[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA EARTH SCIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-736 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRAD SHERMAN, California
JO BONNER, Alabama BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM MATHESON, Utah
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina JIM COSTA, California
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington AL GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
VACANCY
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
April 28, 2005
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.... 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 19
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 20
Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 20
Prepared Statement by Representative Al Green, Member, Committee
on Science, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 21
Witnesses:
Mr. Alphonso V. Diaz, Associate Administrator, Science
Directorate, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 29
Dr. Berrien Moore III, Director, Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Dr. Timothy L. Killeen, Director, National Center for Atmospheric
Research
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 44
Dr. Sean C. Solomon, Director, Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Biography.................................................... 48
Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 51
Biography.................................................... 56
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Research Professor, Space Policy
Institute, George Washington University
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Biography.................................................... 62
Discussion
The Importance of Earth Science at NASA........................ 64
Earth Science Cuts............................................. 67
Relationship Between NASA and NOAA............................. 69
Transferring Earth Science From NASA to NOAA................... 70
Glory.......................................................... 72
The Effects of Earth Science Cuts on Universities.............. 73
LandSat........................................................ 74
Climate Change Research........................................ 77
Research Priorities............................................ 78
TRMM........................................................... 80
Transferring Earth Science From NASA to NOAA................... 82
Use of Earth Science Programs to Manage the Water Supply....... 84
Effects of Decreased Earth Science Funding..................... 85
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Alphonso V. Diaz, Associate Administrator, Science
Directorate, NASA.............................................. 92
Dr. Berrien Moore III, Director, Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire.......... 155
Dr. Timothy L. Killeen, Director, National Center for Atmospheric
Research....................................................... 159
Dr. Sean C. Solomon, Director, Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington.................. 163
Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute............................................. 165
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Research Professor, Space Policy
Institute, George Washington University........................ 168
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Letter to Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert from Bart Gordon, Mark
Udall, and David Wu, dated April 6, 2005....................... 172
Letter to Bart Gordon, Mark Udall, and David Wu from Sherwood
Boehlert, Chairman, dated April 19, 2005....................... 174
Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and
Opportunities to Serve the Nation, Space Studies Board,
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National
Research Council of the National Academies (Prepublication
Copy).......................................................... 176
NASA EARTH SCIENCE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NASA Earth Science
thursday, april 28, 2005
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, April 28, at 10:00am, the Committee on Science will
hold a hearing to examine the state of Earth science programs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
NASA proposes to spend about $1.37 billion on Earth science
research in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, a cut of about $120 million, or
eight percent, from FY 2005 (or about $180 million, or 12 percent,
below the FY04 request).
In a report to be released this week, the National Academy of
Sciences concludes that the budget cutbacks threaten the vitality of
NASA's Earth science research, as many Earth science missions have been
downsized, delayed or canceled. The report is part of the ``Decadal
Survey'' being conducted by the Academy at NASA's request to help the
Agency set priorities in the Earth sciences. The final report is due in
late 2006.
The primary activities of NASA's Earth science program are to
develop and launch research satellites designed to improve
understanding of the land, oceans and atmosphere. In the past, NASA
missions have helped gain new knowledge and create new capabilities
that have led to advances in weather forecasting, storm warnings, and
the ability to more efficiently manage agricultural and natural
resources.
But the National Academy of Sciences report warns that U.S.
leadership in developing such capabilities is threatened by the drop in
support for NASA's Earth science research. Because at the time of this
writing the report has yet to be released, NASA has not issued a
response.
NASA's new Administrator, Michael Griffin, in his public statements
has expressed general support for Earth science at NASA.
Overarching Questions
The Committee plans to explore the following overarching questions
at the hearing:
1. What is NASA's long-term strategic vision for conducting
Earth science observations from space? How does the current
budget reflect that vision?
2. What are or what should be the top priority missions for
Earth science? How would these priorities benefit society?
3. What are the implications of NASA's recent actions to
cancel or reduce funding for several Earth science missions?
How would the proposed cuts affect interagency programs such as
those on climate science and Earth observations?
Witnesses
Alphonso Diaz is the Associate Administrator at NASA for the Science
Mission Directorate, which includes Earth sciences.
Dr. Berrien Moore is the Co-Chairman the National Academy of Sciences
Decadal Survey, ``Earth Observations from Space: A Community Assessment
and Strategy for the Future.'' Dr. Moore is also the Director for the
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University
of New Hampshire.
Dr. Tim Killeen is the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado.
Dr. Marcia McNutt is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California.
Dr. Sean Solomon is the Director of the Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Dr. Ray Williamson is a Research Professor in the Space Policy
Institute at The George Washington University.
Background
Recent Developments: National Academy Report
At NASA's request, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee
on Earth Science Applications from Space is currently conducting a
``Decadal Survey'' for Earth science observations from space. Similar
to the decadal surveys conducted with great success in astronomy and
the planetary sciences, the Earth science decadal survey is expected to
establish a prioritized list of research projects that the entire Earth
sciences community agrees should be funded for the next ten years.
This will be the first time a decadal survey has been conducted for
Earth science. It is a challenging undertaking because the field is
broader and deals with more federal agencies than astronomy does. The
NAS Committee Chair, Dr. Berrien Moore, will be testifying at the
hearing.
The NAS Committee this week is releasing an interim report titled
``Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and
Opportunities to Serve the Nation.'' The report states that ``recent
changes in federal support for Earth observation programs are
alarming.'' The report's Executive Summary states:
At NASA, the vitality of Earth science and application
programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly
shrinking budget that no longer supports already approved
missions and programs of high scientific and societal
relevance. Opportunities to discover new knowledge about the
Earth are diminished as mission after mission is canceled, de-
scoped, or delayed, because of budget cutbacks, which appear to
be largely the result of new obligations to support flight
programs that are part of the Administration's vision for space
exploration.
The NAS Committee specifically recommends that NASA launch on
schedule two Earth science missions that have been threatened with
delays or cancellations. It also recommends that NASA request brief
studies of its plans for three other missions. NASA has said that those
missions could be launched on board the NPOESS satellite rather than as
independent missions. (NPOESS stands for National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System and is being launched by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Department of Defense.) Finally, the NAS Committee recommends that NASA
``re-invigorate'' several smaller Earth science programs. (The
Executive Summary of the NAS report is attached, and more information
on specific missions is included below.)
Earth Sciences
NASA's mission statement begins with the goal, ``To understand and
protect our home planet.'' NASA research in Earth science has thus
focused on understanding how the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and land
interact and operate as a whole, with an eye toward direct societal
applications.
Within the Earth sciences program, one of NASA's primary roles is
to build and launch research satellites to provide a deeper
understanding of the basic processes governing the Earth's physical
system. Capabilities and discoveries from NASA's program are often
later incorporated by other agencies into the satellites they use in
their ongoing operational programs, such as weather or geographic
imaging satellites.
One example of how the NASA program works and contributes to
operational programs is its Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM),
which NASA launched in 1997 and is now scheduled to end operations this
summer. TRMM provides data that was never before available on tropical
precipitation patterns to help scientists study the water cycle and
related issues including climate change. But unexpectedly, TRMM has
also given researchers new insights into determining the track and
intensity of hurricanes, which could contribute to future efforts to
predict the landfall of hurricanes, which is the responsibility of
NOAA. NOAA could place instruments based on TRMM on future weather
satellites.
The Global Precipitation Mission (GPM), the planned follow-on
mission to TRMM, would continue to provide further improvements in the
observation of rainfall by, among other things, expanding rainfall
information to the entire globe. NASA has delayed the launch of GPM
several times. (See below.)
In another example, NASA researchers are also exploring whether
data from Earth observing satellites can be used to track ocean
pollution from runoff. (See attached article from Space News).
NASA satellites have made substantial contribution to a variety of
areas, such as documenting the existence of a hole in the ozone layer
in the upper atmosphere. Future NASA missions could potentially provide
useful information for a number of important societal needs. For
example, interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technology
that some scientists have suggested for a future NASA mission could be
able to detect small changes in surface of Earth to presage volcanic
eruptions or landslides. Also, NASA's Glory mission, which has recently
been downscaled (see below), was developed to help resolve one of the
largest uncertainties in scientists' understanding of climate change,
the effects of the variable output of the sun and of atmospheric
aerosols (black soot and carbon).
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (MD), Jet Propulsion Lab (CA),
and Ames Research Center (CA) each contribute substantially to Earth
sciences research at NASA.
NASA Earth Sciences Budget
Funding for the Earth sciences has declined each year since FY
2004, and the President's FY 2006 budget submission continues this
reduction. The table below compares the last three budget requests
(including the accompanying run-out for the four following years) for
NASA's Earth science programs:
The budget for the Earth sciences programs at NASA was cut sharply
in FY 2005, with reductions in the run-out for the years 2005-2009
totaling over $1 billion as compared to the planned budget for these
years at the time of the FY 2004 budget submission. The FY 2006 budget
request reduces this amount slightly further.
In the FY 2006 budget request, NASA has made it difficult to
determine Earth science funding by consolidating the Earth science
programs and several space science programs into a new ``Earth-Sun
System'' theme within the new Science Mission Directorate. (Earth
sciences had previously been a separate directorate from space
sciences. The Science Committee was able to get the Earth science
figures only after repeated requests.) The Earth-Sun theme also
includes the ``Sun-Earth Connections'' programs, such as the Voyager
mission, which continues to send back data from the outer limits of the
solar system. The funding table above includes only funding for Earth
sciences. For information regarding funding for the entire Earth-Sun
System theme as a whole see Appendix B.
Effect of Budget Reductions
The budget reductions have led NASA to delay, cancel or scale back
most Earth science missions. Furthermore, NASA has few if any
additional Earth science missions in the planning pipeline beyond the
missions that have been in the works for years. Also, NASA does not
appear to have sufficient funds to launch some of the missions that it
describes as being on schedule.
For example, the NASA Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)
satellite, which is to be coordinated with launches of related
satellites by other nations, was first scheduled to be launched in
2007. Currently, launching in 2010 would be considered ``on schedule.''
In its FY 2005 budget request, NASA delayed the launch until 2012. In
the FY 2006 request, the date has been shifted back to 2010, but it is
unclear whether NASA has requested sufficient funding to make that
date.
The NAS Committee interim report recommends that the GPM mission be
launched without further delays, citing its international nature and
the importance of understanding ``the availability of fresh water.''
Another mission affected by the budget cutbacks is Glory, which is
designed to study one of the highest priority questions in climate
change science. Glory was originally intended to fly as a stand-alone
mission in 2008. But in 2005, NASA began talking instead about just
building the instruments for Glory and then looking to see if they
could be launched on another satellite, such as NPOESS. NASA has not
been able to say when or even if Glory would be able to be launched if
it ``piggy-backed'' on another mission. Under pressure from the Science
Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, NASA has extended the
contract to build a launch vehicle for an independent Glory mission,
but the future of the mission is still in doubt.
The NAS Committee interim report recommends that NASA commission an
independent review to determine the ``suitability, capability and
timeliness'' of placing the Glory instruments on another satellite.
The table below summarizes the status of all of NASA's currently
planned large Earth science missions:
In addition to reducing funding for specific large missions, NASA
has sharply reduced the Earth System Science Pathfinders (ESSP), a
research program to launch small, experimental satellites that can test
ideas for future larger missions. ESSP missions are not allowed to cost
more than about $230 million over the life of the mission (as opposed
to close to $1 billion for GPM). NASA now plans to delay for a year the
ESSP proposal solicitation that was scheduled for this summer. The NAS
Committee interim report calls for NASA to go forward with the
solicitation this summer.
(ESSP launches approved from previous solicitations are on
schedule. Two should launch this year.)
NASA has also substantially cut its Earth science research and
analysis program, which focuses on developing the tools and techniques
to interpret Earth science data. The program also helps scientists
determine how to prioritize potential future research missions. These
cuts particularly affect graduate student funding. According to the NAS
Committee interim report, the research and analysis programs at NASA
have suffered disproportionately large cuts.
The NAS Committee interim report also notes that the Earth science
reductions could jeopardize NASA's ability to fulfill its obligations
to interagency initiatives, such as the development of a Global Earth
Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). This international effort will
develop a comprehensive and coordinated Earth observing system. Earlier
this year, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez represented the
United States at the meeting in Brussels where the GEOSS plan was
adopted.
The NAS Committee interim report also calls into question NASA's
ability to fulfill its commitments to the Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP). NASA's Earth Science program represents the largest
portion of the CCSP budget, (62 percent in the President's FY 2006
budget request).
Questions for the Witnesses
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
Questions for Alphonso Diaz
Please briefly explain the President's FY06 budget request for NASA
Earth sciences and answer the following questions:
What missions that were in the planning process as of
the FY 2004 budget submission have been delayed, canceled or
reformulated? What criteria have NASA used in determining which
missions to delay, cancel or reformulate? How do these criteria
relate to NASA's larger vision for its Earth science programs?
