Clarkson College of Technology, Nebraska Wesleyan University, the

University of New Brunswick (Canada), Oklahoma City University, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He was

appointed Deputy Administrator of NASA on 31 January 1968. When James E. Webb retired on 8 October 1968,

Paine was named Acting Administrator of NASA. His nomination as NASA’s third Administrator, on 5 March

1969, was confirmed by the Senate on 20 March 1969. During his administration, the first seven Apollo manned

missions were flown, and a total of twenty astronauts orbited the Earth; fourteen astronauts traveled to the Moon;

and four walked upon the surface of the Moon. He resigned from NASA on 15 September 1970, returned to the

General Electric Company in New York City as Vice President and Group Executive, Power Generation Group,

where he remained until 1976. In 1985, the White House chose him as Chair of a National Commission on Space

to prepare a report on the future of space exploration. He was a tireless spokesman, for fifteen years after leaving NASA, for an expansive view of what should be done in space. The Paine Commission took most of a year to

prepare its report, largely because it solicited public input in hearings throughout the United States. The

Commission report, Pioneering the Space Frontier, was published in May 1986. It espoused “a pioneering mission for 21st-century America . . . to lead the exploration and development of the space frontier, advancing science, technology, and enterprise, and building institutions and systems that make accessible vast new resources

and support human settlements beyond Earth orbit, from the highlands of the Moon to the plains of Mars.” The

report also contained a “Declaration for Space” that included a rationale for exploring and settling the solar system, and outlined a long-range space program for the United States. He died at his home in Los Angeles,

California, on 4 May 1992. See “Paine, Thomas O.,” Administrator file, NASA Historical Reference Collection,

NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, and Roger D. Launius, “NASA and the Decision to

Build the Space Shuttle, 1969–1972,” The Historian 57 (Autumn 1994): 17–34.

Eugene Newman Parker (1927– ) earned his B.S. degree from the University of Michigan in 1948, his Ph.D.

degree from the California Institute of Technology in 1951, and his D.S. degree from Michigan State University

in 1975. He developed the theory of the origin of the dipole magnetic field of Earth and the theoretical basis

for x-ray emissions from the Sun and the stars. He served concurrently at the University of Chicago as professor

of physics, from 1962 to 1995, and professor of astronomy and astrophysics, from 1967 to 1995, and was also the

Chairman of the “Solar Physics Study” of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1995, he achieved status as professor emeritus. Professional memberships include: the National Academy of Sciences (H. K. Arctowski Award,

1969); the U.S. Medal of Science Award, 1989; the American Astronautical Society (Henry Norris Russess

Lecturer, 1969); the George Ellery Hale Award, 1978; the American Geophysical Union (John Adam Fleming

Award, 1968); and the William Bowie Medal, 1990. See “Parker, Eugene Newman,” in Who’s Who in America, 2000,

54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999. 

William Charles Parkinson (1918– ) earned his B.S.E. degree from the University of Michigan in 1940, his M.S.

in 1941, and his Ph.D. in 1948. He has been in the Physics Department at the University of Michigan since 1947,

and he was named professor emeritus of physics in 1988. He served as a member of the subcommittee on nuclear

structure of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1959 to 1968, and he supported the advisory panel of the

National Science Foundation on physics from 1966 to 1969. From 1969 to 1970, he was a member on the nuclear

physics subpanel on management and costs of nuclear programs. See “Parkinson, William Charles,” in Who’s Who

in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

Dallas Lynn Peck (1929– ) earned a B.S. from California Institute of Technology in 1951, an M.S. from

California Institute of Technology in 1953, and a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1960. A geologist by profession, Dr. Peck worked for the United States Geological Survey from 1954 to 1995. He served as Chief Geologist

in the Office of Geochemistry and Geophysics from 1977 to 1981, and as Director of the office from 1981 to

1993. He also served as a member of the Lunar Sample Review Board from 1970 to 1971. See Who’s Who in

America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

Kenneth S. Pedersen (1939– ) served in numerous government agencies—Office of Equal Opportunity,

Department of Commerce, Atomic Energy Commission, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission—prior to coming

706
to NASA in 1982 as Director of International Affairs. In 1988, Pedersen was appointed as NASA Associate

Administrator for External Relations, serving until 1990, when he left NASA to accept an academic appointment

at Georgetown University. See “Pedersen, Kenneth S.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection,

NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Charles J. Pellerin, Jr., has a B.S. in physics from Drexel University and a Ph.D. in physics from Catholic

University of America. He is a longtime NASA official who began his career at the Goddard Space Flight Center

as he was completing his Ph.D. in physics in 1974. The next year he moved to NASA Headquarters where he

managed the development and integration of scientific instrumentation for flight on the Space Shuttle. In 1983,

he was named Director of Astrophysics in NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications, and in 1992 was

appointed Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Quality, and served in that position until 1994.

See “Pellerin, Charles J., Jr.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office,

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Laurence E. Peterson (1931– ) is a professor of physics at the University of California, where he started his

career in 1962 as a resident physicist. He received his B.S. in 1954 and his Ph.D. in 1960 from the University of

Minnesota. Dr. Peterson has served on the NASA Space Science Steering Committee since 1964; has been the

Director of the Center for Astrophysics and Space Science, University of California, since 1988; was a fellow with

the National Science Foundation, in 1958 and 1959; was a member of the Guggenheim Foundation from 1973

to 1974; and is a fellow of the American Physics Society. He is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronautics, and the International Astronomical Union. He was a member of the panel of participants in

the National Academy of Sciences “Solar Physics Study.” See “Peterson, Laurence E.,” in Who’s Who in America,

2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999. 

Leonard Richard Piasechi worked for the Reynolds Metals Company as a Research Engineer from 1953 to 1956,

an Engineer Group Supervisor from 1956 to 1960, Chief of the Solid Propellant Rockets Section from 1960 to

1963, Deputy Division Chief from 1963 to 1964, and Chief of the Propulsion Section and Voyager Propulsion

from 1964 to 1965. See “Piasechi, Leonard Richard,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1997–98, 19th Ed.,

New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1997. 

Richard W. Porter attended the University of Kansas and received his B.S. in 1934. He was awarded a Ph.D. by

Yale University in 1937. As an electrical engineer, he worked on missile programs with the General Electric

Company before working Earth sciences programs at the National Academy of Sciences. In 1964, he was the

Academy’s delegate to the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). See assorted government officials biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington,

DC.

Frank Press (1924– ) served as President Carter’s Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy from 1977 to 1981. Upon leaving this post, he was elected nineteenth President of the

National Academy of Sciences. Press earned his Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia University and has earned

twenty-eight additional honorary doctorates. See “Press, Frank,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

J. DeWitt Purcell (1912–1986) was a Physicist with the Naval Research Laboratory for nearly three decades before

retiring in 1975. As an authority on optics, spectroscopy, and solar astronomy, he authored hundreds of technical papers. Additionally, he did optics work for the Skylab space project. See “Purcell, J. D.,” in the “Obituaries”

of The Washington Post, section C, page 08, in the 9 July 1986 issue.

R

Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) was elected President of the United States in 1980, assumed office in January 1981,

and served until 1989. He was President when the maiden flight of the Space Shuttle was launched in 1981. In

1984, he mandated the construction of an orbital space station. Reagan declared “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness again. We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain. Tonight I am directing NASA to develop a

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 707
permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade.” See “Reagan, Ronald,” biographical file, NASA

Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, and Sylvia D. Fries,

“2001 to 1994: Political Environment and the Design of NASA’s Space Station System,” Technology and Culture,

Vol. 29, No.3 (July 1988): 568–93.

Edmond Morden Reeves (1934– ) earned his B.S. in 1956, his M.S. in 1957, and his Ph.D. in 1959 from Western

Ontario University, Canada. He has been the Director of NASA’s Flight Systems Division, Office of Life and

Microgravity Science and Applications, since 1993. From 1961 to 1978, he was a research physicist and lecturer

of astronomy at Harvard University, and from 1978 to 1982 he was the Senior Research Associate of the Harvard

College Observatory. He also served, from 1968 to 1971, on NASA’s Solar Physics Panel and the Astronomy

Missions Board. See “Reeves, Edmond Morden,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New

Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

William A. Rense (1914– ) earned his B.S. (1935) from Case Western University, and his M.S. (1937) and his

Ph.D. (1939, physics) from Ohio State University. He is a scholar of space physics. He began his career at the

University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1949, as an associate professor of physics, and became professor emeritus in

1980. His professional experiences include: being a physics instructor at Louisiana State University, 1939 to 1940;

an assistant professor at the University of Miami, 1940; visiting assistant professor at Rutgers University, 1941 to

1942; and assistant professor/associate professor at Louisiana State University, 1943 to 1949. From 1956 to 1978,

he was Codirector of the Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics. He is a member of the American

Geophysical Union, the American Physics Society, Sigma Xi, and the American Astronomical Society. See “Rense,

William A.,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

Sally K. Ride (1951– ) was the first American woman to fly in space. She was chosen as an astronaut in 1978

and served as a Mission Specialist for STS-7 (1983) and STS 41-G (1984). Ride was also a member of the

Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident in 1986, and she chaired a NASA taskforce

that prepared a report from 1986 to 1987 on the future of the civilian space program entitled Leadership and

America’s Future in Space (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987). She resigned from NASA

in 1987 to join the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University. She left Stanford

in 1989 to assume the directorship of the California Space Institute, part of the University of California at San

Diego. Ride also served as a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. See “Ride, Sally K.,” biographical folder, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Walter Orr Roberts (1915–1990) was an astronomer at the University of Colorado’s High Altitude Observatory.

He was also instrumental in the creation of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 1960 and directed

the program on food, climate, and the world’s future for the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1974 to

1981. He was heavily involved in the debate over “nuclear winter” and the possibility of the “Greenhouse Effect”

on Earth in the 1980s. See “Roberts, Walter Orr,” 1990 Current Biography Yearbook, p. 660.

Nancy G. Roman (1925– ) received her B.A. from Swarthmore College in 1946 and her Ph.D. in astronomy

from the University of Chicago in 1949. In 1955, she took a position as an astronomer with the Radio Astronomy

Branch of the Naval Research Laboratory. She was the head of the Microwave Spectroscopy Section when, in

1959, she left NRL to become the head of the Observational Astronomy Program at NASA. She remained at

NASA, serving as Chief of the Astronomy and Relativity Programs in the Office of Space Science until her retirement in 1979. See “Roman, Nancy G.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History

Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Milton W. Rosen (1915– ), an electrical engineer by training, joined the staff of the Naval Research Laboratory

in 1940, where he worked on guidance systems for missiles during World War II. From 1947 to 1955, he was in

charge of Viking rocket development. He was Technical Director of project Vanguard, the scientific Earth satellite program, until he joined NASA in October 1958 as Director of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion in the Office

of Manned Space Flight. In 1963, he became Senior Scientist for NASA’s Deputy Associate Administrator for

Space Science (engineering). In 1974, he retired from NASA to become Executive Secretary of the Space

Science Board at the National Academy of Sciences. See “Rosen, Milton W.,” biographical file, NASA Historical

708
Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC; and Milton W. Rosen, The

Viking Rocket Story, New York: Harper, 1955. 

David Maurice Rust (1939– ) was a research fellow of solar physics at the National Center of Atmospheric

Research while finishing his Ph.D. studies in 1966. From 1966 to 1968, he was a Carnegie Fellow of Astrophysics

at the Mt. Wilson and Palomar Observatory. From 1968 to 1974, he was an Astrophysicist with the Sacramento

Peak Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories. He later became the Senior Staff Scientist at

American Science and Engineering, Incorporated, and remained in that position until 1983. While at American,

he was invited to participate in the “Solar Physics Study” sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. He has

been in his current position as Physicist with the Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, since

1983. His professional memberships include the American Geophysical Union, the American Astronomical

Society, and the International Astronomical Union. See “Rust, David Maurice,” in American Men and Women of

Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

S

William R. Schindler (1928– ) was head of the Delta Rocket Program at Goddard Space Flight Center, where

Echo, Telstar, Relay, and Syncom communication satellites were placed into orbit, as well as the Tiros weather

satellites, several Explorer scientific satellites, an orbiting solar observatory, and the Ariel satellite. He received

his first training in rocketry as a member of the Vanguard project team in late 1957. He joined NASA at its beginning in 1958 and became the Delta project Technical Director. See “Schindler, William R.,” biographical file,

NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., (1918– ) was born on 30 October 1918 in Salem, Massachusetts. He attended Lenox

School, and he earned a B.S. degree in engineering at Harvard College in 1939; an M.S. degree in aeronautics

at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1942; and a D.S. degree in instrumentation from MIT in 1951.

Dr. Seamans also received the following honorary degrees: Doctor of Science from Rollins College (1962) and

from New York University (1967); and Doctor of Engineering from Norwich Academy (1971), from Notre Dame

(1974), and from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in 1974. In 1960, Dr. Seamans joined NASA as Associate

Administrator. In 1965, he became Deputy Administrator, retaining many of the general management-type

responsibilities of his previous title and also serving as Acting Administrator. During his years at NASA, he

worked closely with the Department of Defense in research and engineering programs and served as cochairman of the Astronautics Coordinating Board. Through these associations, NASA was kept aware of military developments and technical needs of the Department of Defense, and Dr. Seamans was able to advise that agency of

NASA activities which had application to national security. For further information on Robert C. Seamans, Jr.,

see his autobiography, Aiming at Targets, NASA SP-4106, 1996.