Given the FY06 budget run-out, to what extent will
NASA have to limit its contributions to multiple agency
programs such as the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and
the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS)?
Questions for Dr. Berrien Moore
Please summarize the NRC report, and answer the following
questions:
What are the Committee's greatest concerns for the
funding outlook for NASA Earth sciences?
How should NASA prioritize currently planned and
future missions? What criteria should NASA use in doing so?
What are the highest priority unaddressed or
unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space?
Questions for Dr. Tim Killeen
How should NASA prioritize currently planned and
future missions? What criteria should NASA use in doing so?
What are the highest priority unaddressed or
unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space?
What have been the most important contributions to
society that have come from NASA Earth sciences over the last
decade (or two)?
What future benefits to the Nation (societal
applications) are possible that NASA Earth sciences could
provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we fill before those
future benefits are possible?
Questions for Dr. Marcia McNutt
How should NASA prioritize currently planned and
future missions? What criteria should NASA use in doing so?
What are the highest priority unaddressed or
unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space?
What have been the most important contributions to
society that have come from NASA Earth sciences over the last
decade (or two)?
What future benefits to the Nation (societal
applications) are possible that NASA Earth sciences could
provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we fill before those
future benefits are possible?
Questions for Dr. Sean Solomon
How should NASA prioritize currently planned and
future missions? What criteria should NASA use in doing so?
What are the highest priority unaddressed or
unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space?
What have been the most important contributions to
society that have come from NASA Earth sciences over the last
decade (or two)?
What future benefits to the Nation (societal
applications) are possible that NASA Earth sciences could
provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we fill before those
future benefits are possible?
Questions for Dr. Ray Williamson
How should NASA prioritize currently planned and
future missions? What criteria should NASA use in doing so?
What are the highest priority unaddressed or
unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space?
What have been the most important contributions to
society that have come from NASA Earth sciences over the last
decade (or two)?
What future benefits to the Nation (societal
applications) are possible that NASA Earth sciences could
provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we fill before those
future benefits are possible?
Appendix A
Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order.
It is a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning for
our hearing on one of NASA's primary mission areas: the Earth
sciences.
We are very pleased that NASA's new Administrator, Mike
Griffin, has very clearly and unequivocally reinforced NASA's
commitment to Earth science. For example, both Senator Allen,
during the confirmation process, and this is a direct quote,
``There are activities, including Earth sciences research,
which have little in common with the needs of exploration and
with which NASA has had a long-term involvement. Thus, NASA has
certain responsibilities in these areas, which cannot and
should not be set aside. And I am committed to continuing
exploration of the Earth's environment at NASA.'' And that is
the end of the quote from Administrator Griffin in the Senate
confirmation hearing.
Unfortunately, NASA's prepared testimony for today's
hearing is more problematic. The testimony describes Earth
science research as being significant to the extent that it
informs our knowledge of and our capability to explore other
planets. This is precisely backwards. The planet that has to
matter most to us is the one we live on. You would think that
would go without saying. And we are woefully ignorant of the
way this planet works, of the functioning of the land, the
oceans, and the atmosphere and how they interact. It is great
if Earth science can contribute to exploration and greater
still if exploration of other planets could teach us more about
the planet Earth.
But the Earth science program doesn't exist as some
secondary adjunct of the exploration program. It exists to help
us understand the planet we depend on, and there is no reason
that NASA can't robustly carry out the President's Vision for
Space Exploration while conducting vital Earth science
research. In fact, that is what NASA has to do.
That is why the National Academy of Sciences' report that
was released just yesterday is so alarming. The report
indicates that NASA may be allowing its Earth Science Program
to erode, perhaps irretrievably, just as we are beginning to
understand more about the Earth's processes, just as our
technology offers unprecedented opportunities, just as the
Administration has announced new international commitments to
Earth observation.
This report has to be a red flag for all of us. We need to
stop, examine what is happening, and make sure that the fiscal
year 2006 budget for NASA, whatever its top-level number,
include adequate funding to keep Earth science moving forward
for the foreseeable future. We need a vision for Earth science
and priorities for Earth science just as we need to do more for
exploration and aeronautics.
Yesterday, I heard, for the first time, a rationale from
Dr. Diaz for the proposed cuts in Earth science, and I have to
say, I found it a little bit troubling rather than convincing.
He argued that some of NASA's projects could be launched on
NOAA satellites and that some other aspects of Earth science
could migrate to NOAA.
Now we all want NASA and NOAA to work together even better.
In fact, we plan to hold a hearing in the next couple of months
bringing the two agencies together to look in more detail at
their relationship. But having NASA claim that NOAA will take
over activities when there is no indication of that in NOAA's
plan or budget strains. It is a sound of one hand clapping, and
it won't get any applause from us.
NASA has long been the lead agency for space-based Earth
science research. NOAA has operational responsibilities. The
two agencies have complementary missions, and the more they can
cooperate, the better. But one agency cannot substitute for the
other, and no agency can build, launch, or use data from
satellites without money.
Mr. Diaz told us yesterday he had no visibility into NOAA's
budget. You would think a window into a partner agency's budget
would be a prerequisite for transferring responsibilities. If
NASA has plans to rely more on NOAA, those plans ought to be
shared and reviewed with us and with the scientific community.
Just setting the notion of relying on NOAA as an after-the-fact
budget rationalization, I think, is playing with fire.
We have before us today the experts with whom we can begin
a thoughtful, detailed, and realistic discussion about what
NASA needs to do to ensure that we have a healthy national
Earth science program. I can't think of anything more vital to
our survival on the planet that is most important to us, the
planet Earth.
Mr. Gordon.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
It's a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning for our
hearing on one of NASA's primary mission areas--the Earth sciences. I'm
very pleased that NASA's new Administrator, Mike Griffin, has very
clearly and unequivocally reinforced NASA's commitment to Earth
science.
For example, he told Senator Allen during the confirmation process,
``[T]here are activities, including Earth Sciences. . .research, which
have little in common with needs of Exploration, and with which NASA
had had a long-term involvement. Thus, NASA has certain
responsibilities in these areas which cannot and should not be set
aside.'' And Dr. Griffin told Senator Dorgan, ``Earth science continues
to be vitally important and I am committed to continuing exploration of
the Earth's environment at NASA.''
Unfortunately, NASA's prepared testimony for today's hearing is
more problematic. The testimony describes Earth science research as
being significant to the extent that it informs our knowledge of, and
our capability to explore other planets. This is precisely backwards.
The planet that has to matter most to us is the one we live on. You'd
think that would go without saying. And we are woefully ignorant of the
way this planet works--of the functioning of the land, oceans and
atmosphere and how they interact.
It's great if Earth science can contribute to exploration, and
greater still if exploration of other planets could teach us more about
the Earth.
But the Earth science program doesn't exist as some secondary
adjunct of the exploration program. It exists to help us understand the
planet we depend on. And there's no reason that NASA can't robustly
carry out the President's Vision for Space Exploration while conducting
vital Earth science research. In fact, that's what NASA has to do.
That's why the National Academy of Sciences report that was
released yesterday is so alarming. The report indicates that NASA may
be allowing its Earth science program to erode, perhaps irretrievably,
just as we are beginning to understand more about the Earth's
processes, just as our technology offers unprecedented opportunities,
just as the Administration has announced new international commitments
to Earth observation.
This report has to be a red flag for all of us. We need to stop,
examine what's happening, and make sure that the fiscal 2006 budget for
NASA--whatever its top-level number--include adequate funding to keep
Earth science moving forward for the foreseeable future. We need a
vision for Earth science, and priorities for Earth science, just as
much as we do for exploration and aeronautics.
Yesterday, I heard for the first time a rationale from Mr. Diaz for
the proposed cuts in Earth science. And I have to say I found it more
troubling than convincing. He argued that some NASA projects could be
launched on NOAA satellites and that some other aspects of Earth
science could migrate to NOAA.
Now we all want NASA and NOAA to work together even better. In
fact, we plan to hold a hearing in the next couple of months bringing
the two agencies together to look in more detail at their relationship.
But having NASA claim that NOAA will take over activities when there is
no indication of that in NOAA's plans or budget strains credulity. It's
the sound of one hand clapping, and it won't get any applause from us.
NASA has long been the lead agency for space-based Earth science
research. NOAA has operational responsibilities. The two agencies have
complementary missions, and the more they can cooperate the better. But
one agency cannot substitute for the other, and no agency can build,
launch or use data from satellites without money.
Mr. Diaz told us yesterday he had ``no visibility'' into NOAA's
budget. You'd think a window into a partner agency's budget would be a
prerequisite for transferring responsibilities. If NASA has plans to
rely more on NOAA, those plans ought to be shared and reviewed with us
and with the scientific community.
Just citing the notion of relying on NOAA as an after-the-fact
budget rationalization is playing with fire.
We have before us today the experts with whom we can begin a
thoughtful, detailed and realistic discussion about what NASA needs to
do to ensure that we have a healthy, national Earth science program. I
can't think of anything more vital to our survival.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I would like to welcome the witnesses to today's hearing on
NASA's Earth Science program. We have a distinguished panel of
witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.
Let me first say that you--that we all live now in a city
with lots of conflicts and where Democrats and Republicans
often times disagree frequently and legitimately on issues. But
let there be no mistake, I want to concur with the Chairman's
statement today. On this committee, I think we are in complete
sync on his statement and on the direction that we need to
move.
And so I say that so that folks don't think that there is a
crack in the window that through stalemate more autocratic
decisions can be made. So just for the record, I would like for
you to know that.
NASA's Earth Science program has long been one of NASA's
core missions, yet NASA's core missions are increasingly
threatened by the new budgetary priorities contained in the
President's exploration initiative. Just last month, the Space
and Aeronautics Subcommittee heard about the precarious state
of NASA's Aeronautics programs from a range of expert
witnesses. One month before that, this committee heard from
Acting Administrator Gregory that some 2,000 existing jobs at
the NASA centers would be eliminated by the fall of next year,
although we were unable to get any clear explanation of the
rationale for the cuts or the process by which they would be
made.
Today, we are going to hear more bad news from a panel of
expert witnesses. The bottom line appears to be that NASA's
Earth Science program faces the prospects of being marginalized
in the coming years as the Agency puts its focus on the
President's exploration initiative.
Let me quote some excerpts from the National Research
Council's just-released interim report on Earth sciences. And I
quote: ``Today, this system of environmental satellites is at
risk of collapse. . .NASA has no plan to replace its Earth
Observing System platforms after their nominal six-year
lifetimes end. . .and it has canceled, de-scoped, or delayed at
least six planned missions--''
The NRC committee goes on to say, and I quote: ``These
decisions appear to be driven by a major shift in priorities at
a time when NASA is moving to implement a new vision for space
exploration. This change in priorities jeopardizes NASA's
ability to fulfill its obligations in other important
presidential initiatives, such as Climate Change Research
Initiative and the subsequent Climate Change Science Program.
It also calls into question future U.S. leadership in the
Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an international
effort initiated by the current Administration.''
That is tough language, but it appears to be consistent
with the facts.
I count myself among strong supporters of exploration, but
as I said on previous occasions, we have to be willing to pay
for it. We shouldn't try to implement it by cannibalizing
NASA's other important programs.
Yet the fact is that when the President cut $2.5 billion
from NASA's funding plan for fiscal year 2006 through 2009
relative to what he had promised just a year earlier, NASA
imposed 75 percent of the cut on NASA's Science and Aeronautics
program and only 10 percent on NASA's Exploration Systems
program.
In reality, fiscal year 2006 funding requests for NASA's
Earth Science Research program is $647 million lower than the
funding plan for fiscal year 2006 contained in the fiscal year
2004 budget request. That is a reduction of 24 percent in just
two years.
It is no wonder that the Earth science program is canceling
and delaying missions. And the problem has been compounded by
NASA's apparent unwillingness or inability to date to develop a
long-term vision for Earth science and application programs.
So where does all of this leave us?
Let me quote the National Research Council once again:
``Today the Nation's Earth Observatory program is at risk.''
And let me remind you of a hearing just, I guess, a couple
of years ago when Richard Blomberg of the National Shuttle
Safety Panel had something similar to say, that that Shuttle
was at risk. I don't think he meant that it was going to happen
the next day, but he was correct.
And once again, let me quote this: ``Today, the Nation's
Earth observatory program is at risk.'' I think we need to take
that seriously.
I want to hear our NASA witnesses respond to the National
Research Council's findings. Does NASA dispute the facts
presented by the NRC? And if not, why has NASA let its Earth
science program reach this state of affairs? And most
importantly, what is NASA's long-term commitment to Earth
science and applications research, and what, if anything, is
NASA prepared to do to reverse the current trend?
As our Chairman said earlier, I suspect part of the answer
is these functions will be picked up by NOAA. Well, if that is
the case, I would like to know what that amount of cost will be
and what funding, additional funding, would be going to NOAA to
pick that up.
In closing, I again want to thank the witnesses for
participating in today's hearing. I look forward to your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon
Good morning. I'd like to welcome the witnesses to today's hearing
on NASA's Earth Science program. We have a distinguished panel of
witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.
NASA's Earth Science program has long been one of NASA's core
missions. Yet NASA's core missions are increasingly threatened by the
new budgetary priorities contained in the President's exploration
initiative.
Just last month, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee heard about
the precarious state of NASA's aeronautics programs from a range of
expert witnesses.
One month before that, this committee heard from Acting
Administrator Gregory that some 2,000 existing jobs at the NASA Centers
would be eliminated by the fall of next year. Although we were unable
to get any clear explanation of the rationale for the cuts or the
process by which they would be made.
Today we are going to hear more bad news from a panel of expert
witnesses.
The bottom line appears to be that NASA's Earth Science program
faces the prospect of being marginalized in the coming years as the
Agency puts its focus on the President's exploration initiative.
Let me quote some excerpts from the National Research Council's
just-released interim report on the Earth Sciences:
``Today, this system of environmental satellites is at risk of
collapse. . .NASA has no plan to replace its Earth Observing
System platforms after their nominal six-year lifetimes end. .
.and it has canceled, de-scoped, or delayed at least six
planned missions. . .
The NRC committee goes on to say:
``These decisions appear to be driven by a major shift in
priorities at a time when NASA is moving to implement a new
vision for space exploration. This change in priorities
jeopardizes NASA's ability to fulfill its obligations in other
important presidential initiatives, such as the Climate Change
Research Initiative and the subsequent Climate Change Science
Program. It also calls into question future U.S. leadership in
the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an international
effort initiated by the current Administration.''
That is tough language, but it appears to be consistent with the
facts.
I count myself among the strong supporters of exploration, but as
I've said on previous occasions, we have to be willing to pay for it.
We shouldn't try to implement it by cannibalizing NASA's other
important programs.
Yet, the fact is that when the President cut $2.5 billion from
NASA's funding plan for FY 2006 through 2009 relative to what he had
promised just a year earlier, NASA imposed 75 percent of that cut on
NASA's science and aeronautics programs and only 10 percent on NASA's
Exploration Systems programs.
In reality, the FY 2006 funding request for NASA's Earth-Sun
Science research program is $645 million lower than the funding plan
for FY 2006 contained in the FY 2004 budget request. That's a reduction
of 24 percent in just two years.
It's no wonder that the Earth Science program is canceling and
delaying missions. And the problem has been compounded by NASA's
apparent unwillingness or inability to date to develop a long-term
vision for its Earth Science and Applications programs.
So where does all of this leave us?
Let me again quote the National Research Council's report:
``Today the Nation's Earth observation program is at risk.''
I want to hear our NASA witness respond to the National Research
Council's findings. Does NASA dispute the facts presented by the NRC?
And if not, why has NASA let its Earth Science program reach this state
of affairs? And most importantly, what is NASA's long-term commitment
to Earth Science and Applications research, and what--if anything--is
NASA prepared to do to reverse the current trends?
In closing, I again want to thank the witnesses for participating
in today's hearing, and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
And I think, for the audience, who are so familiar with
atmosphere on Capitol Hill these days, how refreshing it is to
see the same basic thrust of the remarks from both sides of the
center aisle. This committee is noted for working cooperatively
on important and sensitive subjects. We try to go forward
together. That is not just a cliche; it is a modus operandi.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
the Committee to examine the state of the Earth science programs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The primary activities of NASA's Earth science programs are to
develop and launch research satellites designed to improve our
understanding of the land, oceans, and atmosphere. NASA missions have
helped improve our knowledge and create new capabilities leading to
advances in weather forecasting, storm warnings, and natural resource
management.
I am aware that National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on
Earth Science Applications from Science is currently conducting a
``Decadal Survey'' for Earth science observations from space at NASA's
request. This will be the first time a decadal survey has been
conducted for Earth science and is expected to establish a prioritized
list of research projects. I look forward to hearing from the NAS
Committee Chair, Dr. Berrien Moore, to assess how the survey is
progressing.
With regard to NASA's Earth Science budget for fiscal year 2006, I
am aware that funding for the program has declined each year since FY
2004, and the President's FY 2006 budget submission continues this
reduction. These budget reductions have led NASA to delay, cancel or
scale back most Earth science missions. Furthermore, NASA has few if
any additional Earth science missions in the planning pipeline beyond
the missions that have been in the works for years. Also, NASA does not
appear to have sufficient funds to launch some of the missions that it
describes as being on schedule. If one of NASA's primary roles in the
Earth sciences program is to build and launch research satellites to
provide a deeper understanding of the basic processes governing the
Earth's physical system, I am skeptical of NASA's ability to operate a
successful Earth science program that lives up to its objectives.
Again, I thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward
to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this very important hearing
today. I welcome our distinguished witnesses, and I would like to thank
you for agreeing to testify here today on the importance of the NASA
and their Earth Science programs.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the state of Earth
science programs of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).
The theme for Earth Science Week in 2004 was ``Living on a Restless
Earth.'' The global community is affected by the restless nature of our
planet every day. Natural hazards such as earthquakes, storms,
volcanoes, and landslides threaten our homes and businesses, but they
also provide evidence of the incredible power and beauty of our planet.
We were reminded of this incredible power this past December when South
Eastern Asia was devastated by the horrific affects of a Tsunami.
As we discuss the enormous devastation caused by this natural
disaster, the one question we must ask ourselves is could this have
been avoided?
The space exploration research program has been one of the most
successful research programs in the history of this country.
Unfortunately, this year, NASA plans to cut $120 million or eight
percent from last year's budget.
A newly released study by the National Academy of Sciences
concluded that budget cuts threaten the vitality of NASA's Earth
science programs.
Our challenge today is to achieve an increased public perception
and awareness of the tremendous importance and value that the NASA's
Earth Science programs for all people.
I agree with the assessment that Earth science is one of the most
necessary and exciting fields of the science community today. I look
forward to working with this committee on its advancement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
Good morning. I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming our
witnesses to today's hearing. I am particularly eager to hear from Dr.
Tim Killeen from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Dr. Killeen has been the Director of NCAR since 2000, and in that
capacity he oversees the important research performed at NCAR. Of
course, I have a particular interest in NCAR because it is located
within my congressional district. But in addition, the Center's
research has an impact nationwide since NCAR is operated by the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research--or UCAR--which
includes 68 universities across the country.
With the collaboration of these universities, NCAR is able to
perform research that is beyond the capabilities of any one university.
So welcome, Dr. Killen--I look forward to your testimony.
Turning now to the topic of today's hearing, I will say up front
that I am a strong believer in the importance of a strong national
program in Earth science and applications. And I think that NASA, NOAA,
and our universities have a critical role to play in increasing our
understanding of the Earth and its environment through the collection
and analysis of Earth observation data.
In addition to being of interest scientifically, commercial and
governmental remote sensing data can and should be leveraged to meet a
variety of important societal needs--including such things as land use
planning, homeland security, and water resources management.
To that end, earlier this year I reintroduced H.R. 426, the Remote
Sensing Applications Act, which is a bill that already passed the House
in a previous Congress, and I look forward to working with Members on
both sides of the aisle to advance its goals in this Session.
However, despite the importance of Earth science and applications
research, all is not well with NASA's Earth Science program. Indeed,
the just-released interim report of a Committee of the National
Research Council makes it clear that NASA's Earth Science program is
facing a serious threat to its future viability.
In that regard, the NRC report enumerates a whole series of planned
missions and research activities that are being cut back or eliminated
by NASA.
In addition, a number of currently operating missions that are
still returning useful scientific data--such as Voyager--are threatened
with premature termination.
While I certainly recognize that when ongoing missions lose their
scientific productivity they need to be turned off to free up resources
for newer missions, a number of the missions threatened with
termination do not appear to fall into that category. I hope that NASA
will take another look at those missions before doing something
irrevocable.
Finally, I'm concerned by the push to eliminate or significantly
delay planned NASA Earth Science missions such as the Landsat Follow-on
mission and the Glory mission.
With respect to Landsat, there may well be good budgetary or
operational reasons to consider moving a Landsat sensor onto NPOESS,
the joint NOAA-DOD weather satellite currently under development.
However, I am concerned that neither the technical impacts of such a
move nor its likely cost impacts are well understood at this point.
I would hate for us to eliminate NASA's planned Landsat follow-on
spacecraft now only to find out a few years down the road that trying
to include a Landsat instrument on NPOESS is having unacceptable
impacts on the NPOESS program. I fear that the ultimate outcome of such
a situation could be a significant loss of Landsat data continuity.
I hope that the witnesses at today's hearing can help us better
understand what the implications of putting NASA missions like Landsat
onto the NPOESS spacecraft are, and what we will need to pay attention
to if we agree to proceed down that path.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues that I could
mention, but at this point I would rather yield back my time so we can
hear from our witnesses. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for holding this
important hearing today.
Over the past 30 years, NASA's Earth Science programs have resulted
in important social and economic benefits, including improved weather
forecasting and improved observation of sea surface winds and
precipitation.
Better forecasts allow for more efficient evacuations and are
crucial to for protecting populations in areas that are prone to
natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes
and tsunamis. Furthermore, businesses and infrastructure, including
transportation and energy, are reliant on current forecasting and need
improved weather information.
These improved Earth science findings are tremendously valuable--
saving precious human lives and property. I would be surprised to find
more than a handful of congressional districts in our nation that do
not risk some form of natural disaster. These are crucial programs that
all of as public servants have an obligation to make certain are
maintained.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon,
I want to thank you for organizing this important hearing to
discuss the status of NASA's Earth Science programs. While we often
think of NASA's work to be solely in space, the truth is that NASA
Earth Sciences have made many discoveries that impact our day to day
lives right here on Earth. In fact the greatest knowledge we can learn
is that of our own world because the discovery of this planet is far
from complete.
There was a time in history when even scholars believed that Earth
was flat. Obviously we have come a long way in terms of discovery since
that time. We will always push the limits of innovation, but in order
to do so we must invest the proper resources. Indeed, NASA's own
mission statement begins with the goal, ``To understand and protect our
home planet.'' NASA research in Earth science has focused on
understanding how the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and land interact and
operate as a whole. Unfortunately, NASA proposes to spend about $1.37
billion on Earth science research in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, a cut of
about $120 million, or eight percent, from FY 2005 (or about $180
million, or 12 percent, below the FY04 request). These cuts threaten
many programs that would increase our knowledge of this Earth. In fact,
the knowledge gained through Earth science could help avert many
natural disasters. The tragic events following the earthquake and
tsunami in South Asia highlight the global need for coordinated
disaster preparedness and response. Seismometers detected the
earthquake that triggered the tsunami and satellite altimeters detected
the tsunami before it struck land. A tsunami warning system could
potentially have saved tens of thousands of lives, but it did not exist
in this region. In the aftermath of the disaster, a wide array of high-
resolution satellite images and measurements are helping guide and
monitor relief and recovery efforts and assisting in the deployment of
resources (food, water, and medical supplies). As nations rebuild their
devastated communities, Earth observations will provide critical inputs
into decisions on the location, land use, and type of disaster-
resistant construction practices that will improve human conditions in
these disaster-prone regions.
I find it deeply unfortunate that these budget cuts will
potentially end many successful programs that measure our environmental
standard of life and could help us improve upon our condition. Many
Earth observation missions have been canceled, delayed, or their scope
has been severely limited. I have been a long time supporter of NASA in
this committee and have supported the President's Vision for Space
Exploration, but those endeavors should not cause us to limit our
discovery right here on Earth. Again, the most important lessons we can
learn are those about ourselves, because we as a human race must
inhabit this Earth for many more generations to come and to limit our
knowledge will only decrease our chances of doing so.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Al Green
I'd like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for
the opportunity to discuss the state of Earth science programs at NASA.
I had the opportunity to witness the devastation caused by the tsunami
that occurred December 26, 2004. We have all seen the increasing
devastation caused by the various hurricanes that hit Florida over the
past year. We have all witnessed the variant climate changes from El
Nino. Given the increasing vulnerability to extreme weather and climate
variations, federal investments in these areas of research are more
important than ever. I realize that we have a nation and a variety of
good programs that will be affected by the tightening of our federal
fiscal belt, so I relish the chance to speak to the experts on their
views of the effects of such changes. To my knowledge, Earth science
research is set to sustain about an eight percent cut from the last
fiscal year, and I hope that any or all of you may be able to elaborate
about what we will see as results.