Albert F. Siepert earned a B.A. from Bradley University in 1936. Siepert began his NASA career as Director of

Administration at NASA Headquarters in 1958. He later served as Deputy Director of the NASA launch operations center at Kennedy Space Center. See “Siepert, Albert F.,” speech file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Henry J. Smith (1928– ) received his Ph.D. degree from Harvard University in 1955. He was named Deputy

Director of the Physics and Astronomy Program, Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA), in 1963. An

astronomer by education, he was the Director of Harvard Observatory’s Boyden Station, South Africa, from 1952

to 1954, and Director of the Harvard Observatory solar project in New Mexico, from 1955 to 1962. Prior to

NASA, he was Chief of the Sun-Earth Relations Section of the National Bureau of Standards Central Radio

Propagation Division in Boulder, Colorado. See “Smith, Henry J.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference

Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Kurt R. Stehling (1919–1997) was head of the Launch Vehicle Division of Project Vanguard at the Naval

Research Laboratory and transferred with the program to NASA. In the early years of NASA, he was Senior

Scientist on the staff of the NASA Administrator. In the mid-1960s, he was Vice President of Electro-Optical

Systems Corporation, and in 1971 he became a Senior Aerospace and Technology Advisor on Undersea

Technology at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. See “Stehling, Kurt R.,” biographical file,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 709
NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

Homer J. Stewart (1915– ) earned his doctorate in aeronautics from Caltech in 1940, joining the faculty there

two years before that. In 1939, he participated in pioneering rocket research with other Caltech engineers and

scientists, including Frank Malina, in the foothills of Pasadena. Their efforts resulted in the creation of the Jet

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Stewart maintained his interest in rocketry there. He was involved in developing the first American satellite, Explorer I, in 1958. In that year, on leave from Caltech, he became Director

of NASA’s Program Planning and Evaluation Office, and returned to Caltech in 1960 to a variety of positions,

including Chief of the Advanced Studies Office at JPL, from 1963 to 1967, and professor of aeronautics. See

“Stewart, Homer J.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, DC; and Clayton R. Koppes, JPL, American Space Program: A History of the Jet Propulsion

Laboratory, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 23, 32, 44, 47, 79–80, 82.

Andrew J. Stofan (1935– ) began his career with NASA in 1958 as a Research Engineer at the Lewis Research

Center. Throughout his 30 years at NASA, he held numerous managerial and administrative positions. He was

the Associate Administrator for the Space Station Office from 30 June 1986 until his retirement on 1 April 1988.

See “Stofan, Andrew J.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA

Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

Morton J. Stoller (1917–1963) was a leading figure in the Nation’s weather and communications satellite program. He joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1939 as an Electrical Engineer at the

Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, and in 1958 he became NASA’s Chief of Space Science in the Office of the

Assistant Director for Space Science. In early 1960, he was named Assistant Director for the Satellite and

Sounding Rocket program, in the Office of Space Flight, and in 1962 he was named Director of the Office of

Applications. See “Stoller, Morton J.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History

Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

William G. Stroud (1923– ) earned a B.A. degree from Pennsylvania State University and graduate degrees

in physics from the University of Chicago and Princeton University. In 1959, before joining NASA, he was

Chief of the Astro-Instrumentation Branch of the Astro-Electronics Division at the U.S. Army Signal Research

and Development Laboratory, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. In 1960, he was Chief of Meteorology in the

Satellite Applications Systems Division of the Goddard Space Flight Center and Project Manager for Tiros I,

the meteorological satellite launched 1 April 1960. He became Chief of the Aeronomy and Meteorology

Division at Goddard, and then Special Assistant to the Director of Flight Projects there. See “Stroud, William

G.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Hubertus Strughold (1898–1986) served as Director of the Physiological Institute of the University of Heidelberg

from 1946 through 1947. Later in 1947, he joined the staff of the U.S. Air Force School of Aviation Medicine,

Randolph Field, Texas. In 1949, he was named Chief of the newly founded Department of Space Medicine. In

1951, he received the title of Professor of Aviation Medicine from the United States Air Force’s Air University,

who named him the First Professor of Space Medicine. In 1958, he was appointed Advisor for Research, USAF

Aerospace Medical Center, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, and was named Chairman of the Advanced Studies

Group of the Center in 1960. In early 1962, he was named Chief Scientist of the Aerospace Medical Division

(AFSC). See “Strughold, Hubertus,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History

Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

Ernst Stuhlinger (1913– ) was a physicist who earned his Ph.D. at the University of Tbingen in 1936 and continued research into cosmic rays and nuclear physics until 1941, while serving as an assistant professor at the

Berlin Institute of Technology. He spent two years as an enlisted man in the German army on the Russian

Front before being assigned to the rocket development center at Peenemünde, Germany. There he worked

principally on guidance and control of rockets. After World War II, he came to the United States as part of

Project Paperclip and worked with Wernher von Braun at Fort Bliss, Texas, and then at the Redstone Arsenal

in Huntsville, Alabama. He transferred to Marshall Space Flight Center in 1960, was Director of the Space

Science Lab from until 1968, and was Associate Director for Science from 1968 to 1975. Then he retired and

710
became an adjunct professor and senior research scientist with the University of Alabama, at Huntsville. He

directed early planning for lunar exploration and the Apollo telescope mount, which flew on Skylab, and produced a wealth of scientific information about the Sun. He also was responsible for the early planning on the

High-Energy Astronomy Observatory and contributed to the initial phases of the space telescope project. His

work included studies of electric propulsion and scientific payloads for the Space Shuttle. See “Stuhlinger,

Ernst,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, DC.

Peter Andrew Sturrock (1924– ) earned his B.A. in 1945, his M.A. in 1948, and his Ph.D. (math) in 1951 from

Cambridge University. He began his professional career as the Harwell Senior Fellow, Atomic Energy Research

Establishment, England, in 1951. Other positions held include: fellow, St. John’s College, 1952 to 1955; research

associate for microwaves, Stanford University, 1955 to 1958; and the Ford Fellow for Plasma Physics, European

Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland. See “Sturrock, Peter Andrew,” in American Men and Women of

Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

T

William B. Taylor (1925– ) graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1945 and rose to the

rank of Major as an engineer in the Army Corps of Engineers, in support of the Nuclear Power Program. He was

a Technical Operations Officer involved in atomic weapons tests and operations as part of the Manhattan Project

from 1946 to 1952. In 1951, he received an M.S. degree from Johns Hopkins University. He retired in 1954 and

joined NASA as a Systems Engineer in 1962. He was the Assistant Director for Engineering Studies in the Office

of Manned Space Flight. See “Taylor, William B.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA

History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Adrienne F. Timothy supported the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) Reduction and Analysis System at the

American Science and Engineering (AS&E) Corporation from 1971 to 1974. She began her career with NASA

in 1974 as a Staff Scientist for Solar Physics, Physics, and Astronomy programs in the Office of Space Science. In

1975, she became Chief of the Solar Physics Branch, where she planned and directed a national program of

space science research in the solar physics discipline. In 1977, she became Program Manager for advanced programs and technology in NASA’s Solar Terrestrial Division of the Office of Space Science. Then in June of 1978

she became Assistant Associate Administrator for Space Science. See “Timothy, Adrienne F.,” biographical file,

NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Richard Tousey (1909–1997) received his Ph.D. in physics from Harvard in 1933 and an honorary D.S. degree

in 1961 from Tufts University, where he was a research instructor from 1935 to 1941. In 1941, he joined the Naval

Research Laboratory (NRL) as a Space Scientist and stayed until his retirement in 1978. He was credited with

pioneering NRL’s rocket spectroscopy research and was the principal investigator for four successful solar experiments carried out by astronauts aboard the Skylab space station in 1973 and 1974. In 1990, he received the

George Ellery Hale Prize from the American Astronomical Society for his work. Other honors include: the

Henry Draper Medal of the National Academy of Sciences, the Frederick Ives Medal of the Optical Society of

America, the E.O. Hulbert Award of the Naval Research Laboratory, the Progress Medal of the Photographic

Society of America, the Prix Ancel of the Societe Francaise de Photographie, and the Eddington Medal of the

Royal Astronomical Society. He was the Henry Norris Russell Lecturer of the American Astronomical Society and

the Darwin Lecturer of the Royal Astronomical Society. See “Tousey, Richard,” biographical file, NASA Historical

Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

John W. Townsend, Jr., (1924– ) was the Deputy Director of the Goddard Space Center from 1965 to1968 and

Director from 1987 to 1990. Before NASA he worked at the Naval Research Laboratory from 1949 to 1958 and

was Branch Head from 1955 to 1958. He supported several positions in various scientific fields, including Deputy

Administrator of the Environment Sciences Services Administration (1968 to 1970), Associate Administrator of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1970 to 1977), and President of the Fairchild Space and

Electronics Company. He also had roles in the International Academy of Astronautics, NASA Advisory Council,

National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council Space Applications Board, and the Office of

Technology Assessment Advisory Board Panel on International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 711
Activities. He earned his B.A., M.A, and Sc.D. from Williams College. See “Townsend, John W., Jr.,” biographical

file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

U

Roger K. Ulrich (1942– ) earned his B.S. degree, 1963, and his Ph.D. degree, 1968, from the University of

California, Berkeley. He was active in the study of the solar interior and used theoretical helioseismology, analysis of the solar neutrino problem, and solar atmosphere dynamics and observational methods that included the

operation of the 150-foot tower on Mt. Wilson and participation in two space helioseismology experiments on

the NASA/ESA SOHO mission. The 150-foot tower project provided access to observe facilities with a unique

long-termed digital database of solar activity that extended over two solar cycles. He used the Mt. Wilson facility

to make the first observation and identification of Alfven waves on the solar surface. Professional memberships

include the American Astronomical Society and the International Astronomical Union. See “Ulrich, Roger K.,”

in Who’s Who in America, 1980–81, 41st Ed., V. 2, and at http://www.physics.ucla.edu//people/faculty_members/

ulrich.html

V

Wernher von Braun (1912–1977) was the leader of what has been called the “rocket team” that developed the

German V-2 ballistic missile in World War II. At the conclusion of the war, von Braun and some of his chief assistants—as part of a military operation called Project Paperclip—came to America and were installed at Fort Bliss

in El Paso, Texas, to work on rocket development and use the V-2 for high-altitude research. They used launch

facilities at the nearby White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico. In 1950, his team moved to the Redstone

Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama, to concentrate on the development of a new missile for the Army. They built

the Army’s Jupiter Ballistic missile, and before that the Redstone, used by NASA to launch the first Mercury capsules. The story of von Braun and the “rocket team” has been told many times. See, as examples, David H.

DeVorkin, Science with a Vengeance: How the Military Created the U.S. Space Sciences After World War II, New York:

Springer-Verlag, 1992; Frederick I. Ordway III and Mitchell R. Sharpe, The Rocket Team, New York: Thomas Y.

Crowell, 1979; Erik Bergaust, Wernher von Braun, Washington, DC: National Space Institute, 1976. 

W

Arthur Bertram Cuthbert Walker, Jr., (1936–2001) earned his B.S. from Case Institute of Technology in 1957,

and his M.S. and Ph.D. (physics) from the University of Illinois, respectively, in 1958 and 1962. He was a noted

Astronomer and Space Physicist at Stanford University from 1965 until 2001. His professional experiences

include: member of the technical staff at the Space Physics Lab of the Aerospace Corporation, from 1965 to

1968, where he was promoted from Staff Scientist to Senior Staff Scientist in 1970; Director of the Space

Astronomy Project in 1972 and 1973; and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies at Stanford University in 1975. His

professional memberships include: Sigma Xi, the American Physics Society, the American Geophysical Union,

the American Astronomical Union, the American Astronomical Society, and the International Astronomical

Union. See “Walker, Arthur Bertram Cuthbert, Jr.,” in American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New

Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998. 

Robert S. Walker (1942– ) (R-PA) earned a B.S. in education from Millersville University and an M.A. in political science from the University of Delaware. Congressman Walker was a high school teacher and a congressional

aide prior to being elected to Congress. He served from 1977 to 1997 in the House, and he was elected Chairman

of the House Science Committee in 1995. After his retirement from Congress, Walker served as Chairman of the

Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. See “Walker, Robert S.,” biographical file, NASA

Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Robert T. Watson (1922– ) earned a B.A. from DePauw University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Massachusetts

Institute of Technology in 1951. Dr. Watson worked for the Department of Commerce from 1971 to 1990. See

Who’s Who in America, 2000, 54th Ed., New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 1999.

712
James E. Webb (1906–1992) was NASA’s Administrator from 1961 to 1968. Previously, he had been an aide to a

congressman in New Deal, Washington, an aide to Washington lawyer Max O. Gardner, and a business executive

with the Sperry Corporation and the Kerr-McGee Oil Company. He was the Director of the Bureau of the Budget

between 1946 and 1950, and Undersecretary of State from 1950 to 1952. See W. Henry Lambright, Powering

Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Robert M. White (1923– ) served as Head of the U.S. Weather Bureau and the Environmental Science Services

Administration in the 1960s, as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the

1970s, and as Head of the National Academy of Engineering in the late 1980s. See “White, Robert M.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington,

DC.

Edward Lawrence (Larry) Winn, Jr., (1919– ) (R-KS) earned his B.A. from the University of Kansas in 1941.

Before his congressional seat, he was with a radio station in Missouri for two years, spent two years with North

American Aviation, worked two years as a private builder, has been Vice President of the Winn-Rau Corporation

since 1950, was the director of the National Association of Home Builders for 14 years, and is past president of

the Home Builders Association of Kansas. A Republican, Winn was elected to the 90th Congress, 2 January 1967,

and served his State until 3 January 1985. He was a ranking representative from Kansas on the House Science

and Technology Committee and did not seek reelection to the 99th Congress. See “Winn, Larry, Jr.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 

Y

Herbert F. York (1923– ) has been associated with scientific research in support of national defense since World

War II. He was Director of the Livermore Radiation Laboratory for the University of California before moving

to the Department of Defense in March 1958 as Chief Scientist of the Advanced Research Projects Agency. As a

result of a Department of Defense reorganization, he became the Director of Research and Engineering in

December 1958. He supported the position, the third-ranking civilian office after the Secretary and Deputy

Secretary of Defense, until 1961. He then moved to the University of California, San Diego, as chancellor and

professor of physics. He also served as a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee under both

Eisenhower and Johnson, and was later Chief Negotiator for the comprehensive test ban during the Carter

Administration. See “York, Dr. Herbert F.,” biographical file, NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA

History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC; and Herbert F. York, Making Weapons, Talking Peace: A

Physicist’s Odyssey from Hiroshima to Geneva, New York: Basic Books, 1987.