Chairman Boehlert. Now with that, let me introduce our very
distinguished panel, and I thank all of you for serving as
resources for this committee.
First, we have Mr. Alphonso Diaz, the Associate
Administrator at NASA for the Science Mission Directorate with
whom I had a very constructive and productive meeting
yesterday. Dr. Berrien Moore is the Co-Chair of the National
Academy of Science's decadal survey, Earth Observations from
Space, a Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future. Dr.
Moore is also the Director for the Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire.
Dr. Moore, welcome. Dr. Tim Killeen is the Director of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
Doctor, welcome. Dr. Marcia McNutt is the President--oh, I have
skipped Dr. Solomon. Excuse me. Well, I will get Dr. McNutt
since I started. Dr. Marcia McNutt is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute in Lost Landing, California. Doctor, welcome. Dr.
Sean Solomon is the Director of the Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Dr.
Solomon, welcome. And finally, Dr. Ray Williamson is a Research
Professor in the Space Policy Institute at the George
Washington University. Doctor, welcome.
With that, you all are experienced in this process. You
know, the drill. Essentially, we ask that you summarize in
approximately five minutes. The Chair is never arbitrary when
we have six distinguished witnesses before us, but if you can
condense your opening remarks, that allows more opportunity for
what is the most productive part of the hearing, and that is
the dialogue between those of us who are privileged to be
representatives and those of you in the wide world out there
that we represent.
With that, Mr. Diaz, you are first up.
STATEMENT OF MR. ALPHONSO V. DIAZ, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
SCIENCE DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Diaz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Gordon, and Members of the Committee. I especially thank
you Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Calvert, who I did meet
with yesterday, and I think also we had a constructive
discussion. So thank you very much for that.
As I have said yesterday and will say again, I think we
have come a long way in my career at NASA over the past 30 to
40 years in our pursuit of understanding the Earth, the Solar
System, and the Universe.
From our constellation of Earth Observation System
Satellites helping to assess the emergence and spread of
disease, the melting of glaciers, and the recovery efforts
following the recent tsunami to our knowledge about life forms
thriving in extreme environments helping us to understand and
develop strategies to search for evidence of life beyond our
home planet, NASA's accomplishments in Earth science are many
and varied.
As one recent example, last week's edition of the Journal
of Science published a new study showing that a decrease in
snow cover in the Himalayas causes an increase in algal blooms
thousands of miles away off the coasts of Somalia, Yemen, and
Oman. This finding was based on data collected over the past
two decades by instruments on four different satellites that
reflect NASA's intergovernmental, interagency, and commercial
partnerships; the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, the
Advanced Earth Observing System of Japan, the operational
weather satellites that are operated by NOAA, and the
instrument on Orbital Sciences Corporation Seastar.
We recognize that, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, that by
first understanding how to study the Earth as a planet, we can
better prepare for sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and
beyond. The Vision for Space Exploration and subsequent agency-
wide transformation has presented NASA's science endeavors with
an historic opportunity. By merging space science with its
emphasis on discovery with Earth science's emphasis on
capability for prediction, the Science Mission Directorate, I
believe, is uniquely positioned to engage in comprehensive
scientific investigations into the origin, evolution, and
destiny of Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe.
We are in the midst of a transition in Earth science from a
NASA-centric approach to a national strategy that maximizes all
our national capabilities. These changes have created some
anxiety, I recognized, and have caused some to question our
commitment to Earth science. We have a responsibility to
clarify the current strategy with all our stakeholders and to
include them in the process as we go forward, and as I have
said, we intend to do so.
There are several ways that I believe you can gauge our
commitment to Earth science.
The actions in the 2005 budget, I believe, should be
interpreted as a sign of the Administration's interest in
accelerating the evolution of Earth science to a national
program, not as a retreat from our NASA commitment to Earth
science. The President's 2006 budget request will support a
highly-effective program of research and development of Earth
sciences that enables NASA to play a critical role in four
major presidential directed programs: the Climate Change
Science Program, the Global Earth Observing System of Systems,
the Grand Challenges and Natural Disaster Reduction, and the
Vision for Space Exploration.
As an example of our commitment to these initiatives,
NASA's Earth science program contributes over 60 percent of the
total funding to the Administration's Climate Change Science
Program. The fiscal year 2006 budget request also supports
several critical missions: 16 Earth science missions on orbit,
eight missions scheduled to launch by 2010, and eight missions
currently in formulation.
We have several exciting Earth science missions coming up
with launches scheduled later this year, CloudSat and CALIPSO.
In addition, we have several missions in development, such as
the NPOESS Preparatory Project, NPP, that we are--that we and
our partners believe are vital to evolving from research to
operations.
Further, the Global Precipitation Mission is currently in
formulation, along with several smaller missions in the Earth
systems science pathfinder line.
While some Science Mission Directorate missions have been
delayed one to two years to respond to other national
priorities, this decision applies to all science missions that
have not passed their confirmation review, not just those in
Earth science.
To help chart our course ahead, we have established a two-
pronged approach to obtaining community advice on the future of
the Earth sciences at NASA. As part of the broader NASA
planning effort to implement the Vision for Space Exploration,
and other national objectives articulated in the New Age of
Space Exploration, we have established 13 strategic road map
committees, one specifically focused on the dynamic Earth
system. We have recently received this committee's draft report
and are pleased with the products and progress. We expect the
final report within the next few weeks, and we will integrate
them all into the Agency's next strategic plan.
NASA has also requested that the National Research Council
generate a community-led decadal survey for Earth science. We
are still digesting the recently received NRC Earth Science
Decadal Survey Phase One Report, and we will carefully consider
its recommendations together with our partners at NOAA.
While the decadal survey and the Dynamic Earth System
Strategic Road map are still in development, some aspects of
the direction we will take are already clear. We will continue
working in partnerships with our international partners, as
well as our interagency partners. We believe that that will
provide us an implementation strategy that leverages our
resources in a very effective way.
I would like to highlight the working relationship that
NASA enjoys with NOAA, given the natural synergy and history of
coordination and cooperation between Earth and space weather
scientists and NASA and NOAA management. By partnering with
NASA--excuse me, with NOAA, we are enabling improved weather
prediction, severe storm forecasting, and climate prediction
services. Further, we intend to increase our emphasis on having
Earth science benefit our exploration program through the
development of an operational capability to predict space
weather.
Through our collaborative effort, not only can we answer
questions of how and why the Sun varies, but also how the Earth
responds to these changes and the implications of these changes
to society. Understanding that is critical as we send humans to
the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
We believe that we have effectively combined NASA's
strengths in research and technology development with NOAA's
capabilities to sustain a long-term operational system of
satellites, creating the most effective system for American
taxpayers.
I look forward to the upcoming launch of NOAA-N as some
evidence of this and the launch of the NPOESS Preparatory
Mission as further amplification.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diaz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alphonso V. Diaz
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's commitment to maintaining
robust Earth and space science programs and their contributions to
achieving the Nation's Vision for Space Exploration.
The Science Mission Directorate provides leadership to NASA at the
agency level, delivering a unique scientific perspective. The Earth and
space science activities of the Science Mission Directorate fully
support NASA's mission to:
Understand and Protect our Home Planet by using our
view from space to study the Earth system and improve
prediction of Earth system change
Explore the Universe and Search for Life by
continuing scientific investigations into the origin,
evolution, and destiny of the universe and our solar system,
and by applying our scientific understanding of the Earth
system to the identification and study of Earth-like planets
around other stars
Inspire the Next Generation of Explorers by providing
Earth and Space science content and training to educators, and
by sponsoring the education and early careers of Earth
scientists, astronomers, and physicists.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision
for Space Exploration. The President's directive gave NASA a new focus
and clear objectives. The fundamental goal of this directive for the
Nation's space exploration program is ``. . .to advance U.S. scientific
security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration
program.'' In issuing this directive, the President committed the
Nation to a journey of returning humans to the Moon, sending robots and
ultimately humans to Mars, and exploring the solar system and beyond.
He challenged us to establish new and innovative programs to enhance
our understanding of the planets, to ask new questions and to answer
questions as old as humankind. NASA enthusiastically embraced this
directive and immediately began an agency-wide transformation to enable
us to achieve the Vision.
NASA's recently published document, The New Age of Exploration:
NASA's Direction for 2005 and Beyond, articulates NASA's commitment to
implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. It identifies NASA's
Guiding National Objectives to:
1. Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic
program to explore the solar system and beyond
2. Extend human presence across the solar system, starting
with the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human
exploration of Mars and other destinations
3. Develop innovative technologies, knowledge, and
infrastructure both to explore and to support decisions about
the destinations for human exploration
4. Promote international and commercial participation in
exploration
5. Study the Earth System from space and develop new space-
based and related capabilities for this purpose
NASA Earth science is critical for fulfilling NASA's mission
because of NASA's unique capabilities of frequent global observations,
modeling and data assimilation with the aim to improve prediction of
both large-scale and small-scale processes. Human exploration of Mars
and beyond requires prediction of the environment to be encountered by
humans. The technological tools and scientific skills that NASA
continues to develop through studying Earth, which has the most complex
ecosystem with continuous interactions of biological, chemical and
physical processes at all time and space scales, are critical in the
exploration and search for life of other planets in our own solar
system and beyond.
In June 2004, the President's Commission on the Implementation of
the United States Space Exploration Policy, led by E.C. ``Pete''
Aldridge, Jr. (the Aldridge Commission), and reported their findings
and recommendations to the President. The Aldridge Commission
emphasized the crucial roles that technological innovation, national
and international partnerships, and organizational transformation must
play if we are to implement the President's Vision for an affordable
and sustainable space exploration program. NASA is committed to making
the necessary transformation to ensure our success in achieving the
Vision for an affordable and sustainable space exploration program.
The Historic Opportunity to Implement the Vision
The transformation presents NASA's science endeavors with an
historic opportunity to support and benefit from the Vision for Space
Exploration. As the National Research Council stated in their report,
Science in NASA's Vision for Space Exploration (2005), ``the
appropriate science in a vibrant space program is nothing less than
that science that will transform our understanding of the universe
around us, and will in time transform us into a space-faring
civilization that extends human presence across the solar system.''
In August 2004, NASA repositioned its science endeavors by merging
two science Enterprises into one Science Mission Directorate with three
themes: Earth-Sun System, Solar System Exploration, and Universe. The
merger of Space Science, with its emphasis on ``discovery,'' and Earth
Science's capacity for ``prediction'' positions the Science Mission
Directorate to support the Vision by engaging in comprehensive
scientific investigations into the Origin, Evolution, and Destiny of
the Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe. The synergies
facilitated by this integration will benefit research, development, and
improve science results in all NASA science disciplines, including
Earth science. Furthermore, a unified Science Mission Directorate
facilitates the opportunity for all of the discipline areas of science
to learn from each other which, in turn, enhances NASA's exploration
activities.
Planning for the Future
NASA has identified eighteen strategic objectives, from which
thirteen strategic roadmaps will be derived. Six of these roadmaps
directly apply to the activities and research objectives of the Science
Mission Directorate. The current strategic planning process forms the
basis for our future strategy for Earth and space science. Through our
actions, we are clearly emphasizing a continuing commitment to Earth
science and NASA's commitment to study the Earth system is clearly
reflected in our national objectives. Not only will these studies
better inform our work as we implement the Vision, but will strengthen
our ability to continue to support Presidential initiatives involving
climate change science and technology, the oceans, an integrated Earth
observation system, and others.
Strategic Roadmapping
While the ``Aldridge'' Commission provided the blueprint for NASA's
ongoing transformation in support of the Vision, NASA's strategic
planning efforts are defining the specific details for The New Age of
Exploration. New strategic roadmaps will provide a foundation for
future investment decisions and priorities in 13 key areas. Each
strategic roadmap is being developed by a team composed of nationally-
recognized scientists, engineers, educators, visionaries, and managers,
organized into dedicated teams co-chaired by senior NASA leaders and
nationally recognized leaders from industry and academia. In some
strategic roadmap areas, thematic roadmaps already exist or are in
development. These ``legacy'' products and activities will be
integrated into the new process.
The Dynamic Earth System roadmap committee submitted its interim
status report to NASA for review on April 15. The work being done by
this roadmapping committee has already identified a number of missions
that NASA should consider in the future. For Earth science, the roadmap
assumes the successful implementation of the currently planned mission
set, such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, Aquarius, and the Global
Precipitation Measurement missions. Likewise, for the Sun-Earth
Connection, the roadmap assumes the successful implementation of
STEREO, Solar-B, Magnetosphere Multi-Scale, Radiation Belt Storm
Probes, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory missions.