Z

Harold Zirin (1929– ) earned and received his B.A. in 1950, his M.A. in 1951, and his Ph.D. (astrophysics) in

1953 from Harvard University. His professional career began at the Rand Corporation in 1952. From 1953 to

1955, he was an instructor of astronomy at Harvard University. He was a senior researcher at the High Altitude

Observatory, of the University of Colorado, from 1955 to 1964. With his colleague Robert Howard, Zirin

attempted to build a 65-centimeter Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) in the mid-1960s. Since 1964, Dr. Zirin has

been a professor of astrophysics at the California Institute of Technology (CIT). See “Zirin, Harold,” in

American Men and Women of Science, 1998–99, 20th Ed., New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bower, 1998.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 713

Index

A

Abbot, Charles Greeley, 26

Able, rhesus monkey, 270, 308

Active Cavity Radiometer, 556

Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Experiment (AMPTE), 226, 231

Acuna, Mario, 169, 244

Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), 172

Advanced Concepts and Technology Office (NASA), 641

Advanced Data Collection and Location System (ADCLS), 453

Advanced Earth Observation Satellite (ADEOS), 578, 594, 607, 630, 636, 654, 687; and ADEOS II, 535

Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit, 546

Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO), 12–16, 21–24, 68, 76, 96

Advanced Research and Technology Office (NASA), 275–277, 282, 347, 364–366, 368, 369, 375, 376

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), DOD, 5, 158, 672

Advanced Science and Technology Office (NASA), 280, 281, 379, 381, 386, 398, 399

Advanced Solar Observatory, 33

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), 583, 598

Advanced X–ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), 232

Aerobee rocket, 3, 75, 95, 307, 308

Aeronautics Office (NASA), 641

AEROSOL (EOS–AERO), 590, 591, 593–596, 602, 604, 605, 607, 608, 610; see also Earth Observing System

Aerospace Medicine, 346, 348, 378, 379, 385, 386, 388

Agencia Spatiale Italiano (ASI), 670, 671

Agriculture, U.S. Department of (USDA), 323, 332, 357, 505, 509, 520, 621, 652

Air Force, U.S., 2, 10, 176, 270, 271, 273, 274, 278, 380, 462, 555, 581

Airborne Antarctic Experiment (AAOE), 446

Alaska SAR Facility, 598, 607

Albert, rhesus monkey, 270

Alberts, Bruce, 644, 645, 646

Albrecht, M., 165 n. 12

Alexander, Joseph, 169

Alfrey, Clarence P., 420

Allowance for Program Adjustment (APA), 236

ALTIMETER (EOS–ALT), 590, 591, 594–596, 601, 602, 604, 605, 607, 608, 610, 636; see also Earth Observing

System

American Astronomical Society (AAS), 21, 23

American Geophysical Union (AGU), 21

American Meteorological Society (AMS) 21, 628

American Samoa, 356

American Science and Engineering, Inc., 14

Ames Research Center (ARC), 129–131, 273, 275–277, 281–283, 289, 291–293, 299, 346, 348, 364–366, 369,

370, 372–374, 377–382, 385, 387, 389, 401, 420–422, 424, 425, 509

Anchored, Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms (IMP), 161; and AIMP–1, 161; and AIMP–2, 161

Anderson, Kinsey, 165

Announcement of Opportunity (AO), 236, 289, 295, 408, 409, 412, 417; and AO 6 and 7, 230, 231

Antarctic ozone hole, see Global warming 

Apel, John R., 647

Apollo program, 10, 16, 21, 27, 82, 278, 280, 290, 294, 346, 349, 354, 359, 375, 376, 383, 385, 387, 399, 410,

482; and Apollo 11 mission, 18; and Apollo 17 mission, 282; and Apollo Applications Program, 18, 24; and

Apollo Extension Systems (AES), 13, 76; and Apollo Service Module, 14

Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), 387

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 715
Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM), 14–21, 23, 24, 82, 85–92, 95, 99, 112, 115, 135; and ATM-A, 17, 83; and ATMB, 17

Applications and Research Involving Space Technologies Observing the Earth’s Field from Low-Earth Orbiting

Satellites (ARISTOTELES), 579

Applications Office (NASA), 275, 379, 386

Applied Physics Laboratory, 2

AQUA (EOS–AQUA), 472; see also Earth Observing System

Ariane, 547

Ariel satellite, 28

Army, U.S., 159; and Ballistics Laboratory, 10; and Ballistic Missile Agency, 268; and Army Institute of

Pathology, 276

Arvidson, Raymond E., 647

Asia, 651; and Tashkent, 284; and the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), 533

Asian Regional Remote Sensing Training Center, Bangkok, Thailand, 532, 533, 535

Astrobiology, 293

Astronomical Spectrograms, 47

Astronomical Telescope Orientation Mount (ATOM), 13, 76

Astronomical Unit (AU), 34, 151, 154

Astronomy and Astrophysics, 119

Astronomy Missions Board, 16–19, 30, 82–84, 88, 92, 93

Astrophysical Journal, The, 119

Astrophysics, 2, 117, 121, 177, 248

Astrophysics Branch of NASA, 32

Astrophysics Management Operations Working Group (AMOWG), 148, 149

Atlas, launch vehicle, 310 

Atlas II, 456; and Atlas IIAS, 461, 570, 571, 581, 582, 590, 629

Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), 633, 634

Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS), 577, 607

Atmospheric Physical and Chemical Monitor (APACM), 454

Atmospheric probes, 51

Atmospheric Research Satellite, 480

Atmosphere Trace Molecules Observed by Spectroscopy, 556

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 271

AURA (EOS–AURA), 472; see also Earth Observing System

Auroral particles, 44

Australia, 282; and BMRC, 606; and CSIRO, 606

Ausubel, Jesse, 513

Automated Data Collection and Location System, 551

B

Backlund, Peter, 667

Badavi, Francis F., 440

Baker, rhesus monkey, 270, 308

Baker, D. James, 497, 566, 575–586, 628, 651, 652, 657, 667

Baker, John C., 446 n. 10

Baker, Victor, 497

Baldwin, K. M., 420

Ball Corporation, 468; and previous incarnation as Ball Brothers Research Corporation, 7, 8, 10, 18

Ballard, R. W., 285 n. 17

Bame, Sam, 165

Banks, Peter, 566

Barry, William, 279, 374

Baumjohann, W., 165 n. 12

Baylor University, 299; and College of Medicine, 420

716
Beggs, James M., 29, 136, 280, 476, 497, 498, 499, 500–504

Bell Laboratories, 28

Benson, Charles, 15 n. 38, 18 n. 48

Bentley, Orville, 509

Benvenuti, P., 165 n. 12

Berkner, Lloyd, 5, 187, 270

Berry, Charles A., 278, 377, 378, 381, 399, 422

Biermann, Ludwig, 128

Billingham, John, 291, 293, 369, 370

Bindschadler, Robert, 647

Bioengineering, 382, 385

Bioenvironmental Technology, 382, 385, 386, 388

Biological and Physical Research Office (NASA), 281

Bioresearch, 382, 385

Biosatellite, 282, 283, 346, 349, 375, 401; and Biosatellite I, 282, 283; and Biosatellite II, 282, 283; and

Biosatellite III, 282, 283

Bioscience Advisory Committee (BAC), 272, 313–315, 345

Bioscience Programs, 346

Biospace Missions Office (NASA), 348, 349

Biotechnology and Human Research, 346, 381

Bishop, William, 497

Bisplinghoff, Raymond L., 346

Blaney, Harry III, 497

Blumberg, Baruch, 299

Bohlin, J. David, 30, 169, 244

Bollerud, Jack, 278

Bonny, pigtail monkey, 282

Botkin, Daniel, 497, 512

Brandeis University, 276

Brazil, see Instituto de Pesquisas Espacials

Bretherton, Francis, 448, 536

Briggs, Geoffrey, 497

Brilliant Eyes, 571, 577, 582

British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), 131

Broecker, Wallace, 497

Bronk, Detlev, 270

Brookhaven National Laboratory, 297

Brown, Allan, 350, 351

Bryan, Richard, 292

Burke, Bernard, 512

Burr, Peter, 248

Burroughs, William E., 445 n. 8

Bush, George W., U.S. President, 281

Bush, George H.W., U.S. President, 292, 462 

Bushnell, David, 268 n. 1, 270 n. 3

Butler, Paul, 160 n. 4

C

Calabrese, Michael A., 167 n. 15 169, 233, 234, 238, 244

California Institute of Technology (Caltech), 6, 12, 128, 135, 159, 513

Calio, Anthony J., 25 n.65, 400, 509

Calvin, Melvin, 328

Canada, 470, 530, 602

Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS), 531, 533, 535, 606

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 717
Canadian Space Agency (CSA), 409, 582, 584, 686; and RADARSAT, 558, 562, 578, 607, 654

Canavan, Greg, 566

Cape Kennedy, Canaveral, 10, 77, 78, 80, 131, 132

Carbon–Monoxide Monitor, 559, 562

Carder, Kenneth, 497

Carmel Research Center, 512

Carsey, Frank, 657

Carter, Jimmy, U.S. President, 27

Case Western Reserve University Medical School, 271

Catholic University of America, 128

Census Bureau, 621

Centaur launch vehicle, 128, 131, 327

Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES), 285, 286, 409, 471, 531, 533, 584, 636

Challenger (STS 51–L), 26, 30–32, 172, 224, 225, 228, 287, 295, 456

Chandler, Philip, 497

Chahine, Moustafa, 497

Chase, Robert, 496

CHEMISTRY (EOS–CHEM), 590, 591, 594–597, 601–605, 607, 608, 610, 613, 632; and Active Cavity

Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), 633; and High–Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS),

631; and Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), 631; and SAFIRE, 631; and Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas

Experiment (SAGE) II, 631; and Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE), 631, 633;

see also Earth Observing System

Chicago Midway Laboratories, 177, 178, 180

Chilworth Research, U.K., 606

China, 584

Chromosphere, 69, 73, 101–103, 121, 122

Clark, John F., 25 n. 66, 125

Clarke, Arthur C., 162

Clement, David, 643, 646

Clinton, William Jefferson, U.S. President, 175, 462

Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES), 591, 602, 636, 679

Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS), 443, 466–470, 548, 585

Cold War, 2, 27, 170, 176

Collaborative Solar–Terrestrial Research (COSTR), 168, 169, 171, 259

COLOR (EOS–COLOR), 590, 591, 593–596, 601, 602, 604, 605, 607, 608; see also Earth Observing System

Colorado State University, 606

Columbus satellite, 559

Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES), 167, 168, 227, 231, 238

Commerce, U.S. Department of (DOC), 174, 586

Comet Halley, 139, 163, 164, 168, 202, 203

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), 574, 575, 586

Committee on Earth Observing Satellites (CEOS), 470, 471, 528–536, 651, 656, 657, 662, 664–667; and the

Working Group on Data, 525; and the Working Group on Intercalibration and Performance Verification, 535

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, (CENR), 652, 656, 657, 662–667; and the Global Change

Data and Information System, 664; and the Subcommittee on Global Change, 645

Committee on Data Interchange and Data Centers, 192

Committee on Psychological and Biological Research, 270

Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP), 143, 222, 227, 232

Committee on Solar–Terrestrial Research, 222

Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (CSAA), 227, 232

Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM), 287

Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), 187, 194, 288, 328, 331, 503

Compton, W. David, 15 n. 38, 18 n. 48

Congress, U.S., 9, 14, 29, 143, 158, 169, 173, 175, 271, 276, 283, 288, 292, 299, 300, 346, 386, 442, 490, 576,

579, 581, 584; and House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, 283 n. 14, 287, 316; and

718
House Committee on Science, 465, 642–646; and House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies, 586–613; and the Senate Appropriations Committee, 28, 570; and the Senate Commerce, Science

and Transportation Committee, 575

Connolly, J. P., 285 n. 17

Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), 599, 643

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 496

Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS), 401

Coordinated Data Analysis Workshops, 163

Coordination on Geostationary Meteorological Satellites, 532

Coordination on Land Observation Satellites (CLOS), 530, 532, 533

Coordination on Ocean Remote Sensing Satellites (CORSS), 530, 532, 533

Cordes, Joseph, 471 n. 52

Cordova, France, 299, 422

Cornell University, 512, 606, 628; and the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 79, 80

Corona, 69, 73, 101–103, 121

Corona satellite program, 13

Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), 159

Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), 225, 228, 232

Cosmic radio noise, 49

Cosmic Ray Isotope Experiment (CRIE), 227

Cosmic Ray Observations, 43

Cosmos/Bion, 284–287, 294, 296, 401, 413 

Cost Control Plan (CCP), 170, 233, 235, 237, 239, 240, 243

Coughlin, Kenneth, 497

Council on Environmental Quality, 393

Crocker, J. Allen, 20 n. 56, 98

Crustal Dynamics Project, 557

Crutzen, Paul, 497

Cucinotta, F. A., 440

Cyclops, 291, 369, 373

D

Daddario, Emilio, 273

Dailey, John R., 171, 254, 258, 261

Dantone, J. J., 668, 669, 675

Dartmouth College, 512 

Daugherty, Kenneth I., 628

Day, Dwayne A., 445 n. 8

De Pablo, D., 165 n. 12

De Vries, Ralph M., 513

Deep Space Network (DSN), 134

Defense, U.S. Department of (DOD), 158, 159, 174, 187, 343, 384, 442, 456, 459, 461, 520, 555, 568, 571–574,

579, 582, 584, 600, 602, 607, 620, 621, 636, 668–670, 672, 673, 675

Defense Mapping Agency (DMA), 628, 668–675

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), 555, 562, 584, 586, 607; and Special Sensor Microwave

Imager, SSMI, 583, 585, 598

DeFrance, Smith J., 273 n. 6, 275, 276

DeVorkin, David H., 1 n. 1, 1 n. 2, 3 n. 4, 8 n. 17, 22 n. 57, 26 n. 69, 

Delta rocket, 25, 77, 78, 80, 81, 225, 229, 230, 590, 629; and Delta II, 402, 461, 570

Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtangelegenheiten (DARA), 409, 584, 670, 671

Diaz, Al V., 203, 299

Dick, Steven J., 291 n. 24

Digital Elevation Model (DEM), 671–673

Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED), 668, 669

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 719
Disaster Management Support, 471

Discover Magazine, 510

Discoverer, Project, 309

Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAAC), 464–466, 598–600, 602, 612, 617, 618, 620, 623, 624, 627, 628,

637; and User Working Groups, 464, 465

Donahue, Thomas M., 512

Douglas aircraft, 10, 79

Dozier, Jeff, 460 n. 31, 628, 647

Drake, Charles, 512

Drake, Frank, 291

Dryden, Hugh L., 274, 277, 342, 343

Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC), 193, 377

Duce, Robert, 497

Duchossois, Guy, 535

Dupree, Andrea K., 22, 117

Dyer, J. W., 283 n. 13

Dyna–Soar program, 310

Dynamics Explorer (DE), 226, 231

E

Eagle, Harry, 398

Eagleson, Peter, 497

Earth Observations International Coordination Working Group, 652

Earth Observing System (EOS), 32, 441, 449, 451, 453, 455–457, 463, 470, 473, 537, 541, 545, 550, 551, 559,

562, 575–579, 585, 587, 589, 592, 606, 609, 611, 629, 634, 640–645, 654, and Affiliated Data Centers, 621;

and Earth Observing System A, 458–462, 571, 580, 581; and EOS–AM, 472, 590, 591, 593–597, 599, 601–605,

607, 608, 610, 613, 632, 636, 687; and EOS AM–2, 610; and EOS–B, 458–462, 571, 580, 581; and EOS–PM,

EOS PM–1, 472, 590, 591, 593–596, 601–605, 607, 608, 610, 613; and EOS Communications (ECOM), 638;

and NREN, 638; and Engineering Review Committee, 459, 566–575, 582, 584, 588, 590, 600; and Wide Band

Data Collection System, WBDCS, 630, 635; and Independent Verification and Validation, IV&V, 599, 612,

638, 639; and Interdisciplinary Investigator Computing Facilities, 612; and Interdisciplinary Teams, 599, 600;

and Investigators Working Group, IWG, 464, 588, 637, 638; and Payload Advisory Panel, 460, 461, 588; and

Science Data Plan, 619; and Science Steering Committee, 468; and Senior Review Group, 461; and the

Science and Mission Requirements Working Group, 451, 453, 468; see also AEROSOL, ALTIMETER,

AQUA, AURA, CHEMISTRY, COLOR and Earth Observing System Data and Information System 

Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS), 459, 460, 462, 464, 465, 568, 574, 586, 597,

601, 614–628, 637–639, 646, 648, 679; and EOSDIS Version 0, 573, 583, 598, 602, 612, 617, 619, 620, 624,

636; and EOSDIS Version 1, 602, 617, 618, 622, 625, 636; and EOSDIS–EOIS 682, 684

Earth probes, 460, 568, 571, 572, 576, 577, 636, 640

Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), 444, 537, 546, 555, 559, 562, 564, 577, 585, 607

Earth Resources Satellite (ERS–1), 519, 556, 562, 576, 578, 585, 607, 654; and ERS–2, 577

Earth Science Enterprise (MTPE), 465, 471–473, 689

Earth sciences, 248, 287, 441–443, 447–451, 454–458, 462, 464–466, 470, 473 

Easterling, William, 513

Eastern Test Range (ETR), 79, 80

Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations, 470, 529, 532, 657; and Economic Summit Panel of Experts on

Remote Sensing, 532

Eddy, John A., 512

Edelson, Burton, 164–166, 169, 202, 221–223, 280, 474–477, 504–511, 513

Eden, H. F., 443 n. 3, 443 n. 5

Edmond, J., 295 n. 30

Eisenhower, Dwight David, U.S. President, 181, 270, 274

El Niño, 471, 523, 542, 554, 580, 677

Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council (ERMAC), 394

720
Electronics Research Lab, 293

Elero, B. P., 443 n. 3, 443 n. 5

Energy, U.S. Department of (DOE), 133, 174, 297, 394, 459, 461, 505, 520, 568, 571–574, 582, 584, 600, 602,

607, 620, 666

Enrico Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies, 146, 149, 177–180

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 588, 621, 666

Envisat, 654, 687

EOSAT Corporation, 468, 469, 555, 562, 607

EROS Data Center, 598, 599, 602, 607, 638

Eumetsat, 462, 686

Europe, 470, 471, 519, 630, 651, 654

European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO), 130

European Space Agency (ESA), 22, 27–30, 35, 127, 130–134, 144, 145, 153, 154, 163, 165–169, 201, 243, 244,

295, 409, 529–531, 533, 535, 536, 555, 556, 559, 564, 578, 579, 582, 584, 585, 636, 686, 690; see also

Columbus, Earth Resources Satellite, Polar Orbiting Earth observation Missions, Ulysses, Meteorology

Satellite

European Space Operations Center (ESOC), 165

European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), 130, 246

European Space Research Institute (ESRIN), 130

European Space Research Organization (ESRO), 129, 130, 387

European–Space Analysis Network (E–SPAN), 165

Evans, Diane L., 647

Exobiology, 70, 198, 276, 278, 281, 288–293, 327–338, 348, 351, 352, 360, 361, 362–368, 376, 381

Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV), 401, 402, 455, 456, 640

Exploration Office (NASA), 281

Explorer satellites, 7, 9, 17, 36, 153, 171, 172, 175, 176, 185, 225–228, 230–232, 287; and Explorer 1, 158, 166,

181–183; and Explorer 2, 158; and Explorer 3, 158, 181–183, 202; and Explorer 4, 158, 181, 182; and

Explorer 12, 159; and Explorer 14, 159; and Explorer 15, 159

Extragalactic light, 43

Extraterrestrial life, see Exobiology

Extravehicular Activity (EVA), 279, 405

Extreme Ultraviolet (XUV), 95, 101, 116, 123, 155; and the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), 225,

228–231; and the EUV telescope, 23, 109

F

Fairmont, West Virginia, 599

Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), 172

Farquhar, Robert, 164, 203

Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer (FAST), 172

“Faster, Better, Cheaper” mode of spacecraft management, 35, 171, 172, 176, 254

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 292

Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology, 459

Federal Coordinator of Meteorology, 174

Federal Council for Science and Technology, 23 n. 62, 201

Federal Geographic Data Committee, 663

Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), see Germany

Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIPs), 466

Fish and Wildlife Service, 393

Fisk, Lennard A., 30, 146, 147, 150, 169, 170, 173, 233, 235, 244, 247, 280, 400–02

Fleming, William A., 341

Fletcher, James C., 279, 369–372, 374, 391

Flight Support System (FSS), 126, 137

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 475, 477, 496, 501, 503, 509

Forsythe, D. L., 18 n. 46

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 721
France, 288, 530, 547, 555, 556, 577–579, 594; and LERTS, 606; see also Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales,

Groupement des Operateurs des Stations SPOT

Franklin Institute, 79, 80

Franks, J., 165 n. 12

Free–Flyer, satellite, 106, 110

French Space Agency, see Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales

Friedman, Herbert, 221, 222, 448, 507, 509–528

Frieman, Edward, 459, 463, 566, 588

Fryklund, Verne C., 345

G

Gagarin, Yuri, 160, 274, 398

Galileo, 28, 30, 33, 144, 299

Galler, Sidney, 301

Gamma Ray Explorer (GRE), 23; and cancellation of, 25, 125, 126

Gamma Ray Observatory, 29

Garber, Stephen J., 292 n. 28, 284 n. 29, 455 n. 22, 456 n. 23

Garn, Jake, 292

GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE), 446

Geiger Muller, 158

Gemini, 346, 349, 375, 382, 410; and Gemini IV, 282; and Gemini VI, 282; and Gemini VII, 294; and Gemini

XII, 282

General Accounting Office (GAO), 9, 465

General Circulation Models (GCM), 592

Geodynamics Laser Ranging System (GLRS), 551, 559, 562, 572

Geodesy Satellite (GEOSAT), 555, 562, 578, 607

Geomagnetic tail (Geotail), 165, 166, 169, 223

Geopotential Research Mission (GRM), 537, 547, 552, 558, 562

Geophysics Research Board (GRB), 162, 191, 192, 513

Geopotential Radar Mapper (GRM), 519, 525, 562

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), 445, 471, 546, 552, 555, 558, 562, 583–585, 607;

and GOES–Next, 558

Geostationary platforms, 564–576

German Space Agency, see Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtangelegenheiten

Germany, 288, 668; and the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT), 133; and the Federal

Republic of Germany (FRG), 133, 509; see also Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtangelegenheiten

Giacconi, Riccardo, 16

Gilman, Peter A., 142, 143, 144

Giacobini–Zinner (GZ), 164, 202, 205, 217

Gilruth, Robert, 275

Giotto, 163, 214

Glaser, Harold, 27, 136, 199, 200

Glass, H. Bentley, 278, 359, 376, 398; and Glass Committee, 364–367, 385

Glenn, John, 297, 298

Glennan, T. Keith, 5, 185, 271–275, 398

Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), 446, 495, 518, 554

Global Atmospheric Watch (GAW), 654

Global Biology Science Working Group and Research Program, 508

Global Change Master Directory, 619, 620

Global Change Research Act (PL101–606), 644, 645

Global Digital Seismic Network, 562

Global Electrodynamics Connections, GEC, 175

Global Environmental Monitoring Systems (GEMS), 496, 519, 557, 654

Global Geospace Science (GGS), 168–172, 233, 235, 237, 238–260, 261

722
Global habitability, 446, 447, 474–487, 489–511, 518, 520, 538, 540, 550

Global Observation of Forest Cover project, 471

Global Observing System (GOS), 650–657, 664

Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE), 471

Global Ocean Flux Study, 561

Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME), 577

Global Positioning System (GPS), 547, 555, 648

Global Precipitation Mission (GPM), 472

Global Resource Information Database (GRID), 557, 654

Global warming, 458, 462, 515, 520, 525, 526, 543; and ozone depletion, 443, 444, 446, 483, 563, 584, 631; and

Antarctic ice, 487

Global Weather Experiment, 446

Goddard, David, 314

Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 497, 512, 606

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), 7, 10, 12, 14, 24, 28, 31, 107, 125, 131, 145–147, 158, 159, 161, 165, 167,

171, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200–203, 238–240, 243, 248, 249, 251, 259, 273, 377, 464, 467–469, 509, 598, 599,

602, 606, 607, 612, 626, 627, 639–641, 679, 681, 682

Golden Fleece Award, 291, 322

Goldin, Daniel S., 35, 170–173, 175, 176, 254, 255, 258, 262, 281, 286, 297, 299, 300, 455, 460–462, 614,

639–643, 689, 690

Goldberg, Leo, 5, 7 n. 15, 7 n. 16, 8 n. 18, 10–12, 14, 16–19, 21, 56, 59, 82–86, 98, 195–197, 430, 431

Gomersall, E. W., 285 n. 17

Goody, Richard, 446–448, 477, 504, 566

Gore, Al, 576

Government Information Locator System, 664

Gravitational biology, 435

Gravity Gradiometer Mission (GGM), 538, 552, 560

Great Britain, 288; see also Ariel satellite

Great Observatories, 23, 169

Green G., 165 n. 12

Green, J. L, 165 n. 11, 165 n. 12, 165 n. 13

Greenstein, Jesse, 6 n.12, 19, 20

Greenstein Committee, 21

Grindeland, R. E., 285 n. 17

Group of Seven Industrialized Nations (G–7), 665

Groupement des Operateurs des Stations SPOT, 532, 562

Guam, 356

Gurovsky, N. N., 284

H

H–II rocket, 676, 679, 680, 682; and Payload Attach Fitting (PAF), 683

Haas, I. S., 443 n. 3

Hall, Benny B., 282 n. 12

Hall, Lawrence B., 290

Hall, R. C., 275 n. 8

Hallgren, Richard E., 628

Ham, rhesus monkey, 270

Hanrahan, J. H., 268 n. 1, 270 n. 3

Hansen, James, 497, 512

Hanshaw, Bruce, 513

Hapgood, M., 165 n. 12

Harris, Robert, 497

Hart, Pembroke J., 513

Hart, Richard C., 628

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 723
Hartline, Haldran K., 270

Harvard, University, 497, 508, 512, 628; and College Observatory, HCO, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 59, 82, 85–89,

195–197; 497, 508

Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 6, 22, 628

Harvey, C., 165 n. 12

Haymaker, Webb E., 276

Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of (HHS), 418

Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of (HEW), 341, 357, 392, 395

Healy, Bernadine, 297 

Hearth, Donald P., 196, 198

Heckman, Harry, 165

Hei, D. J., 163 n. 8

Helios, 12, 151

Heliospheric physics, 151

Heliosynchronous Orbiter (HSO), 154

Helman, Gerald D., 475

Helwig, D. A., 285 n. 17

Henize, Karl G., 16

Herring, Harvey W., 371

Hertzfeld, Henry R., 471 n. 52

Hess, Harry, 350

Hewlett Packard Company, 291, 369, 370

High-Altitude Observatory (HAO), 8, 12, 14, 60, 61

High-Energy Astronomical Observatory (HEAO), 23, 119

High-Energy Astrophysics, 148, 482

High-Energy Solar Platform (HESP), 227, 228, 231, 263

High-Performance Computing Centers (HPCC), 672

High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS), 453, 458, 572, 591, 600, 631

High-Resolution Microwave Survey (HRMS), 292

High-Resolution Multifrequency Microwave Radiometer (HMMR), 453

High-Resolution Telescope and Spectrograph (HRTS), 31

High-Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO), 31, 145, 146, 147, 149