In addition, the Dynamic Earth System and Sun-Solar System
Connection roadmap committees are coordinating their activities and
held a joint meeting on March 16, 2005. Interim reports from the two
committees evidence interest in similar missions. Such missions have
considerable importance for Earth science and the Vision for Space
Exploration by enabling high-temporal resolution of atmospheric changes
and solar influences on climate, and by providing a capability to
monitor space weather and solar events that could be hazardous to
spacecraft and astronauts.
Unlike the other roadmap committees, the Dynamic Earth System
committee did not have the benefit of a National Research Council
Decadal Survey as a starting input; such a survey was requested shortly
before the roadmapping activity began and is currently in work. NASA
expects to receive the final Phase II report by the end of calendar
year 2006. However, the Dynamic Earth System committee will benefit
from other detailed, strategic planning documents from NASA and
national planning processes such as the U.S. Climate Change Science
Plan, the Grand Challenges for Natural Disaster Reduction, and the U.S.
Integrated Earth Observation System.
We have recently received the Dynamic Earth System committee's
draft report and are pleased with the Committee's products and
progress. We appreciate their hard work and support and value their
contributions to this critical endeavor.
Decadal Study
At the request of NASA and NOAA, the National Research Council is
carrying out a ``decadal survey'' entitled ``Earth Science and
Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the
Future.'' The Space Studies Board, in consultation with other units of
the NRC, will lead the study to generate consensus recommendations from
the Earth and environmental science and applications communities
regarding a systems approach to space-based and ancillary observations
that encompasses the research programs of NASA and the related
operational programs of NOAA.
The key goals of the study are:
Articulate priorities for Earth system science and
the space-based observational approaches to address those
priorities.
Establish individual plans and priorities within the
sub-disciplines of the Earth sciences as well as an integrated
vision and plan for the Earth sciences as a whole.
Providing Continued Leadership While Leveraging Partnerships in Earth
Sciences
Presidential Initiatives
The FY06 budget supports critical national needs, including climate
change by supporting investments in the U.S. Global Change Science and
Technology Programs and next generation Earth observing satellites.
In addition to supporting the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA's
Earth science program has a critical role in implementing important
Administration initiatives:
Global Earth Observation System of Systems via the
U.S. Group on Earth Observations--The purpose of GEOSS is to
achieve comprehensive, coordinated and sustained observations
of the Earth system, in order to improve monitoring of the
state of the Earth, increase understanding of Earth processes,
and enhance prediction of the behavior of the Earth system.
NASA's Earth Observing System supports this effort through a
series of polar-orbiting and low inclination satellites, a
science component, and a data system of long-term global
observations of the land surface, biosphere, solid Earth,
atmosphere, and oceans.
Climate Change Science Program--NASA's Earth science
program is the largest contributor (over 60 percent of the
total funding) to the Administration's Climate Change Science
Program. NASA brings the global perspective from satellite and
sub-orbital measurements to address climate and global change
science questions. NASA has the end-to-end capability to
develop technologies, models, deploy observing systems and
utilize and provide products for decision support systems.
Grand Challenges in Natural Disaster Reduction--NASA
research and observations are essential to help the U.S. meet
its disaster reduction goals for the next decade. Through its
ability to view the Earth as a dynamic system, NASA makes key
contributions to the science of hazard assessment and
mitigation and provides essential support to the efforts of
other federal agencies charged with these responsibilities.
International Partnerships
NASA has long-standing relationships with foreign countries in the
conduct of Earth science. Historically, over 50 percent of NASA's Earth
science programs have involved international participation. Such
partnerships have allowed each country to leverage their Earth science
resources to conduct outstanding science in the pursuit of
understanding our Earth and the forces that influence its change.
Cloudsat and CALIPSO, scheduled to launch this summer, exemplify how
NASA is able to successfully collaborate with space agencies around the
world. NASA and the Canadian Space Agency worked together to develop
CloudSat's Cloud Profiling Radar. For CALIPSO, CNES, the French space
agency, not only provided the spacecraft and the Imaging Infrared
Radiometer (IIR), but is also performing payload-to-spacecraft
integration and spacecraft mission operations.
In support of the Vision for U.S. Space Exploration, the Science
Mission Directorate held a conference this past March that included
participation from 26 international organizations. In some cases the
participants were representatives from multilateral organizations such
as the Central American Commission on Environment and Development
(CCAD), the European Commission (EC), and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The
conference provided a forum for NASA and its international partners to
exchange information on the Vision and to discuss opportunities for
enhanced future cooperation. A recurring theme at the conference was
the importance of international collaboration and information sharing
in achieving common scientific priorities.
Interagency Partnerships
NASA works closely with our partner agencies on national programs
including the Climate Change Science Program, the Grand Challenges in
Disaster Reduction, and Integrated Earth Observation System. We value
our long history of collaboration with research agencies, such as NSF
and DOE, as well as operational agencies, such as EPA, USDA, DOI and
NOAA. We are committed to continuing to work closely with our partner
agencies to ensure the continuity of data sets crucial to our nation.
NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of
Interior have cooperated to produce new global land cover data products
for each of three different time periods: the 1970s, circa 1990, and
circa 2000. The DOI (USGS) and NASA share responsibility for preserving
and populating the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive
and ensuring the continued collection of Landsat data. The Landsat
Program is the longest running enterprise for acquisition of imagery of
the Earth from space. The first Landsat satellite was launched in 1972
and the most recent, Landsat 7, was launched in 1999. USGS's 33-year
Landsat data archive provided most of the over 20,000 Landsat satellite
images needed. In partnership with private industry (the Earth
Satellite Corporation), the GeoCover product was created. Researchers,
planners, and land managers are now using the GeoCover data to
understand how the Earth's land cover and land use have changed over
the past thirty years. Recent projects have documented urbanization in
the U.S. and tracked land cover change on the biologically rich island
of Madagascar. A new project is underway to map changes in North
American forests since 1975 as part of the North American Carbon
Program. GeoCover data also have been made available through two United
Nations organizations, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
NOAA, NASA, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force jointly support the Joint
Center for Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA) which seeks to
accelerate and improve the quantitative use of research and operational
satellite data in weather and climate prediction models. Recent
successes have been based on data from a number of NASA satellites,
including QuikSCAT, TRMM, Terra and Aqua. Through the JCSDA, inclusion
of NASA data on sea winds, rainfall, high latitude winds and
temperature and humidity vertical profiles in NOAA forecast models has
led to improved NOAA weather forecast models, including short-term,
hurricane and seasonal-to-inter-annual forecasts. The JCSDA helps to
transform NASA's results into NOAA's operational systems and we are
working together to ensure that each agency's models are sufficiently
similar to allow for easy movement of progress from one to the other.
NASA and NOAA have also worked together to improve weather
prediction on Earth Through a long-standing relationship where NASA
acts as a program manager and purchasing agent on NOAA's behalf. This
relationship in developing, launching, and operating the GOES and POES
satellites has provided invaluable information used every day to
forecast the weather, both in the U.S. and across the world. The launch
of NASA-built NOAA N later this year will provide new short- and long-
range forecasting capabilities.
In 1970, NASA's Nimbus-4 satellite led to the first measurements of
global ozone content from space. Beginning with the Nimbus-7 in 1979,
NASA and NOAA have harnessed this capability through the Total Ozone
Mapping Spectrometers (TOMS) and the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet
(SBUV) instruments to produce a continuous 25-year data record of
global ozone. The resulting long-term data set has been a central part
of international assessments of the state of the ozone layer, showing
both the global picture and trend of ozone loss and the progress of the
Antarctic ozone hole. The continued data from this series of satellites
will also play a key role in the observation of the recovery of the
ozone layer. To interweave data from this series of satellite
instruments into a homogeneous climate-quality data record requires the
ongoing commitment of this interagency science team. This data record,
and the blending of diverse strengths to analyze and verify data,
continues today with the advanced ozone measurements being made by
NASA's Aura mission. This capability will transition to NPOESS, with
the first flight of the OMPS instrument suite aboard the NASA NPP
mission.
More recently, NASA and NOAA have begun cooperating on missions
related to space weather and its effects on Earth. Data from NASA
spacecraft can be used to improve the NOAA capability to predict space
weather. For example, NOAA uses data from NASA's solar wind monitoring
ACE spacecraft to assist in predicting space weather. New NASA
instruments will continue to inform the process needed to further
develop a robust operational capability to predict space weather. By
working together, NASA and NOAA are jointly able to answer questions of
interest to both agencies: ``How and why the Sun varies?''; ``How does
the Earth respond to solar variability?''; and ``What are the
implications of solar variability and the Earth's response?''
Based on this synergy of science objectives and history of
coordination and cooperation, NASA has been working with NOAA to
transition to a strategy that better leverages our respective strengths
in science investigations and mission operations. NASA believes this is
in line with the principles of good and efficient management of public
funds to serve our nation and the world. It is our intent to continue
to work with NOAA to look for new ways to improve the efficiency of
these transfers. For example, both agencies have jointly funded a study
by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Committee
on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations (CONNTRO). The May
2003 final report was called Satellite Observations of the Earth's
Environment, Accelerating the Transition from Research to Operations.
In addition, NASA and NOAA have established a Joint Research to
Operations (R2O) Working Group as a mechanism for joint and coordinated
planning on transition matters pertaining to research results, ground
systems, and current and future spacecraft missions in preparation for
discussions within the National Science and Technology Council.
FY 2006 Budget
The former Earth Science Enterprise and the Sun-Earth Connection
theme from the former Space Science Enterprise have been combined to
form the new Earth-Sun System theme. In this new theme, the following
programs can be traced from Earth Science: Earth Systematic Missions,
Applications and Earth System Pathfinders.
The FY 2006 budget supports a vibrant and effective science program
that is responsive to national priorities. The overall NASA science
programs budget run-out shows a 24 percent increase from FY 2006
through FY 2010, at which time science will grow from 33 percent to
approximately 38 percent of the NASA budget. NASA's Science Mission
Directorate continues to support 55 operational missions, 26 missions
in development and 34 in formulation. There are 16 Earth Science
missions presently on orbit and plans to launch eight more Earth
Science missions between 2005 and 2010. Earth science missions in
development include Cloudsat; the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared
Pathfinder (CALIPSO); the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP); the
Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO); and the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LDMC). In addition, the following Earth science missions are
currently in formulation: the Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM);
the Global Precipitation Mission (GPM); Glory; Aquarius; and Hydros.
Additionally, the NOAA reimbursable missions GOES-N, -O, and -P and
POES-N and -N' are in development and GOES-R is in formulation.
One of NASA's Strategic Objectives for 2005 and beyond is to
advance scientific knowledge of the Earth system through space-based
observation, assimilation of new observations, and development and
deployment of enabling technologies, systems, and capabilities
including those with the potential to improve future operational
systems. The FY 2006 budget for NASA supports a highly effective
program of research and development of Earth Sciences, and plans are
now being formulated to continue this significant effort into the
future.
Conclusion
The integrated view of Sun and Earth as a system is reflected in
our strategic roadmapping approach and long-term planning. NASA's goal
is to continue using our unique view from space to study the Earth
system and improve our prediction of the Earth system change. Through
new space-based technology designed to monitor the Earth system, NASA
will provide timely, on-demand data and analyses to users for
scientific research, national policy-making, economic growth, natural
hazard mitigation, and the exploration of other planets in this solar
system and beyond. NASA's FY 2006 budget request supports a robust
science and mission set to ensure a wealth of scientific research and
discovery will continue well into the future. Through this approach we
also recognize the emerging importance of understanding the Earth-Sun
system in enabling the achievement of the Vision and NASA's exploration
mandate.
Biography for Alphonso V. Diaz
Mr. Alphonso V. Diaz was named Associate Administrator for NASA's
Science Mission Directorate on August 8, 2004. In this position, he is
responsible for the management, direction, and oversight of NASA's
science flight programs, mission studies, and technology development.
In addition, in this capacity, he is the designated Program Executive
Officer for the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), the Ames Research
Center, and contract management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
From 1996 to 2004, Mr. Diaz was at Goddard Space Flight Center
where he served as Center Director from 1998 to 2004 and as Deputy
Director from 1996 to 1998. While at GSFC he was responsible for
planning, organizing, and directing NASA's Earth science, space
science, and technology programs assigned to the Center. GSFC is
engaged in developing and operating scientific spacecraft including the
Hubble Space Telescope and the Earth Observing System. The Center
continues to seek excellence in science and technology as demonstrated
by many discoveries and advances in its history, from the first mapping
of the Antarctic ozone hole to determining the very early structure of
the universe.