Hinners, Noel, 25, 125, 148, 199, 202, 279, 280, 399, 400

Hirsch, Richard, 301

Hjornevik, Wesley L., 271

Ho, S., 165 n. 11

Hodgkins, Kenneth, 533

Hogg, Howard, 497

Holland, 288

Holloman Air Force Base, 268, 270

Holloway, Harry C., 281, 416–419, 422

Holter, Marvin, 447 n. 12

Holton, Emily M., 420

Hopcroft, John E., 628

Hornig, Donald, 497

Houghton, John, 476, 497

House Committees, see Congress

Hovestadt, Dieter, 165

Howard, Robert, 31

Hrach, Frank J., 129

Hrastar, John, 171

Hubble Space Telescope (HST), 31, 32, 34, 144, 232, 441, 456

Huddleston, Bill, 171

Hudson, Robert, 497

Hufbauer, Karl, 1 n. 2, 2 n. 3, 6 n.13, 22 n. 58, 23 n. 60, 26

724
Hughes Corporation, 11

Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS), 281

Humphrey, Hubert, 273

Humphreys, James W., 278, 365, 369, 377, 378

Huntoon, Carolyn, 411, 414, 415

Huntress, Wesley T., 174, 293, 422, 496

Hushen, W. Timothy, 513

Hydrologic Cycle, 451, 486

Hynds, Robert, 165

I

Ichiki, Albert T., 420

Imager for Magnetopause–to–Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE), 173

India, 530, 555, 579, 584

Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS), 555

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), 531, 533

Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), 28, 30, 132

Infra–Red Astronomy Satellite (IRAS), 28, 226

Injun satellites, 160, 175; and Injun–6, or Hawkeye, 160

Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), 163, 165–167, 168, 169, 222

Instituto de Pesquisas Espacials (INPE), 531, 533, 584, 606

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Astronomy (ICCA), 118

Interagency Federal Laboratory Review, 461

Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators, 663

Inter–Agency Consultative Group (IACG), 168

Intercosmos space agency, 163, 168, 284

Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR), 669–671

Interferometric Terrain Height Data–2 (ITHD–2), 670–673

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), 657, 662, 664, 665; and Global Sea Level Observing

System, GLOSS (654); and International Global Ocean Services System (IGOSS), 519, 654; and

International Ocean Data Exchange (IODE), 654

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 459, 568, 569, 574, 577, 588

Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), 167

Interior, U.S. Department of (DOI), 174, 505, 666; see also United States Geologic Survey

International Astronautical Federation (IAF), 347, 503

International Biosphere Reserves, 557

International Cometary Explorer (ICE), 165

International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), 162, 187, 192, 194, 200, 290, 446, 476, 503–505, 509, 521,

532, 557, 657; and the Middle Atmosphere Program, 496, 520; and Scientific Committee on Problems of the

Environment (SCOPE), 518; and the September 1984 General Assembly, 517; and World Climate Research

Program, 496, 518, 520, 523, 651, 652, 662, 664, 665

International Earth Observing System (IEOS), 678; and Data Exchange Principles, (DEP), 681, 684–689

International Geophysical Year (IGY), 3, 5, 38, 180, 185, 301, 302, 344, 517, 518; and United States National

Committee (USNC), 5

International Geosphere–Biosphere Program (IGBP), 448, 507, 510–528, 561, 576, 652, 662, 664–666

International Global Observing Strategy (IGOS), 471, 650, 651, 657–667; and Data Management Working

Group (DMWG), 663, 664; and Integrated Observing System Working Group (IOSWG), 664; and User

Needs Working Group (UNWG), 663, 664

International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA), 657, 667

International Life Sciences Strategic Working Group (ILSSWG), 296 

International Lithosphere Program, 518, 520

International Magnetospheric Study (IMS), 162, 163, 200, 201, 518

International Polar–Orbiting Meteorological Satellite Group, 532

International Solar Polar Mission (ISPM), 27–29, 127, 128, 131–133, 142–145, 154

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 725
International Solar–Terrestrial Physics Program (ISTPP), 33, 165–175, 222–235, 237, 238, 240, 241, 259

International Space Station (ISS), 34, 36, 145, 146, 147, 232, 263, 281, 288, 294–296, 402–405, 431, 432, 437,

438, 537, 539, 541, 544, 545, 551, 552, 554, 564, 565

International Sun–Earth Explorers (ISEE), 124, 153, 162, 176, 178, 200, 201; and ISEE–1, 163; and ISEE–2,

163; and ISEE–3, 163–165, 203, 204, 207–215, 221

International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), 28, 153

Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms (IMP), 20, 124, 160, 161, 175; and IMP–1, 161; and IMP–7, 161; and

IMP–8, 161

Intriligator, Devrie S., 512

Iowa Summer Study, 9, 11, 12, 20, 75

Iridium, 643

Italy, 579, 584, see also Agencia Spatiale Italiano

Italian Space Agency, see Agencia Spatiale Italiano

J

Jabs, E., 165 n. 11, 165 n. 12

Jackson, Roy, 365

Janssen, Jules, 70

Japan, 288, 470, 471, 530, 531, 579, 580, 582, 602, 630, 651, 654, 683; and the Communications Research

Laboratory (CRL), 677, 678; and the Japanese Environment Agency (JEA), 686; and the Japan

Meteorological Agency (JMA), 686; and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), 686; and

MRI, 606; and the Science and Technology Agency (STA), 686; see also National Space Development

Agency, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Tanegashima Space Center, Tsukuba ground station

Japan Earth Remote Sensing Satellite–1 (JERS–1), 556, 562, 578, 607, 654

Japanese Earth Observing System (JEOS), 687, see also Advanced Earth Observation Satellite

Japanese Space Agency, see National Space Development Agency or Institute of Space and Astronautical

Science

Jason mission, 471

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 28, 30 n. 82, 127, 129–133, 159, 248, 249, 251, 289, 291, 328, 377, 509, 598,

606, 607, 672

Jezek, Kenneth C., 628, 647

Johns Hopkins University, 3

Johnson, Francis S., 512

Johnson, Frank, 509

Johnson, David, 512

Johnson Space Center (JSC), 133, 279, 280, 287, 346, 377, 378–380, 382–385, 387, 389, 400, 509

Johnson–Freese, Joan, 29 n.76, 29 n. 77, 29 n. 79, 168 n. 16

Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated, 575

Joint Working Groups, Russia, 296

Jones, Anita K., 628

Jones, Walt, 365

Joyce, J. Wallace, 301

Jupiter, planet, 23, 28, 129, 132, 185, 186, 299

Jupiter, missile, 308

K

Karl, Thomas R., 628

Karth, Joseph, 283

Kasischke, Eric S., 647

Kasper, Raphael G., 513

Keller, Samuel W., 165, 202

Kellogg, William W., 3, 4 n. 5, 4 n. 9, 6, 36, 37

Kelly, Angelita Castro, 461 n. 32

726
Kennedy, John F., U.S. President, 274

Kennedy Space Center (KSC), 377

Kennel, Charles F., 651, 667

Kety, Seymour, 272, 314, 345

Keyworth, George A. II, 497–503

KH-7, 445

KH-9, 445

Kidmore, M. G. S., 185 n. 17

Killian, James R., Jr., 181

Kim, Myung–Hee, 440

King, J. H., 165 n. 13

Kitt Peak National Observatory, 6, 19, 31, 117

Klass, Philip J., 445 n. 8

Klein, Harold P., 276, 289

Knauf, George M., 345, 346

Konecci, Eugene B., 341–343, 345–347

Konradi, Andrei, 440

Kraemer, Robert, 27 n. 71

Krueger, Monica B., 628

L

La Jolla, California, 567

Laika, dog, 269, 312, 313

Lamond–Doherty Geological Observatory, 512

Land Global Habitability Science Working Group and Research Program, 508

Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984, 549, 553

Landsat, 443, 458, 466, 492, 555, 562, 578, 586; and Landsat 4, 579; and Landsat 5, 579; and Landsat 6, 259,

467, 468, 579, 607; and Landsat 7, 579, 607, 636; and Landsat 8, 631; and Landsat Ground Station

Operations Working Group, 532; and Multispectral Scanner, 598

Langley Research Center (LaRC), 10, 273, 275, 289, 377, 509, 598, 599, 602, 606, 607

Langseth, Mark, 512

Lanzerotti, Louis, 199

Large Fine–Pointed Platform (LFFP), 106, 110

Large Solar Observatory (LSO), 116, 123

Large Space Telescope, 28

Laser Atmospheric Sounder and Altimeter (LASA), 453

Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (LAWS), 454, 572, 600, 634

Laser Geodynamics Satellites (LAGEOS), 537, 555, 556, 562, 579, 607

Laser Ranger, 559, 562

Latell, Brian, 445 n. 8

Launius, Roger D., 455 n. 22, 456 n. 23

Lawless, James, 497

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 571

Leadership and America’s Future in Space, 454, 563–566

Lebeau, André, 35 n. 96

Lederburg, Joshua, 290

Leo, William A., 345

Lewis Research Center, 299, 377, 384

Li, Fuk, 647

Library of Congress, 583

Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Office (NASA), 281, 640

Life Science Research Laboratory, 348

Life Sciences, 267, 268, 271–274, 277–282, 285–288, 291, 293–296, 300, 314–316, 319–326, 339–341, 344, 346,

347, 349, 351, 359, 363–368, 374–399, 401–408, 410, 416–418, 437, 438

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 727
Life Sciences Advisory Board, 362

Life Sciences Advisory Committee (LSAC), 278, 279, 287, 388, 401, 402

Life Sciences Laboratory Equipment (LSLE), 410

Life Sciences Strategic Planning Study Committee (LSSPSC), 403

LifeSat, 286, 287, 298, 401, 402

Light Detection and Ranging Instrument (lidar), 556, 571, 572, 580

Light Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO), 234, 242, 245

Limb Infrared Monitor of the Stratosphere (LIMS), 444

Lindqvist, P. A., 165 n. 12

Lindsay, John C., 7, 8, 12, 56

Living With a Star (LWS), 175, 176; and International LWS Working Group, 262

Logsdon, John M., 163 n. 9, 270 n. 4, 441 n. 1, 445 n. 8, 455 n. 22, 456 n. 23, 471 n. 52

Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), 140

Los Alamos, 28

Lovelace, W. Randolph, 270, 271, 277, 278

Low, George M., 306, 307, 359, 373, 399

Lunar Receiving Laboratory Quarantine Station (MSC), 357, 366

Lyman, Gene, 381

M

MacDonald, Robert, 497

Mack, Pamela E., 441 n. 1, 445 n. 6

Maggin, Bernard, 275

Magnetic Field Explorer (MFE), 537, 538, 552, 560

Magnetospheric Constellation (MC), 175

Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS), 175, 229, 230

Mains, R. C., 185 n. 17

Malone, Thomas F., 512

Man and the Biosphere program, 557

Man–Computer Interactive Data Access System (McIDAS), 583

Manned Lunar Base, 346, 375

Manned Mars Mission, 346, 375

Manned Orbital Research Laboratory (MORL), 346, 375

Manned Orbiting Telescope (MOT), 13

Manned Space Flight (MSF), 53, 307, 348; and Office of Manned Space Flight (NASA), 14, 16, 18, 275, 276,

278, 279, 348, 364–368, 375, 378–380, 386–389, 394, 398, 399

Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), 275–279, 357, 366

Margulis, Lynn, 497

Marine Experiment (MAREX), 468

Marine Mammal Commission, 393

Mariner, 23, 153, 290, 346, 375; and Mariner II, 197; and Mariner IV, 197; and Mariner V, 197; and Mariner VI,

197; and Mariner VII, 197

Mark, Hans, 283, 291, 364, 365, 370, 371, 373, 379, 475, 504–507

Mars, 161, 185, 186, 198, 278–290, 299, 328, 333, 336, 337

Mars Observer, 259

Martin, Jim, 289

Martin, Frank, 164, 202, 203

Martin Marietta, 171, 259, 260

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), 18, 31, 377, 380, 598, 606, 607

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 512, 496

Mathews, Charles, 447 n. 12

Matteson, James L., 224, 225

Maynard, Nancy, 513

McCarthy, James, 512

728
McCauley, George D., 345

McCurdy, Howard, 36 n. 97, 171 n. 17

McDonald, Frank, 159–161

McElroy, Michael B. 497, 508

McElroy, John H., 529, 533, 535, 536

McNeal, 497

Meadows, A. J., 1 n. 2

Melack, John M., 647

Mercury, planet, 155, 161, 271–273, 275, 282, 294, 309–311, 313, 320, 344, 375, 382, 410

Meredith, Leslie H., 159

Merrell, Ronald, 286 n. 19

Mesosphere–Thermosphere Explorer (MTE), 538, 552, 560

Meteorological Satellite (METEOR), 576, 577, 654; and METEOR–2, 555; and METEOR–3, 607

Meteorology Satellite (METEOSAT) 555; and Meteosat 3, 585

Metzger, Norman, 628

Meyer, Peter, 165

Michigan State University, 508

Mikulski, Barbara, 298

Milankovitch cycles, 526

Miller, Jack, 440

Minster, Jean–Bernard, 647

Mir, 295, 417, 436

Mission Control Center (MCC), JSC, 134

Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA), 173, 247–254

Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), 423, 441, 442, 447–449, 454–456, 459, 461–464, 471–473, 536–566, 568,

575–613, 636, 639–646, 648, 667, 675; and the Flight Systems Division, 640; and the Name Change to Earth

Science Enterprise, 689; and the Operations, Data and Information Systems Division, 640; and the Science

Division, 640; and the Technology Innovation and Advanced Planning Division, 641

Moderate–resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS), 453, 468, 469, 591, 634

Monsoon Experiment (MONEX), 446

Moon, 158, 160, 161, 185, 204, 273, 278, 290, 326, 354, 428

Moore, Berrien III, 460 n. 31, 497, 512, 628

Morrison, David, 29, 142, 143, 164

Moser, Robert H., 400, 402

Motorola, 582

Mouginis–Mark, Peter J., 647

Mount Wilson, 12

Mueller, George, 14, 16, 17, 82, 88, 346

Multilateral Meeting on Remote Sensing, 530, 532–534

Murphy, Robert, 497

Murthy, V. Rama, 512

Murray, Bruce, 291

Mutch, Thomas A., 136

Myers, Dale, 365

N

Nagy, Andrew F., 512

NASA Advisory Council (NAC), 442, 448, 461; and Earth System Science Committee (ESSC), 448–451, 458,