From 1989 to March 1996, Mr. Diaz served as Deputy Associate
Administrator and Chief Engineer of the Office of Space Science (Code
S) at NASA Headquarters. In that capacity, he was responsible for
management direction and oversight of space science flight program
policy, launch vehicle requirements, technology infusion requirements,
and mission study reviews and assessments. Mr. Diaz led the Agency
committee charted by the Administrator to study proposals related to
science institutes and to provide recommendations for implementation.
Prior key positions with NASA include Deputy Associate Administrator
for the former Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA),
Assistant Associate Administrator for Programs within OSSA, and
Director for Strategic Plans and Programs for Space Station.
Mr. Diaz began his career at NASA's Langley Research Center as a
NASA Coop Student in 1964. At Langley, he worked in a variety of
technical management positions, including on the Viking Project, Gas
Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS). This scientific instrument was
the first to analyze the surface material of Mars in 1976. In 1979, Mr.
Diaz began his work at NASA Headquarters, where he served in a variety
of positions. Aside from the positions mentioned above, Mr. Diaz also
has served as the International Solar-Polar Mission (now Ulysses
Mission) Program Manager, the Galileo Program Manager, Manager of
Planetary Advanced Programs, and as Deputy Director of the Solar System
Exploration Division. He later served as Assistant Associate
Administrator for Space Station within OSSA, managing all activities on
the use of the planned Space Station for scientific research, and
providing strategic planning guidance for OSSA's overall program of
scientific exploration. Mr. Diaz received three Presidential Rank
Awards; two as Meritorious Executive in 1990 and in 1995, and one
Distinguished Award in 1996. He also has received five NASA Medals,
including a NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 1994 for his work on
the Hubble Space Telescope First Servicing Mission, and an Exceptional
Scientific Achievement Medal for his work on the Viking Project in
1976.
Mr. Diaz received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from St.
Joseph's University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and a Master of
Science degree in Physics from Old Dominion University in Norfolk,
Virginia. In addition, he received a Master of Science in management
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloan School of
Management in 1986 where he attended as a NASA Sloan Fellow. He has
received an Honorary Doctorate in Science from Capital College and is
scheduled to receive an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Rome
(Italy) on May 30, 2005. He is a Fellow and Trustee of the
International Academy of Astronautics and an Associate Fellow of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is married to
Angela Phillips Diaz. They reside in Takoma Park, MD.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz.
Dr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF DR. BERRIEN MOORE III, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE
STUDY OF EARTH, OCEANS, AND SPACE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dr. Moore. Thank you. Thank you Committee, Minority Member
Congressman Gordon, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for
inviting me here to testify today.
My name is Berrien Moore, and I am a professor of systems
research at the University of New Hampshire. I appear today in
my capacity as Co-Chair of the National Research Council's
Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A
Community Assessment and a Strategy for the Future.
This committee came into being in response to requests from
NASA, NOAA, and the USGS to begin a decadal survey of Earth
sciences and applications from space. That committee's report,
the final report, is due to be completed in late 2006.
The key tasks of the committee are to develop a consensus
of the top-level scientific questions that should provide the
focus for Earth and environmental observations for the period
2005 to 2020 and to develop a prioritized list of recommended
space programs, missions, and supporting activities to address
these questions.
I would like now to just simply summarize my comments more
informally.
What we have submitted today, or actually released
yesterday, is the interim report of the committee.
Unfortunately, I don't think that is the best title. It is the
report that the committee was asked to do, funded by the
government and partnered by the community, to look at the
status of affairs today, because if we are to try to set a
decadal survey into motion to talk about a vision for 2005, but
really in reality 2010 to 2020, we need to see where we are
today.
And so the interim report is essentially a status of the
bridge. Al Diaz mentioned quite properly that NASA's history in
Earth science over the last 15 to 20 years is truly remarkable.
So our past up to the present is of enormous strength. And I
concur, having had this morning the opportunity to look at the
road maps and to know what the decadal survey is doing, as we
think about the period 2010 to 2020, that there is a glorious
opportunity that we have to better understand this planet and
to better serve the Nation and the world.
However, we are now on a bridge between that extraordinary
past and the future. And there is concern about the status of
that bridge. And that is the content of the interim report.
The concerns are in five areas.
For a variety of reasons, there have been a significant
number of Earth science missions that have been delayed or
descoped or canceled or terminated, and I can easily understand
some debate about which of those verbs is most appropriate. But
there has been a significant impact upon a set of Earth science
missions that the community had expected to come into
existence.
Secondly, part of the strategy of dealing with this
challenge has been to move some of that capability from NASA to
NOAA and put it onto the NPOESS platform. There are concerns
about that transition. We do not understand fully the
technological issues as well as the scientific.
I will return to that point in a moment.
Thirdly, that there are--that after the Global
Precipitation Mission, there is no major facility-class mission
at NASA in the planning queue. This is the first time that I
can remember, in the long history I have had with NASA, to see
that there is essentially an end. And when that occurs, it has
an impact upon the technology investments. If you do not have a
robust mission queue leading out into the future, then you do
not have a robust technology cue to support that.
The Earth System Science Pathfinders are an extraordinary
opportunity to have rapid access to space through principal
investigator-led missions. I find this one of the most exciting
aspects to see the Earth sciences adopt the Explorer mission
concept from the space sciences and to have incorporated these
in the so-called ESSP, the Earth System Science Pathfinders.
However, because of budget constraints again, these
missions have been stretched out longer and longer. I think the
theme is going to be ``fly before I die'' if we don't bring
these in. We are looking at outwards of eight and 10 years to
fly off some of these PI-led missions.
Two final areas.
In this transfer of capability from NASA to NOAA, there are
extraordinary opportunities there. But there are some very real
concerns. Take, for instance, we have had this wonderful
success with the EOS missions. And those now are to be
replaced, in part, by the operational NPOESS missions.
But let us look at what happens to the information that
comes from NPOESS. It flows to four weather centrals,
operational weather centrals. There is no science central.
There is no climate central. There is no central where the data
can be analyzed carefully and repeatedly. It goes to four
operational centers that have enormously important but very
significant time constraints for getting the information out.
And so we think that, in one of our recommendations, we
need to look at this and ask: Is NPOESS really serving the
scientific community, and in particular, the climate part of
that mission?
Finally, when you have a constrained budget, or a budget
that is falling, one of the hardest things in the world to do
is to preserve the research and analysis. This is particularly
true when many times you have built the research and analysis
part of the budget through a coupling with the major missions.
The EOS is a good example. Research and analysis in the Earth
sciences was enhanced tremendously because of the close
coupling with the Earth Observing System. That coupling is
beginning to deteriorate as the Earth Observing System begins
to age.
I would like to compliment, though, Ghassem Asrar, who has
done everything he could--who is in the audience, who has done
everything he could to preserve that research and analysis
line. But in a declining budget, this becomes the first of many
difficulties.
Let me conclude, and I would go back to my formal
testimony.
Taken together, these developments jeopardize U.S.
leadership in both Earth science and Earth observations, and
they undermine the vitality of the government-university-
private sector partnership that has made so many contributions
to society.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I am prepared to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Berrien Moore III
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the
Committee: thank you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is
Berrien Moore, and I am a Professor of Systems Research at the
University of New Hampshire. I appear today in my capacity as Co-Chair
of the National Research Council (NRC)'s Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the
Future.
As you know the National Research Council is the unit of the
National Academies that is responsible for organizing independent
advisory studies for the Federal Government on science and technology.
In response to requests from NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, the NRC has
begun a ``decadal survey'' of Earth science and applications from space
which is due to be completed in 2006. The guiding principle for the
study, which was developed in consultation with members of the Earth
science community, is to set an agenda for Earth science and
applications from space, including everything from short-term needs for
information, such as weather warnings for protection of life and
property, to longer-term scientific understanding that is essential for
understanding our planet, how it supports and sustains life, and that
underpins future societal applications.
The NRC has been conducting decadal strategy surveys in astronomy
for four decades. But it has only started to do them in other areas
fairly recently. This is the first decadal survey in Earth science and
applications from space.
Among the key tasks in the charge to the decadal survey committee
is the request to:
Develop a consensus of the top-level scientific
questions that should provide the focus for Earth and
environmental observations in the period 2005-2020; and
Develop a prioritized list of recommended space
programs, missions, and supporting activities to address these
questions.
The NRC survey committee has prepared a brief interim report, which
I am pleased to be able to summarize today. This report provides an
early examination of urgent issues that require attention prior to
publication of the committee's final report in the second half of 2006.
A copy of the full report has also been provided for your use.
The report was requested by the sponsors of the study and by staff
members of the Science Committee. The report also responds, in part, to
direction in the FY 2005 appropriations bill that calls for ``the
National Academy's Space Studies Board to conduct a thorough review of
the science that NASA is proposing to undertake under the space
exploration initiative and to develop a strategy by which all of NASA's
science disciplines. . .can make adequate progress towards their
established goals, as well as providing balanced scientific research in
addition to support of the new initiative.''
The current U.S. civilian Earth observing system centers on the
environmental satellites operated by NOAA; the atmosphere-, ocean-,
ice-, and land-observation satellites of NASA's Earth Observing System
(EOS); and the Landsat satellites, which are operated through a
cooperative arrangement between NASA, NOAA, and the USGS. Over the past
30 years, NASA and NOAA have contributed to fundamental advances in
understanding the Earth system and in providing a variety of societal
benefits through their international leadership in Earth observing
systems from space. Today, this process of building understanding
through increasingly powerful observations and thereby expanding the
basis for needed applications is at risk of collapse. Although NOAA has
plans to modernize and refresh its weather satellites, NASA has no plan
to replace its EOS platforms after their nominal six-year lifetimes end
(beginning with the end of the Terra satellite mission in 2005), and it
has canceled, scaled back, or delayed at least six planned missions,
including a Landsat continuity mission.
These decisions at NASA appear to be driven by a major shift in
priorities as the Agency moves to implement a new vision for space
exploration. We believe this change in priorities jeopardizes NASA's
ability to fulfill its obligations in other important presidential
initiatives, such as the Climate Change Research Initiative and the
subsequent Climate Change Science Program. It also calls into question
future U.S. leadership in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems,
an international effort initiated by this administration. Indeed, the
Nation's ability to pursue a visionary space exploration agenda depends
critically on our success in applying knowledge of the Earth to
maintain economic growth and security on our home planet.
Moreover, a substantial reduction in NASA's Earth observation
programs today will result in a loss of U.S. scientific and technical
capacity, which will decrease the competitiveness of the United States
internationally for years to come. U.S. leadership in science,
technology development, and societal applications depends on sustaining
competence across a broad range of scientific and engineering
disciplines that include the Earth sciences.
The NRC's interim report identifies a number of issues for NASA and
NOAA that require immediate attention in the FY 2006 and FY 2007
programs. They include the following:
The impact of canceling or delaying NASA missions,
The need to evaluate plans for transferring
capabilities from some canceled or scaled-back NASA missions to
the NOAA-DOD NPOESS satellites,
The adequacy of the technological base for future
missions,
The state of NASA Research and Analysis programs,
which are necessary to maximize scientific return on NASA
investments in Earth science and to retain the intellectual
base for future missions,
The need to reinvigorate the Explorer missions
program, and
Near-term steps that are required to develop a
sustained and robust observing system from space that provides
essential baseline climate observations and create a climate
data and information system to meet the challenge of
production, distribution and stewardship of climate records
from NPOESS and other relevant observational platforms.
With regard to these issues, the committee recommends the following
actions:
1. The NASA Global Precipitation Measurement mission should be
launched without further delays. This mission is an
international effort to improve climate, weather, and
hydrological predictions through more accurate and frequent
precipitation measurements.
2. NASA and NOAA should complete the fabrication, testing, and
space qualification of the GIFTS (Geosynchronous Imaging
Fourier Transform Spectrometer) instrument and should support
the international effort to launch this instrument by 2008.
GIFTS will make highly detailed measurements from geostationary
orbit of temperature and water vapor and will improve the
prediction of severe weather conditions as well as the range of
global weather forecasts.
3. NASA and NOAA should commission three independent reviews,
to be completed by October 2005, regarding three missions or
instruments: (a) the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which has
been endorsed by the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and was planned by NASA to continue the vital
record of Earth land imaging after Landsat-7, which is
currently failing, (b) the Glory mission to measure and
characterize atmospheric aerosols and solar irradiance, which
is now canceled, but which NASA had previously proposed to
accelerate in response to the President's Climate Change
Science Program, and (c) the suitability of the instrumentation
planned for NPOESS to measure ocean winds and direction.
The guidelines for these reviews are set forth in the
Interim report.