536, 563

NASA Federal Laboratory Review task force (NFLR), 461

NASA Research Announcement (NRA), 299, 416, 417

NASA Strategic Plan, 257

National Academy of Engineering, 462, 513, 642, 644–646

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 5, 19, 22, 36, 59, 62, 67, 99, 140, 143, 187, 190, 191, 193, 194, 221, 228,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 729
270, 295, 327, 332, 359, 360, 376, 377, 379, 416, 420, 429, 430, 446, 462, 463, 507, 509, 510, 513, 538, 544,

614, 615, 642, 645, 646, 656; and the Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data (CGED), 664;

and the Committee on Solar–Terrestrial Research, 520; and COSEPUP, 546

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), 4, 270, 275, 276, 344

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, 158, 184, 185, 270, 344, 356, 482

National Air and Space Museum (NASM), 19

National Astrobiology Institute, 299

National Cancer Institute, 300

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), 50, 512, 606

National Climate Program, 495

National Environment Data Index, 664

National Image Transfer Format–2 (NITF–2), 671

National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), 445

National Institute on Aging, 297, 409

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 409

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 409

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 271, 274, 297, 298, 322, 323, 340, 378, 392, 395, 406, 409

National Library of Medicine, 408

National Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS), 467, 468

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 400, 445, 446, 448, 458, 459, 462, 467, 468, 503,

505, 509, 513, 520, 529, 531, 533, 535–539, 545–560, 565, 573–575, 577, 580, 583–585, 596, 598, 599, 602,

607, 620, 621, 628, 633, 640, 666, 667, 686; and the National Ocean Service, 652; and the National Weather

Service, 652; and NOAA–7, 555; and NOAA–9, 546, 600; and NOAA–10, 600; and NOAA–13, 259; and

NOAA-G, 546; and NOAA–K, 546, 558; and NOAA–L, 546, 558; and NOAA–M, 546, 558; and NOAA–N,

687; see also Polar–Orbiting Environmental Satellite

National Ozone Experiment (NOZE), 446

National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), 462

National Research Council (NRC), 120, 149, 184, 191, 325, 376, 378, 379, 440, 442, 448, 465, 510, 580, 581,

598, 614–665; and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), 513, 663; and the Board on

Earth Sciences and Resources, 628; and the Board on Ocean Sciences and Policy, Ocean Sciences Board

(OSB), 513, 663; Board on Sustainable Development, 459, 462, 463, 644, 645, 663, 666; and the Carbon

Dioxide Assessment Committee, 520; and the Committee on Global Change Research, 463, 466, 663; and

the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Resources, 511–528, 628; and the Committee on

Solar Terrestrial Research, 513; and the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 628; and the

Office of International Affairs, 513; and the Polar Research Board, 513; and Policy Implications of

Greenhouse Warming, 596

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), 461

National Science Foundation (NSF), 2, 19, 174, 187, 271, 274, 297, 300, 301, 409, 448, 505, 509, 513, 520,

537–539, 548, 549, 552, 554, 555, 565, 620, 621, 666

National Security Agency (NSA), 292

National Snow and Ice Data Center, 598, 607

National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), 299, 381, 438

National Space Council (NSC), 581, 582, 586, 588 

National Space Development Agency (NASDA), 409, 471, 533, 555, 556, 564, 584, 635, 636, 676–689; and

Geostationary Meteorology Satellite (GMS), 555; and Marine Observation Satellite–1 (MOS–1), 556, 562;

and Marine Observation Satellite–2 (MOS–2), 558, 562; see also H–II rocket, Japanese Earth Observing

System, Japanese Earth Remote Sensing Satellite–1 and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission

National Space Policy Directive, 588

National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC), 161, 162, 167, 173, 191, 193–195, 200, 222

National Specialized Centers of Research and Training (NSCORT), 297, 438

Naugle, John, 12, 17, 18, 82–84, 88, 159, 160 n. 6, 279, 280, 365, 391, 398

730
Naval Aeromedical Institute, 381

Naval Propellant Plant, 78, 80

Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), 2, 7–10, 12, 14, 31, 56, 63, 158–160, 221, 245

Navy, U.S., 2, 547, 555, 556, 578, 668, 669, 675

Navy Remote Ocean Sensing System (N–ROSS), 537, 556, 562; and NSCAT, 546, 547, 606, 635, 636

Nelson, Norton, 342

Ness, Norman, 161

Neurobiology, 412, 413

Neurolab, 294, 295, 297, 408, 409, 410, 411, 437

New Millennium Program, 472

Newell, Homer E., 7, 8, 10 n.24, 14, 16–19, 82–84, 158–162, 184, 187, 188, 191, 195–197, 279, 302, 346,

349–351, 359, 367, 369, 370

Newkirk, Gordon, 12

Nicogossian, Arnauld E., 280, 286 n. 19, 296, 298, 300, 402, 411, 414, 415

Nimbus–7, 443, 444, 466–468, 470, 548, 577

Nimbus–5, 677

Nixon, Richard, U.S. President, 278, 360, 387

O

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 512

Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 (OSHA), 377

Oda, Minoru, 168, 223, see also ISAS

Ocean Color Imager, 548, 559

Ocean Color Instrument (OCI), 468, 562

Ocean Principals Group, 553

Ocean Ridge Crest Processes, 561 

Ocean Topography Experiment, 471, 480, 489, 491, 509, 519, 525, 537, 547, 558, 562, 578, 594, 607, 635, 654

O’Connell, Kevin, 446 n. 10

Odishaw, Hugh, 5, 301, 302

Oertel, Goetz, 30, 134

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 32, 144, 232, 292, 442, 458, 475, 574, 586

Office of Naval Research (ONR), 270, 271, 297, 301, 302, 409

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 513, 541, 574, 581, 650–657, 663–665, 667, 668

Office of Technology Assessment, 467 n. 47

Oglivie, Keith, 165

Ohio State University, 628, 647

Oklahoma Ordnance Depot, 79

Oliver, Bernard, 291, 369–373

Oliver, Jack E., 512

Olsen, Kathie L., 300

Optical telescope, 109

Orbiter Maneuvering System Payload Bay Kit, 139

Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO), 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, 84, 85

Orbital Sciences Corporation, 467, 469; and Orbimage, Inc., 467, 469; and Orbview 2, 467; and SeaStar, 578,

602, 607

Orbital Solar Laboratory (OSL), 32, 36, 56, 59

Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO), 7, 9–13, 17, 21, 22, 24, 63, 66, 67, 75–77, 89, 95, 97–99, 112, 122; and

OSO–7, 110; and OSO–8, 20; and OSO–I, 24, 134; and OSTDS, 133

Oregon State University, 606

Origins of Plasmas in Earth’s Neighborhood (OPEN), 165, 166, 169, 232, 523

Orthostatic hypotension, 434

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 731
Ostenso, Ned A., 513

Out–of–the–Ecliptic Missions (OOE), 124

Outer Space Treaty, 356

P

Pace, Nello, 277 n. 9, 339

Paige, Leroy, 345

Paine, Thomas O., 18, 358

Parker, Eugene N., 22, 146, 148, 149

Pasian. F., 165 n. 12

Pathfinder Program, 463, 573, 583, 620

Paul, Charles, 533

Peacock, Dennis, 513

Peck, Dallas, 509

Pedersen, Kenneth S., 474–477, 505

Pegasus, 570, 590

Pegasus–XL, 469

Pellerin, Charles, 148, 164, 165, 171, 172, 202, 224, 226

Pennsylvania State University, 606

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 286

Perkins, J. N., 443 n. 3, 443 n. 5

Perry, John S., 513

Peru, 179

Peterson, Laurence E., 224

Petrone, Rocco, 399

Phoebus, Clifford P., 301, 302

Photoheliograph, 135

Photosphere, 73, 121

Physical Sciences Committee (PSC), 199

Physics and Astronomy Program, 15

Picatinny Arsenal, 80

Pieper, George, 164, 202, 204

Pioneer, 129, 176, 198; and Pioneer 4, 158; and Pioneer 10, 28, 153; and Pioneer 11, 28, 153; and Pioneer

Venus, 23, 153

Pittendrigh, Colin S., 288

Pitts, John, 271 n. 5

Planetary biology, 362, 381, 393

Planetary quarantine, 393, 396

Poland, Art, 169

Polar-Orbiting Earth observation Missions (POEM), 580, 630; and GOMOS, 631, 632; and MIPAS, 631, 632;

and POEM AM, 637; and MIMR, 637; and SCIAMACHY, 631, 632; see also Envisat

Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES), 467, 468, 471, 543, 546, 558, 562, 584, 607, 687

Polar-orbiting platforms, 537, 539, 541, 545, 546, 550, 551, 554, 559, 564

Pollack, James, 497

Porter, Richard W., 5, 302

Precipitation Radar (PR), 472; see also Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission

Press, Frank, 513, 614, 615

Princeton University, 6, 513

Prinn, Ronald G., 497, 512

Program Management Council (PMC), 171, 255–261

Project Viking, 482

Proxmire, William, 291, 292

Puerto Rico, 269

Purcell, J. D., 12

732
Q

Quikscat, 472

R

Radar Altimeter (RA, ALT), 453, 492, 580, 585

Rainfall Mission, 537, 560, 561

RAND Corporation, 3, 37

Ramanathan, Veerabdhadran, 497, 566

Rambler, Mitchell, 497, 508, 513

Randt, Clark T., 271–274, 314, 345, 375

Raney, William, 497

Rasool, Ichtiaque, 199, 497

Rasmussen, Jim, 657

Raytheon Corporation, 10

Reagan, Ronald, U.S. President, 27, 28, 29, 142, 456

Redstone Arsenal, 269, 310, 313

Reed, Craig, 455 n. 22

Reichle, David, 512

Republic Aviation, 14

Research Grants and Contracts Office (NASA), 349

Resources for the Future, 512

Reynolds, Orr, 270, 271, 275, 276, 282, 288, 343, 345–347

Revelle, Roger, 512

Rhesus project, 286

Ride Report, 455, 563–566

Ride, Sally, 454, 563

Riegler, Guenter, 173, 174 n. 18, 247–249

Riley, D. A., 420

Roadman, Charles, 274–276, 342, 343, 345

Robbins, Frederick C., 298, 402

Roberts, Walter Orr, 59

Robinove, Charles, 497

Robins, Howard, 255

Rockets and Satellites Center, 162, 191, 192, 194, 195, 201

Rocket and Satellite Research Panel (RSRP), 3, 269

Roederer, Juan G., 201, 513

Roentgensatellit (ROSAT), 227, 232

Ross, M. D., 420

Royal Society, London, 158, 184

Russia, 288, 312, 313, 445, 555; see also Soviet Union

Russian Space Agency (RSA), 286, 584

S

Sacramento Peak Observatory, 12, 117

Sagan, Carl, 292

SAGE–III, 591, 631

Safety and Mission Assurance Office (NASA), 641

Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance Office (NASA), 384

Sanderson, T., 165 n. 11, 165 n. 12

Santa Barbara Research Center (SBRC), 469

Satellite Ocean Color Science Working Group, 491

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 733
Satellite Situation Center, SSC, 201

Saturn, 23, 311, 327

Saturn rocket, 16; and Saturn IB, 18; and Saturn IVB, 18; and Saturn V, 17

Saudi Arabia, National Center for Science and Technology, 509

Sawyer, D. M., 163 n. 8

Scanner Radiatsionnogo Balansa (ScaRaB), 577

Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR), 444

Scanning radar altimeter, 559, 562

Scarf, Fred, 164, 165

Scatterometer (SCAT), 453, 492, 578, 580, 585

Shaffer, Lisa, 535, 536

Schiffer, Robert, 497

Schinn, J. L., 440

Schlee, John, 513

Schmerling, E. R., 200

Schnapf, Abraham, 443 n. 2

Schreier, Ethan J., 628

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 567

Sea–viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFs), 467, 468, 469, 607

Seamans, Robert C., Jr., 274–277, 282 n. 12, 338–340, 342, 343

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), 290–292, 300, 369, 405; and the SETI Science Working Group

(SSWG), 291; and the SETI Institute, 292

SEASAT, 515, 547

Senate, see Congress

Sensing with Active Microwaves (SAM), 453

Shapiro, R., 443 n. 3

Shawhan, Stanley, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 223

Shea, Eileen L., 445 n. 7

Shuttle Contamination Control Board, 112

Shuttle Imaging Radar (SIR), 556

Shuttle Imaging Spectrometer Experiment, 556

Shuttle Pointed Autonomous Research Tool for Astronomy, 232

Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM), 668–673, 675

Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, see Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet

and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer

Siepert, Albert F., 338, 339, 342

Silverstein, Abe, 161, 271–273

Simpson, John, 176

Sizemore, Ken, 169

Skylab, Skylab II, 18, 19, 21, 25, 31, 34, 84, 98, 99, 112, 278, 280, 293, 294, 376, 378, 380–383, 385, 398, 399

Smagorinsky, Joseph, 513

Small Explorer (SMEX), 35, 36, 172, 224, 253

Small Fine–Pointed Platform (SFPP), 106, 110

Smith, Brent, 476, 497

Smith, Ed, 165

Smith, Henry J., 12, 14–16, 21, 23

Smith, Robert W., 35

Smithsonian Institution, 6, 8, 26

Smull, Thomas L. K., 345

Soffen, Gerald, 280, 289, 497

Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), 35, 36, 168, 169, 171, 235, 237, 240, 242, 244, 259, 263, 264

Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer (SAMPEX), 172

Solar Astronomy, 13, 68, 74, 75, 103, 105, 134

Solar Astronomy Task Force, 23

734
Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (SBUV/TOMS), 444, 546, 577, 585, 606,