4. Mr. Chairman, we also recommend that NASA significantly
expand existing technology development programs to ensure that
new enabling technologies for critical observational
capabilities are available to support mission starts over the
coming decade. One of the problems of having nothing in the
mission queue after the Global Precipitation Mission, other
than smaller, principal investigator led explorer-class
missions, is that focused technology development is no longer
supported. Amongst the areas requiring increased technology
investments are:
Space-based interferometric synthetic
aperture radar, whose numerous applications include
monitoring of Earth's crustal movements caused by
volcanic or seismic activity;
Wide swath ocean altimetry, which will
provide the first synoptic observations of global ocean
eddies, coastal currents and tides, and internal tides;
and
Wind lidar, which will facilitate long sought
measurements of global wind profiles, particularly over
the oceans where three dimensional measurements are
sparse and where most weather phenomena originate.
5. We also recommend that NASA:
Increase the frequency of Earth Explorer
selection opportunities and accelerate the frequency of
launch opportunities by providing sufficient funding
for at least one launch per year (that is, a return to
the schedule the program originally envisioned and
followed prior to recent delays), and
Release the next announcement of opportunity
for this program in FY 2005.
NASA developed its Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP)
program as ``an innovative approach for addressing Global
Change Research by providing periodic 'Windows of Opportunity'
to accommodate new scientific priorities and infuse new
scientific participation into the Earth Science Enterprise. .
.[using]. . .relatively low to moderate cost, small to medium
sized missions that are capable of being built, tested and
launched in a short time interval.'' But some of the missions
now being planned may not be launched until nearly 10 years
after they were selected.
6. Last, we recommend that NOAA, working with the Climate
Change Science Program and the international Group on Earth
Observations create a robust and sustained observing system
from space that includes at a minimum a set of essential
baseline climate observations. In addition NOAA should create a
climate data and information system to meet the challenge of
the production, distribution, and stewardship of high-accuracy
climate records from NPOESS and other relevant observational
platforms. These functions are within NOAA's mandate to
understand climate variability and change, but cannot be
accomplished through the current NPOESS program or its data
system architecture.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, our committee is also concerned about
diminished resources for the research and analysis (R&A) programs that
sustain the interpretation of Earth science data. Because the R&A
programs are carried out largely through the Nation's research
universities, there will be an immediate and deleterious impact on
graduate student, postdoctoral, and faculty research support. The long-
term consequence will be a diminished ability to attract and retain
students interested in using and developing Earth observations. Taken
together, these developments jeopardize U.S. leadership in both Earth
science and Earth observations, and they undermine the vitality of the
government-university-private sector partnership that has made so many
contributions to society.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
prepared to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Moore.
Dr. Killeen.
STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER
FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
Dr. Killeen. Good morning.
I thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and the
other Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak
with you today about NASA's role in the Earth sciences.
My name is Tim Killeen. I am the Director of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, which is sponsored by
the National Science Foundation, and the President-Elect of the
American Geophysical Union.
I am a space scientist who has built hardware for NASA in
the past and a former professor at the University of Michigan
where I taught Earth system sciences for many years.
I would like to make three simple points today.
First, NASA plays a crucial role in the country's vibrant
Earth sciences program. Decisions about NASA priorities and
funding on Earth science can accelerate or impede progress in
this vitally important field.
Second, rapid advances in NASA Earth observing
capabilities, when coupled with the acceleration of modeling
and information technologies, have positioned us on the brink
of an extraordinary new era in Earth science research, one in
which we can quantitatively understand and predict the Earth as
a system with tremendous societal and economic benefits.
Third, the importance of Earth science and the central role
of NASA argue for careful, thorough, and deliberative
assessment to inform program planning, especially when major
changes are being considered. In my opinion, the current pace
of budgetary and program change at NASA is inconsistent with
such an approach and could result in irrevocable damage to
programs and scientific teams that have taken decades and
billions of tax dollars to build.
If I could have the first slide, please.
It is clear after many years of pioneering satellite
observations that Earth is a system of tightly coupled parts
that interact in complex ways to produce the whole. For me
personally, this ``blue marble'' photograph taken over 30 years
ago by Apollo 17 astronauts on the way to the Moon symbolizes
this complex system. It has become a societal icon.
The study of such interactions has, in fact, become known
as Earth system science and has led to numerous insights about
how the Earth functions and how it is evolving and changing
over time.
To understand, for example, how the atmosphere supports and
protects life, one must appreciate the complex and tightly-
coupled circulation dynamics, chemistry, interactions with the
oceans, with ice, with biosphere and land surface, all driven
by solar radiation. And the natural system that we live on--
live in is susceptible to changes due to human activity,
creating still more complexity and variability. We must strive
to understand and predict such variability in order to
safeguard and manage human societies.
Earth system science, informed by comprehensive and
accurate ground- and space-based observations, is the tool kit
for this.
Let me provide you with a single example of what I am
talking about.
Just last week, President Bush mentioned proposed rules to
limit air pollution from power plants.
The next slide, please.
These animations were the first NASA-produced global
observations of air pollution moving around the globe. Sources
of carbon monoxide seen here include industrial processes. See,
for example, the source regions in the Pacific Rim, and fires,
look at Amazonia. This global-scale data from space, thanks to
NASA's commitment to research and innovation, has helped
transform our understanding of the relationship of pollution
and air quality. We now know that pollution is not solely, or
even primarily, a local or regional problem. California's air
quality, for example, is clearly influenced by industrial
activity in Asia.
NASA Earth observation capabilities, such as these, thank
you, coupled with the Agency's strong support for modeling and
scientific research and analysis, have been essential to the
advancement of Earth system science. It is very important to
maintain this balance within the NASA program both because
research and analysis is the process by which useful
information is derived from remote sensing systems and because
university-based research activities produce and nurture the
human capital that provides a foundation for the entire space
program.
In this slide, the effect of funding reaches far beyond the
year in which they occur.
Advanced Earth observations and modeling, I assert, will
lead directly to major societal benefits to the country,
including improved national security, weather forecasts and
warnings, climate outlooks, management of natural resources,
including water, agriculture, and energy, and mitigation of
natural disasters, such as droughts, floods, landslides, and
volcanic eruptions.
I fully understand that NASA faces many difficult choices
arising from pursuit of ambitious goals in a period of national
budget constraints. However, I believe it is important to
proceed carefully when making decisions regarding key national
assets and programs such as these. Understanding the complex,
changing planet upon which we live, how it supports life, and
how human activities will affect its ability to support life
into the future is one of the greatest intellectual and
practical challenges facing humanity.
I urge the Members of the Committee to do all that is
possible to protect and help to manage, in a thoughtful and
strategic manner, the critically valuable scientific
infrastructure and human capital that are unique to the NASA
Earth Science program.
And I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member, in
particular, for the opening comments.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Killeen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy L. Killeen
I thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and the other
Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today on
NASA's role in the Earth Sciences. My name is Tim Killeen, and I am the
Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which
is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. I am also the
President-Elect of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). My academic
background is as an experimental space scientist who has participated
in several NASA space science programs and a former professor at the
University of Michigan, where I taught atmospheric, space, and Earth
system sciences for many years.
The topic of this hearing is of tremendous importance to our
understanding of the planet on which we live. I would like to make
three fundamental points today, using examples of past and future
contributions by NASA to the study of Earth:
First, NASA plays a crucial role in this country's
vibrant Earth sciences program. NASA is the dominant federal
funding agency for U.S. scientists and engineers who address
fundamental questions about our planet, provide practical
knowledge about the way the Earth functions, and reveal how
human activities affect the environment upon which all life
depends. NASA funding for Earth science provides the
intellectual capital and scientific infrastructure to produce
work that is not just intellectually exciting but critical to
human existence.
Second, rapid advances in NASA Earth observing
capabilities, coupled with revolutionary advances in
information technology, have positioned us for an extraordinary
new era in Earth science research--one in which we can
quantitatively understand and predict the Earth as a system,
with the temporal and spatial fidelity needed by decision-
makers at many levels of our society: local, regional, and
global. This will lead directly to major societal benefits
including:
improved national security
better weather forecasts and warnings
more targeted climate outlooks
better management of natural resources including
water, agriculture, and energy
more effective mitigation of natural disasters such
as drought, floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions.
Third, the importance of Earth science and the
central role of NASA in this field argue for careful, thorough,
and deliberative assessment to inform program planning,
especially when major changes are being considered. The current
pace of budgetary and program change in NASA is inconsistent
with such an approach and could result in irrevocable damage to
programs and scientific teams that have taken decades and
billions of tax dollars to build.
I fully understand that NASA faces many difficult choices arising
from the pursuit of ambitious goals in a period of national budget
constraints. However, I believe it important to proceed carefully when
making decisions regarding important national assets and programs such
as those represented within the NASA Earth Science effort.
A. The Importance of Earth Science and NASA's Role
It is clear after decades of pioneering satellite observations that
Earth is a system of tightly coupled parts that interact in complex
ways to produce the whole. The study of such interactions has become
known as Earth system science, and has led to numerous insights about
how the Earth functions and how it is evolving and changing over time.
To understand how the atmosphere supports and protects life, for
example, one must appreciate the complex and tightly coupled
circulation dynamics, chemistry, interactions with the oceans, ice,
biosphere, and land surface: all driven by solar radiation. And today,
the natural system is clearly susceptible to changes due to human
activity, creating still more complexity and variability over many
scales of time and space. In any foreseeable future, we will have to
understand this ``system of systems'' in order to help create,
maintain, safeguard, and guide human societies. Earth system science,
based on comprehensive and accurate ground- and space-based
observations, is the toolkit that enables such investigation.
Furthermore, the manner in which we explore other worlds will be
informed by the understanding of our own.
For me personally, this ``blue marble'' photograph taken over 30
years ago by Apollo 17 astronauts on the way to the Moon perfectly
represents this complex system. You have all seen this incredible
picture hundreds of times in advertisements, reports and public media.
It is perhaps one of the most significant, but under-sung, societal
icons we possess. At NCAR, it is featured in a wall mural.
There are many ways to illustrate the importance of NASA's role in
supporting Earth system science in the U.S. In sheer budgetary terms,
NASA is the single largest environmental science program supported by
the Federal Government. The widely respected budget analyses of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) indicate
that NASA provided 34 percent of the total funding for the
environmental sciences in 2004. Much of this spending is devoted to the
design, development, and operation of scientific instruments, the
spacecraft that carry them, and the data systems required to process,
analyze, archive, and distribute data to the scientific community and
other users. But it should also be remembered that NASA provides
significant resources to university investigators through the research
and analysis component of its program.
In fact, leaving spacecraft and data system costs aside, AAAS
analyses show that NASA was the third largest provider of competitively
awarded extramural funding for the university environmental science
community in 2004, trailing only the National Science Foundation and
the National Institutes of Health. Even small reductions in the NASA
program have large effects in the university community. This matters
both because research and analysis is the process by which useful
information is derived from remote sensing systems, and because
university-based research activities provide the human capital
(undergraduates, graduate students, young researchers and engineers)
that underpins the entire space program. The effects of funding
perturbations reach far beyond the year in which they occur. The design
and development of an Earth observation satellite takes a decade or
more, and keeping young scientists and engineers engaged in such work
requires some degree of steady ongoing support.
Another way of showing NASA's importance to this field is by
looking at what has been accomplished. The scientific and practical
results from NASA's Earth science program are much too extensive for me
to catalogue here, but two examples can illustrate the unique
contribution that NASA has made to our understanding of the Earth's
atmosphere and its variations.
Example 1: Ozone depletions
The first example is probably well known to you. The ozone
``holes'' in the Antarctic and Arctic were monitored from space by
various NASA satellite systems, including the Total Ozone Mapping
Spectrometer (TOMS). The diagnosis of the physical and chemical
mechanisms responsible for these dangerous changes to our protective
ozone shield was made possible by the combination of observations,
modeling, and theory supported by NASA. In fact, it was a NASA high-
altitude aircraft that made the ``smoking gun'' measurements that
convinced the scientific and policy communities that chlorine compounds
produced by various human activities were centrally responsible for the
observed ozone loss. Following these observations, international
protocols were put in place that are beginning to ameliorate the
global-scale ozone loss. The TOMS instrument has provided an ongoing
source of data that permits us to track the level of ozone in the
stratosphere, the annual opening and closing of the ``ozone hole,'' and
how this phenomenon is changing over time. These continuing
measurements and analyses and the effective regulatory response have
led, among other things, to a reduction in projected deaths from skin
cancer worldwide.
Example 2: Air Pollution Observations
Last week, President Bush mentioned proposed rules to limit air
pollution from coal-fired power plants. Air pollution is clearly an
important concern. NASA has played a major role in the development of
new technologies that can monitor the sources and circulation patterns
of air pollution globally. It is another tremendous story of science
serving society through innovation. In this case, through an
international collaboration, NASA deployed a one-of-a-kind instrument
designed to observe global carbon monoxide and its transport from the
NASA Terra spacecraft. These animations show the first global
observations of air pollution. Sources of carbon monoxide include
industrial processes (see, for example, source regions in the Pacific
Rim) and fires (for example in Amazonia). These global-scale data from
space have helped change our understanding of the relationship between
pollution and air quality--we now know that pollution is not solely or
even primarily a local or regional problem. California's air quality is
influenced by industrial activity in Asia, and Europe's air quality is
influenced by activities here in America.