607

Solar Dynamics Observatory, 175

Solar Electric Multimission Spacecraft (SEMMS), 129

Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), 130

Solar equatorial, 165, 167

Solar Free–Flying Observatories (SFFO), 107

Solar Maximum Mission (SMM), 22–28, 105–107, 111, 114–116, 122–127, 129, 137–141, 148, 225, 516 

Solar Maximum Repair Mission (SMRM), 138, 139, 229

Solar Optical Telescope (SOT), 22, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 104, 106, 134, 146, 147

Solar Optical Universal Polarimeter, 33

Solar polar mission, 28, 30, 165

Solar Polar Orbiter (SPO), 153, 154

Solar Physics Program, 15, 16

Solar radiation, 41

Solar Space, 93, 97

Solar Space Astronomy, 13, 68, 74, 93

Solar Space Physics Task Group, 33, 34

Solar Stereoscopic Mission, 124

Solar Synoptic Satellite (SSS), 22, 23, 123

Solar System Exploration Committee (SSEC), 164, 248

Solar Telescope Cluster (STC), 106, 108, 110, 113, 168, 169, 171, 239, 242, 259

Solar–Terrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP), 162, 199, 200

Solar–Terrestrial Probe (STP), 20, 175, 176

Solar–Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), 175, 263

Solar–Terrestrial Science Programme (STSP), 169, 235, 237, 240, 242, 244, 246

Solar Ultraviolet Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM), 556

Solar wind, 165, 167

SOLRADS, 9, 20

Sortie Solar Observatory (SSO), 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 114, 115

Soumi, Vern, 497, 512

Sounding rockets, 39

South Africa, 584

Soviet Academy of Science, 284

Soviet Union, 6, 158, 160, 269, 284, 290, 292, 311, 313, 361, 387, 392, 401, 413, 415, 577, 579; see also Russian

Space Agency, Russia

Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee (SESAC), 8, 149

Space Biology and Medicine Office (NASA), 278, 352, 362, 430, 431, 440

Space Communications Office (NASA), 640, 641

Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), 232

Space Life Sciences, 274, 275, 283, 298; and SLS–1, 294, 297, 411; and SLS–2, 294, 297, 411, 419, 420; and

SLS–3, 298, 411; and SLS–4, 411; and SLS–5, 298; and SLS–6, 298; and SLS–7, 298

Space physics, 32, 157, 165, 171, 175, 176, 234, 235, 248, 266

Space Plasma Physics, 228

Space Physics Analysis Network (SPAN), 165, 167, 168, 222

Space Program Advisory Council (SPAC), 388

Space science, 27, 162, 184, 188, 224, 274, 428, 454

Space Science Advisory Committee (SSAC), 29, 144

Space Science Board, see Space Studies Board 

Space Science and Applications Office (NASA), 15–18, 32, 165, 166, 170, 233, 247–249, 253, 254, 275, 278,

280–282, 287, 289, 292, 298, 350, 365, 366, 368, 369, 375, 376, 475, 505; and the Earth Science and

Application Division, previously Environmental Observation Division, 507, 509; and the Life Sciences

Division, 509

Space Science Office (NASA), 137, 144, 145, 174, 275–277, 279, 281, 282, 288, 290, 299, 347, 379, 386, 393,

396, 399–641

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 735
Space Science Summer Study, 12, 343

Space Science Steering Committee (NASA) 8, 187, 188

Space Shuttle, 23–28, 30, 34, 36, 100, 104, 105, 108, 112–114, 116, 123, 137, 139, 145, 147, 222, 278, 284–287,

293–295, 382, 385, 387, 394, 401, 405, 409, 411, 412, 449, 455, 456, 482, 546, 548, 562, 564, 576, 577, 579,

599, 633, 640, 668, 670, 671, 674

Space solar physics, 27

Space station, see Polar–orbiting platforms

Space Studies Board (SSB), 5, 9 n. 21, 12 n. 28, 13, 20, 23, 24 n. 63, 32, 33, 34 n. 94, 68, 144, 150, 187, 199,

211, 212, 270, 271, 273, 278, 287, 288, 290, 299, 326, 327, 332, 333, 334, 350, 359, 360, 376, 398, 439, 440,

454, 456, 520, 538, 628, 663; and Committee on Earth Sciences (CES), 457, 458, 544, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650

Space Task Group (STG), 273, 275

Space Telescope Science Institute, 628

Space Transportation System (STS), 132, 133, 137, 138, 229, 230, 278, 400, 640

Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network (STDN), 134

Spaceborne Imaging Radar–C/X–Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SIR–C/X–SAR), 648, 650, 669–671

Spacelab, Spacelab 2, 31, 222, 285, 294, 295, 298, 387, 400, 401, 408–411, 437, 599

Spacelab Orbital Telescope, 22, 27, 31

Spain, 288

Special Advisory Committee for Life Sciences (SACLS), 271

Specialized Center of Research (SCOR), 407

Spectroheliograms, 89

Spin Test Facility, 78, 81

Spitzer, Lyman, 4 n. 6, 4 n. 7, 4 n. 8

Sputnik, 2, 3, 6, 268, 270; and Sputnik 2, 158, 269, 303, 312; and Sputnik 3, 158

Squibb, Gael F., 628

Stanford University, 117, 628

State, U.S. Department of, 29, 332, 476, 533

State University of New York (SUNY), 278

Steele, John, 497

Steinberg, Jean-Louis, 165

Stennis Space Center (NSTL, SSC), 293, 509

Stevens, S. S., 270

Stofan, Andrew J., 29, 164, 201, 203, 280

Stokes, Donald, 174 n. 20

Stone, Edward, 165

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), 572, 577

Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement (SAM–II), 444

Stratospheric and Mesospheric Sounder (SAMS), 444

Study of Travelling Interplanetary Phenomena (STIP), 518, 519

Stuhlinger, Ernst, 268, 269

Surface Imaging and Sounding Packages (SPIS), 453

Sweden, 288

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), 453, 458, 492, 550, 564, 571, 572, 578, 600, 634, 646–671

Systeme Pour l’observation de la Terre (SPOT), 467, 578, 579; and SPOT–1, 555; and SPOT-2, 556; and

SPOT–4, 468

T

Talbot, John M., 345

Tanegashima Space Center, 676, 685; and the Yoshinobu Launch Complex, 679

Targeted Research and Technology (TR&T), 175

Tarter, Jill, 292

Task Force on Observations and Data Management (TFODM), 657, 662, 663, 667; and the Integrated

Observing System Working Group, 657, 663

Taurus, 570

736
Taylor, W. B., 12

Teague, M. J., 163 n. 8

Technology Utilization (TU), 392, 395; and Office of Technology Utilization (NASA), 349

Teegarden, Bonnard, 165

Television Infrared Observation Satellite 1 (TIROS–1), 442, 445; and the Operational Vertical Sounder

(TOVS), 583

Telstar 1, 159

Temperature Humidity Infrared Radiometer (THIR), 444

Terra, 456, 472

Theon, John, 497

Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) mission, 175

Thomas, John H., 22 n.55

Thomas, Lewis, 510

Thor–Agena, 14, 67, 309

Thor–Able 1, 176, 308

Thor–Delta rocket, 7, 161

Tilford, Shelby, 497, 504, 505, 507, 509, 513, 576

Titan II, 570; and Titan IIAS, Lockheed Martin Titan IIAS, 460; and Titan IV, 456, 565, 570, 589

TOPEX/Poseidon, see Ocean Topography Experiment

Total Ozone Monitor, 559

Total Quality Management (TQM), 253

Tousey, Richard, 12, 16, 31, 32

Townsend, William F., 422, 675, 689, 690

Toward Other Planetary System (TOPS), 292

Tracking and Data Acquisition Office (NASA), 275, 386

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS), 112, 113, 116

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), 139, 599, 679

Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE), 35, 36, 153, 172

Transportation, U.S. Department of (DOT), 174

Treichel, Martha, 513

Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), 471, 472, 578, 600, 602, 607, 630, 654, 676–689; and the

Communication and Broadcasting Engineering Test Satellite (COMETS), 679, 680, 681, 684, 685; and the

Data Processing System, 679; and the Earth Observation Information System (EOIS), 679; and

EOSDIS–EOIS, 682, 684; and the Interface Control Specifications (ICS), 685; and Level Zero Processed

(LZP) Data, 682; and the Light Imaging Sensor (LIS), 636, 679; and the Precipitation Radar (PR), 676,

679–681, 683–685; and Quick Look Data (QL), 682; and the Radio Frequency end–to–end test (RF), 680,

684; and the Reaction Control System (RCS), 680, 684; and the Science Steering Group, 578; and the

Self–Contained Atmosphere Protection Equipment suits (SCAPE), 683; and the Space Network

Interoperability Panel (SNIP), 681; and the TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI), 472, 676, 679; and the TRMM

Observatory, 679–681, 683, 684; TSDIS, 681; Visible Infrared Scanner (VIS), 472, 679

Tropospheric Composition Monitors, 454

TRW Systems Group, 129, 176

Tsukuba ground station, 679, 684

Tuve, Merrill A., 162, 191, 193

U

Ullman, Jeffrey D., 628

Ultraviolet radiation (UV), 119; and UV telescopes, 23, 33; and UV astronomy, 147

Ulysses, 30, 33, 153

Unidentified Flying Object (UFO), 292

Uniformed Services University of Health Science, 281

United Kingdom (UK), 148; and the Natural Environment Research Council, 509; and the Science and

Engineering Research Council, 509

United Nations, 332, 476; and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 532; and the Educational,

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 737
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 504, 557, 665; and the Environment Programme (UNEP),

475, 477, 495, 501, 503, 504, 509, 557, 657, 662, 664, 665; see also Global Environmental Monitoring

Systems; and Impact Program, 496; and the Global Climate, Ocean, and Terrestrial Observing Systems

(GCOS, GOOS, GTOS), 652, 653, 655–657, 659–662, 664–667; and the Unispace II Conference (UNISPACE

82), 447, 474–476, 482, 497, 498, 500, 503, 504, 507; and the University, 509

United States Agency for International Development (US–AID) and Forestry and Natural Resources Office,

533

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 503, 509, 513, 520, 533, 549, 553, 555, 583, 620, 621

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 449, 459, 462, 463, 465, 536–562, 568–571, 576, 588,

614–639, 644–646, 666; and Observing System, 573, 574

United States Public Health Service (USPHS), 325, 332, 341, 384, 418, 420

U.S. Rockets and Satellites Center, 191

University class explorers (UNEX), 172, 253

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), 59, 60, 512

University of Alaska, 513

University of California, Berkeley, 131, 292, 328

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 6, 283; and the Fourth Ballistic Missile and Space Technology

Symposium, 6

University of California, San Diego, 224, 512

University of California, Santa Barbara, 606; and Jeff Dozier at the Center for Remote Sensing and

Environmental Optics, 628–639, 647

University of Cambridge, U.K., 606

University of Chicago, 28, 146, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180

University of Colorado, 8

University of Denver, 201

University of Hawaii, 606

University of Iowa, 8, 160, 166, 334

University of Michigan, 6, 8, 10, 37, 512

University of Minnesota, 512

University of New Hampshire, 606

University of Texas, 606

University of Virginia, 628

University of Washington, 606

University of Wisconsin, Madison, 497, 512; and Space Science and Engineering Center, 583

Upper Atmosphere Research Program, 482

Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS), 33, 222, 489, 490, 509, 523, 537, 546, 556, 562, 576, 577, 594,

595, 607, 632, 654; and ACRIM II, 633

Upper Atmosphere Wind Interferometers, 454

Urey, Harold C., 270

Usselman, Thomas M., 513

U.S.S.R., see Soviet Union

V

Van Allen, James, 158, 159, 160, 166, 269, 334

Van Allen radiation belt, 186

Van der Heijden, N., 165 n. 11, 165 n. 12

van Zyl, Jakob, 647

Vanderberg Air Force Base, Western Test Range, 581, 590

Vanguard, 3, 4, 181, 182, 185, 302

Veldman, G., 165 n. 12

Venus, 152, 161, 185, 186, 196, 197

Venus Planetary Explorer, 197

Very Large Array (VLA), 122

Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), 562

738
Vette, James I., 163 n. 8, 195

Vice President, 586, 588

Viking, 152, 280, 283, 288–290, 363, 392, 399; and Viking 1, 288; and Viking 2, 289

Virgin Islands, 356

von Braun, Wernher, 38, 82, 157, 158, 268

Vostok, 283

Voyager, 153, 288, 346, 375

W

Walker, Robert, 462, 463, 642–646

Wallop Flight Facility, 10, 282; and Wallops Island, 78; and Wallops Station, 377

Walsh, John, 497

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 279, 322

Waring, Richard, 497

Warren, Shields, 388

Washington, Warren, 567

Waterman, Alan T., 303

Watson, Robert T, 497, 513, 651, 652, 657, 658, 667, 668

Waynick, Arthur H., 192

Weather Bureau, 445

Weaver, Harold, 328

Webb, James, 162, 191, 193, 274, 275, 277, 278, 339, 341, 343

Weeks, Wilford, 497

Weiler, Edward J., 174, 262

Welsh, Edward C., 339–341

WetNet data system, 583

Wheeldon, Albert D., 445 n. 8, 567

White House, 28, 29, 146, 181, 502

White, Robert M., 513, 644–646

White Sands, WSC, 599, 682

Whitford Committee, 21

Whitney, Robert A., Jr., 418, 419

Wilcox, John, 129, 165

Williamson, Ray A., 441 n. 1, 445 n. 6, 446 n. 10, 455 n. 22, 456 n. 23, 466 n. 46, 471 n. 52

Wilson, J. W., 440

Winn, Larry, Jr., 136

Winokur, Robert S., 658, 667

Winter, David L., 279, 280, 284, 296, 389, 391, 395, 397, 399, 400

Withbroe, George, 170, 174, 175, 262

Wittwer, Sylvan, 497, 508

Wolfe, John, 370

Wolf, Lorraine W., 628

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 12, 14, 20, 24, 25, 68, 89, 95, 269, 288, 360, 457, 476; and the Goody summer

study, 477, 503, 505; and the International Geosphere–Biosphere Program Workshop, 511, 538, 544; and

the Marine Biological Laboratory, 513 

Woodwell, George, 513

Worf, Douglas L., 271

World Climate Program, 496; and Impact Program, 496

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 443, 446, 475–477, 496, 501, 503, 504, 509, 532, 557, 654, 657,

662, 664, 665

World Climate Research Program (WCRP), 446, 496, 518, 520, 523, 651, 652, 662, 664, 665, 576; and the Cage

Experiment, 491; and Interannual Variability of the Tropical Oceans, 491; and the International Satellite

Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), 490, 557; and the International Satellite Land Surface Climatology

Project (ISLSCP), 557, 562; and the Joint Scientific Committee, 491; and the Tropical Ocean Global

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 739
Atmosphere Program (TOGA), 554, 557, 562; and the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), 491,

519, 520, 523, 554, 561, 562

World Data Center, Rockets and Satellites Center, 162, 191–195, 201

World Health Organization (WHO), 332

World Ozone Program, 557

World War I (WW I), 2

World War II (WW II), 268

World Weather Watch (WWW), 519, 654, 659, 666

Wright, Montie, 17 n. 44, 19 n. 49

Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, 268

Wyllie, Peter, 513

X

X–15, 58, 63, 308

X–ray telescopes, 109, 154

X–ray Timing Explorer (XTE), 172, 225, 226, 228–231

XUV, see Extreme Ultraviolet

Y

Yardley, John F., 399, 400

Yerkes Observatory, 180

Young, Richard S., 269, 289

Young, Thomas, 164, 201

York, Herbert F., 5, 6, 7

Z

Zero–Base Review, 293, 299, 378

Zirin, Harold, Hal, 31, 60, 75, 135

Zoloth, Laurie, 294 n. 29

Zraket, Charles A., 628

740
The NASA History Series

Reference Works, NASA SP-4000:

Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology. NASA SP-4001, 1963.

Grimwood, James M., and C. Barton Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project Gemini Technology and Operations: A

Chronology. NASA SP-4002, 1969.

Link, Mae Mills. Space Medicine in Project Mercury. NASA SP-4003, 1965.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1963: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4004, 1964.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1964: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4005, 1965.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4006, 1966.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4007, 1967.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4008, 1968.

Ertel, Ivan D., and Mary Louise Morse. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume I, Through November 7, 1962.

NASA SP-4009, 1969.

Morse, Mary Louise, and Jean Kernahan Bays. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume II, November 8, 1962–

September 30, 1964. NASA SP-4009, 1973.

Brooks, Courtney G., and Ivan D. Ertel. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume III, October 1, 1964–January 20,

1966. NASA SP-4009, 1973.

Ertel, Ivan D., and Roland W. Newkirk, with Courtney G. Brooks. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume IV,

January 21, 1966–July 13, 1974. NASA SP-4009, 1978.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1968: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4010, 1969.

Newkirk, Roland W., and Ivan D. Ertel, with Courtney G. Brooks. Skylab: A Chronology. NASA SP-4011, 1977.

Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, with Robert L. Rosholt. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume I: NASA

Resources, 1958–1968. NASA SP-4012, 1976, rep. ed. 1988.

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume II: Programs and Projects, 1958–1968. NASA SP-4012, 1988.

Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume III: Programs and Projects, 1969–1978. NASA SP-4012, 1988.

Gawdiak, Ihor Y., with Helen Fedor, compilers. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume IV: NASA Resources, 1969–1978.

NASA SP-4012, 1994.

Rumerman, Judy A., compiler. NASA Historical Data Book, 1979–1988: Volume V, NASA Launch Systems, Space

Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science. NASA SP-4012, 1999.

Rumerman, Judy A., compiler. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI: NASA Space Applications, Aeronautics and Space

Research and Technology, Tracking and Data Acquisition/Space Operations, Commercial Programs, and Resources,

1979–1988. NASA SP-2000-4012, 2000.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 741
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4014, 1970.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1970: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4015, 1972.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1971: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4016, 1972.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1972: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4017, 1974.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1973: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4018, 1975.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1974: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4019, 1977.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1975: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4020, 1979.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1976: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4021, 1984.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1977: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4022, 1986.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1978: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4023, 1986.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1979–1984: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4024, 1988.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1985: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4025, 1990.

Noordung, Hermann. The Problem of Space Travel: The Rocket Motor. Edited by Ernst Stuhlinger and J. D. Hunley,

with Jennifer Garland. NASA SP-4026, 1995.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1986–1990: A Chronology. NASA SP-4027, 1997.

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1990–1995: A Chronology. NASA SP-2000-4028, 2000.

Management Histories, NASA SP-4100: 

Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958–1963. NASA SP-4101, 1966.

Levine, Arnold S. Managing NASA in the Apollo Era. NASA SP-4102, 1982.

Roland, Alex. Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1915–1958. NASA SP-4103, 1985.

Fries, Sylvia D. NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo. NASA SP-4104, 1992.

Glennan, T. Keith. The Birth of NASA: The Diary of T. Keith Glennan. J. D. Hunley, editor. NASA SP-4105, 1993.

Seamans, Robert C., Jr. Aiming at Targets: The Autobiography of Robert C. Seamans, Jr. NASA SP-4106, 1996.

Garber, Stephen J., editor. Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of U.S. Human Spaceflight Symposium.

NASA SP-2002-4107, 2002. 

Project Histories, NASA SP-4200:

Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander. This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury.

NASA SP-4201, 1966; rep. ed. 1998.

742
Green, Constance McLaughlin, and Milton Lomask. Vanguard: A History. NASA SP-4202, 1970; rep. ed.

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971.

Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini. NASA SP-4203, 1977.

Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty. Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations.

NASA SP-4204, 1978.

Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar

Spacecraft. NASA SP-4205, 1979. 

Bilstein, Roger E. Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles. NASA SP-4206, 1980,

rep. ed. 1997.

SP-4207 not published.

Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson. Living and Working in Space: A History of Skylab. NASA SP-4208, 1983.

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. The Partnership: A History of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. NASA SP4209, 1978.

Hall, R. Cargill. Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger. NASA SP-4210, 1977.

Newell, Homer E. Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science. NASA SP-4211, 1980.

Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958–1978. NASA SP4212, 1984.

Pitts, John A. The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space Program to 1980. NASA SP-4213, 1985.

Compton, W. David. Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Apollo Lunar Exploration Missions. NASA SP-4214,

1989.

Naugle, John E. First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Science Experiments. NASA SP-4215, 1991.

Wallace, Lane E. Airborne Trailblazer: Two Decades with NASA Langley’s Boeing 737 Flying Laboratory. NASA SP-4216, 1994.

Butrica, Andrew J., editor. Beyond the Ionosphere: Fifty Years of Satellite Communication. NASA SP-4217, 1997.

Butrica, Andrew J. To See the Unseen: A History of Planetary Radar Astronomy. NASA SP-4218, 1996.

Mack, Pamela E., editor. From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy Research Project

Winners. NASA SP-4219, 1998.

Reed, R. Dale, with Darlene Lister. Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story. NASA SP-4220, 1997.

Heppenheimer, T. A. The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA’s Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle. NASA SP-4221, 1999.

Hunley, J. D., editor. Toward Mach 2: The Douglas D-558 Program. NASA SP-4222, 1999.

Swanson, Glen E., editor. “Before this Decade Is Out . . .”: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program. NASA SP-4223, 1999.

Tomayko, James E. Computers Take Flight: A History of NASA’s Pioneering Digital Fly-by-Wire Project. NASA SP-2000-

4224, 2000.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 743
Morgan, Clay. Shuttle-Mir: The U.S. and Russia Share History’s Highest Stage. NASA SP-2001-4225, 2001.

Leary, William M. “We Freeze to Please”: A History of NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and the Quest for Flight Safety. NASA

SP-2002-4226, 2002.

Mudgway, Douglas J. Uplink-Downlink: A History of the Deep Space Network 1957–1997. NASA SP-2001-4227, 2001.

Center Histories, NASA SP-4300:

Rosenthal, Alfred. Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA SP-4301, 1985.

Hartman, Edwin P. Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940–1965. NASA SP-4302, 1970.

Hallion, Richard P. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 1946–1981. NASA SP-4303, 1984.

Muenger, Elizabeth A. Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Research Center, 1940–1976. NASA SP-4304, 1985.

Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 1917–1958. NASA SP-4305,

1987.

Dawson, Virginia P. Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology. NASA SP-4306,

1991.

Dethloff, Henry C. “Suddenly Tomorrow Came . . .”: A History of the Johnson Space Center. NASA SP-4307, 1993.

Hansen, James R. Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo. NASA SP-4308, 1995.

Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: 50 Years at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. NASA SP-4309, 1996.

Herring, Mack R. Way Station to Space: A History of the John C. Stennis Space Center. NASA SP-4310, 1997.

Wallace, Harold D., Jr. Wallops Station and the Creation of the American Space Program. NASA SP-4311, 1997.

Wallace, Lane E. Dreams, Hopes, Realities: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, The First Forty Years. NASA SP-4312, 1999.

Dunar, Andrew J., and Stephen P. Waring. Power to Explore: A History of the Marshall Space Flight Center. NASA SP4313, 1999.

Bugos, Glenn E. Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Ames Research Center. NASA SP-2000-4314, 2000.

General Histories, NASA SP-4400:

Corliss, William R. NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958–1968: A Historical Summary. NASA SP-4401, 1971.

Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie Karegeannes. Origins of NASA Names. NASA SP-4402, 1976.

Anderson, Frank W., Jr. Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915–1980. NASA SP-4403, 1981.

Sloop, John L. Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945–1959. NASA SP-4404, 1978.

Roland, Alex. A Spacefaring People: Perspectives on Early Spaceflight. NASA SP-4405, 1985.

Bilstein, Roger E. Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NASA, 1915–1990. NASA SP-4406, 1989.

744
Logsdon, John M., editor, with Linda J. Lear, Jannelle Warren-Findley, Ray A. Williamson, and Dwayne A. Day.

Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume I, Organizing for

Exploration. NASA SP-4407, 1995.

Logsdon, John M., editor, with Dwayne A. Day and Roger D. Launius. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents

in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume II, Relations with Other Organizations. NASA SP-4407, 1996.

Logsdon, John M., editor, with Roger D. Launius, David H. Onkst, and Stephen J. Garber. Exploring the Unknown:

Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume III, Using Space. NASA SP-4407, 1998.

Logsdon, John M., general editor, with Ray A. Williamson, Roger D. Launius, Russell J. Acker, Stephen J. Garber,

and Jonathan L. Friedman. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program,

Volume IV, Accessing Space. NASA SP-4407, 1999.

Logsdon, John M., general editor, with Amy Paige Snyder, Roger D. Launius, Stephen J. Garber, and Regan Anne

Newport. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume V, Exploring

the Cosmos. NASA SP-2001-4407, 2001.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945–1974. NASA SP-2000-4408, 2000.

Monographs in Aerospace History, NASA SP-4500:

Launius, Roger D. and Aaron K. Gillette, compilers, Toward a History of the Space Shuttle: An Annotated Bibliography.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 1, 1992.

Launius, Roger D., and J. D. Hunley, compilers, An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 2, 1994.

Launius, Roger D. Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 3, 1994.

Hansen, James R. Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 4, 1995.

Gorn, Michael H. Hugh L. Dryden’s Career in Aviation and Space. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 5, 1996.

Powers, Sheryll Goecke. Women in Flight Research at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from 1946 to 1995. Monograph

in Aerospace History, No. 6, 1997. 

Portree, David S. F. and Robert C. Trevino. Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology. Monograph in Aerospace

History, No. 7, 1997.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Legislative Origins of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958: Proceedings of an

Oral History Workshop. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 8, 1998.

Rumerman, Judy A., compiler, U.S. Human Spaceflight, A Record of Achievement 1961–1998. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 9, 1998.

Portree, David S. F. NASA’s Origins and the Dawn of the Space Age. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 10, 1998.

Logsdon, John M. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Cooperation in the Space Station. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 11, 1998. 

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NASA Langley Research Center. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 12, 1998. 

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 745
Braslow, Albert L. A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight Research. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 13, 1999.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Managing the Moon Program: Lessons Learned From Apollo. Monograph in Aerospace

History, No. 14, 1999. 

Perminov, V. G. The Difficult Road to Mars: A Brief History of Mars Exploration in the Soviet Union. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 15, 1999. 

Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at NASA Dryden. Monograph in Aerospace

History, No. 16, 1999.

Maisel, Martin D., Demo J. Giulianetti, and Daniel C. Dugan. The History of the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft:

From Concept to Flight. NASA SP-2000-4517, 2000.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15 Research Airplane. NASA SP-2000-4518, 2000. 

Chambers, Joseph R. Partners in Freedom: Contributions of the Langley Research Center to U.S. Military Aircraft in the

1990s. NASA SP-2000-4519, 2000.

Waltman, Gene L. Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulations at NASA’s Flight Research Center. NASA SP2000-4520, 2000.

Portree, David S. F. Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 1950–2000. NASA SP-2001-4521, 2001.

Thompson, Milton O., with J. D. Hunley. Flight Research: Problems Encountered and What They Should Teach Us. NASA

SP-2000-4522, 2000.

Tucker, Tom. The Eclipse Project. NASA SP-2000-4523, 2000.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000. NASA SP-2002-

4524, 2002. 

Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1979. NASA SP-2001-4525, 2001. 

Anderson, Seth B. Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer—Flight Tests at Ames Research Center: 1940–1970. NASA SP2002-4526, 2002.

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the One-Hundredth Anniversary of the

First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903. NASA SP-2002-4527, 2002.

No monograph 28.

Chambers, Joseph R. Concept to Reality: Contributions of the NASA Langley Research Center to U.S. Civil Aircraft of the

1990s. SP-2003-4529, 2003. 

Peebles, Curtis, editor. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History, The Early Years. SP-2003-4530, 2003.

Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. American X-Vehicles: An Inventory—X-1 to X-50. SP-2003-4531, 2003.

746