From such pioneering work, operational systems can now be designed
to observe pollution events, the global distribution of chemicals and
particulate matter in the atmosphere, and the ways in which these
substances interact and affect the ability of the atmosphere to sustain
life--such a system will undoubtedly underpin future efforts to
understand, monitor, and manage air quality globally. Without NASA's
commitment to innovation in the Earth sciences, it is hard to believe
that such an incredible new capability would be available today.
B. The Promise of Earth Observations in the Next Decade
The achievements of the last several decades have laid the
foundation for an unprecedented era of discovery and innovation in
Earth system science. Advances in observing technologies have been
accompanied by vast improvements in computing and data processing. When
the Earth Observing System satellites were being designed, processing
and archiving the data was a central challenge. The Terra satellite
produces about 194 gigabytes of raw data per day, which seemed a
daunting prospect at the time of its definition. Now laptop memories
are measured in gigabytes, students can work with remote sensing data
sets on their laptops, and a large data center like NCAR increases our
data holdings by about 1,000 gigabytes per day. The next generation of
high performance computing systems, which will be deployed during the
next five years or so, will be petascale systems, meaning that they
will be able to process millions of gigabytes of data. The ongoing
revolution in information technology has provided us with capabilities
we could hardly conceive of when the current generation of Earth
observing satellites was being developed. We have just begun to take
advantage of the synergies between these technological areas. The U.S.,
through NASA, is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this
technological opportunity.
Example 3: Weather Forecasting
Weather forecasting in the Southern Hemisphere has been
dramatically improved through NASA's contributions, and this experience
illustrates the power of remote sensing for further global improvements
in weather prediction. The lack of surface-based data in the Southern
Hemisphere once meant that predictive skill lagged considerably behind
that achieved in the Northern Hemisphere. The improvement in the
accuracy of Southern Hemisphere weather forecasting is well documented
and almost entirely due to the increased use of remote-sensing data.
But improvements in the quality of satellite data were not sufficient.
Improvements in data assimilation--a family of techniques for
integrating observational results into predictive models--were also
necessary. The combination has resulted in rapid improvement in
Southern Hemisphere forecasting, which is now nearly equal to that in
northern regions. Data assimilation capabilities continue to advance
rapidly.
One can now easily conceive of forecast systems that will fuse data
from satellites, ground-based systems, databases, and models to provide
predictions with unprecedented detail and accuracy--perhaps reaching
natural limits of predictability. A new generation of weather forecast
models with cloud-resolving spatial resolution is coming online, and
these models show significant promise for improving forecast skills
across the board. Use of new NASA remote sensing data from upcoming
missions such as Calipso (Cloud-Aerosol and Infrared Pathfinder
Satellite) and CloudSat will be essential to fully validate and tune
these new capabilities which will serve the Nation in providing
improved hurricane and severe storm prediction, and in the development
of numerous decision support systems reliant on state-of-the-art
numerical weather prediction capabilities.
Example 4: Earth System Models
Data from NASA missions are central to constructing more
comprehensive and detailed models that will more realistically
represent the complexity of the Earth system. Cloud observations from
MODIS (the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and
precipitation measurements from GPM (the Global Precipitation Mission),
for example, are critical to improving the representation of clouds and
the water cycle in such models. Observations from MODIS and Landsat are
fundamental to the development of more sophisticated representation of
marine and terrestrial ecosystems and atmosphere-land surface
interactions. The inclusion of this detail will help in the creation of
true Earth system models that will enable detailed investigation of the
interactions of Earth system processes and multiple environmental
stresses within physically consistent simulated systems.
In general terms, Earth system observations represent the only
means of validating Earth system model predictions. Our confidence in
short-term, regional-scale weather predictions is based on how closely
they match observed regional conditions. Assessing the performance of
global-scale, longer-term model predictions likewise depends on
comparing model results with observational records. Scientific
confidence in the ability of general circulation models to represent
Earth's climate has been greatly enhanced by comparing model results
for the last century with the observational records from that period.
At the same time, the sparse and uneven nature of past observational
records is an ongoing source of uncertainty in the evaluation of model
results. The existence of much more comprehensive and consistent global
measurements from space--such as the data from the NASA Terra, Aqua,
and Aura satellites--is a giant step forward in this regard, and, if
maintained, will enable much more rigorous evaluation of model
performance in the future.
In summary, Earth system models, with increasing temporal and
spatial resolutions and validated predictive capabilities, will be used
by industry and governmental decision-makers across a host of domains
into the foreseeable future. This knowledge base will drive new
economies and efficiencies within our society. I believe that
requirements flowing from the needs and capabilities of sophisticated
Earth system models will be very useful for NASA in developing
strategic roadmaps for future missions.
C. The Importance of Careful Planning
The central role of NASA in supporting Earth system science, the
demonstrated success and impact of previous and current NASA missions,
and the promise of continued advances in scientific understanding and
societal benefits all argue for a careful, analytical approach to major
modifications in the NASA Earth science program.
As noted above, the development of space systems is a time-
consuming and difficult process. Today's actions and plans will have
long-term consequences for our nation's capabilities in this area.
The link between plans and actions is one of the most important
points I want to address today. From the outside, the interagency
planning process seems to be experiencing substantial difficulties in
maintaining this link. The NASA Earth science program is part of two
major Presidential initiatives, the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). With
regard to the CCSP, it is not apparent that the strategies and plans
developed through the interagency process are having much impact on
NASA decision-making. In January 2004, then-Administrator of NASA, Sean
O'Keefe, called for acceleration of the NASA Glory mission because of
the direct relevance of the mission to understanding the roles of
aerosols in the climate system, which is one of the highest-priority
science questions defined in the CCSP research strategy. NASA is now
proposing cancellation of the mission. As I have emphasized throughout
this testimony, the progress of and benefits from Earth system science
research are contingent upon close coordination between research,
modeling, and observations. The close coordination of program planning
among the agencies that support these activities is also a necessity.
This coordination currently appears to be fragile.
The effect of significant redirections in NASA and reduction in
NASA's Earth science effort are equally worrisome in the case of the
Administration's GEOSS initiative, which is focused on improving the
international coordination of environmental observing systems. Both
NASA and NOAA satellite programs are vital to this effort. The science
community is very supportive of the GEOSS concept and goals. There are
over 100 space-based remote-sensing systems that are either operating
or planned by various nations for the next decade. Collaboration among
space systems, between space- and ground-based systems, and between
suppliers and users of observational data is critical to avoiding
duplication of effort and to getting the most out of the investments in
observing technology. The tragic example of the Indian Ocean Tsunami
demonstrates the need for such coordination. The tsunami was detected
and observed before hitting land, but the absence of effective
communication links prevented warnings from reaching those who needed
them in time. A functioning GEOSS could lead to major improvements in
the rapid availability of data and warnings, and the U.S. is right to
make development of such a system a priority. But U.S. credibility and
leadership of this initiative will be called into question if our
nation is unable or unwilling to coordinate and maintain the U.S.
programs that make up the core of our proposed contribution.
D. Answers to Questions Posed by the Committee
My testimony to this point has outlined my views on a series of key
issues for the NASA Earth science program. Much of the text found above
is relevant to consideration of the specific questions posed by the
Committee in its letter of invitation. In this section, I provide more
direct answers to these questions to the extent possible and
appropriate.
How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What
criteria should NASA use in doing so?
I believe that NASA should work with the scientific and technical
community and its partner agencies to define a NASA Earth science plan
that is fully compatible with the overall CCSP and GEOSS science
strategies. In my view, the interaction with the scientific and
technical community should include both input from and review by the
National Research Council (NRC) and direct interaction with the strong
national community of Earth science investigators and the aerospace
industry who are very familiar with NASA capabilities and developing
technological opportunities. Competitive peer review processes should
be used appropriately in assessing the merit of competing approaches
and in key decision-making. I believe NASA should also find a means of
involving users and potential users of NASA-generated data in this
process, perhaps through public comment periods or a series of
workshops. Sufficient time should be allotted to this process for a
careful and deliberative evaluation of options. This science plan
should then guide the process of setting mission priorities.
Defining criteria to use in comparing and deciding upon potential
missions would be an important part of this planning exercise. I would
recommend consideration of a set of criteria that include:
compatibility with science priorities in the CCSP and
GEOSS science plans
potential scientific return from mission
technological risk
direct and indirect societal benefits
cost.
I believe that the decadal planning activity underway at the NRC in
response to a request from NASA and NOAA is a valuable step in this
process.
What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in
Earth science observations from space?
I believe this question is most appropriately addressed through the
community process suggested above. There are many important Earth
science questions, and prioritizing among them is best done in a
deliberative and transparent process that involves extensive input from
and discussion by the science community. I would personally cite soil
moisture, three-dimensional cloud characteristics, global vector
tropospheric winds, pollutant characteristics and transport, carbon
fluxes, and aerosol distributions as all high priority measurements to
make on a global scale.
What have been the most important contributions to society that have
come from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?
NASA Earth science programs have played a key role in developing
our understanding of the Earth as a coupled system of inter-related
parts, and in the identification and documentation of a series of
global-scale changes in the Earth's environment, including ozone
depletion, land use and land cover change, loss of biodiversity, and
climate change. Other examples of societal contributions include
improved weather forecasting, improved understanding of the large-scale
climate variations, such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and the
North Atlantic Oscillation that alter seasonal patterns of rainfall,
and improved understanding of the status of and changes in marine and
terrestrial ecosystems that contributes to more effective management of
natural resources.
What future benefits to the Nation (societal applications) are possible
that NASA Earth sciences could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must
we fill before those future benefits are possible?
In a broad sense, NASA Earth science activities are part of
developing a global Earth information system that can provide ongoing
and accurate information about the status of and changes in the
atmosphere, oceans, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems that sustain
life, including the impact of human activities. The continued
development of observation systems, sophisticated Earth system models,
data assimilation methods, and information technologies holds the
promise of much improved predictions of weather and climate variations
and much more effective prediction and warning of natural hazards. Much
has already been accomplished to lay the groundwork for such a system,
but many important questions remain. Some of the most important have to
do with the functioning and human alteration of the Earth's carbon,
nitrogen, and water cycles, and how these cycles interact; the regional
manifestation of global scale climate change; and the reactions of
ecosystems to simultaneous multiple stresses.
Summary
In closing, I hope that my short list of examples suffices to
emphasize the fact that it is not possible to conceive of a vigorous
and healthy Earth system science effort in the United States without a
strong ongoing NASA program. The scientific community is in the initial
stages of a knowledge revolution enabled by the vast increases in the
capabilities of, and synergy between, observation and information
technologies. The advances in Earth system science that are being
enabled by these capabilities are critical for understanding the Earth
system and how it is changing. Such understanding is an important
contribution to natural resource management, natural-hazard mitigation,
and sustainable economic growth. I understand that NASA faces many
difficult choices arising from pursuit of ambitious goals in a period
of budget constraints, but I urge you to take account of the unique and
central role of NASA observing programs in our nation's climate,
weather, and Earth system science efforts as you oversee development of
the plans and strategies that will guide NASA in the coming decade and
beyond.
Biography for Timothy L. Killeen
Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research; President-Elect,
American Geophysical Union
Education
B.S. Honors 1st Class (Physics), University College London, 1972
Ph.D. (Atomic and Molecular Physics), University College London, 1975
Professional Experience
1972-1975 Research Student, University College London
1975-1978 Research Assistant, University College London
1978-1979 Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Michigan
1979-1984 Assistant Research Scientist, University of Michigan
1984-1987 Associate Research Scientist, University of Michigan
1988-1992 Affiliate Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric
Research
1987-1990 Associate Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space
Sciences, University of Michigan
1992 Visiting Senior Scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
1990-2000 Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences,
University of Michigan
1993-1998 Director, Space Physics Research Laboratory, University of
Michigan
1997-2000 Director, Global Change Laboratory, University of Michigan
1997-2000 Associate Vice President for Research, University of
Michigan
2000-Present Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research and
Senior Scientist, High Altitude Observatory, National Center
for Atmospheric Research
Honors and Awards
NASA Achievement Award, Dynamics Explorer Spacecraft, NASA, 1985
Excellence in Research Award, University of Michigan, College of
Engineering, 1993
Excellence in Teaching Award, University of Michigan, Department of
Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, 1995
NASA Achievement Award, Polar Spacecraft, NASA, 1998
Excellence in Teaching Award, University of Michigan, College of
Engineering, 2000
AMS Fellow, 2005
Professional Affiliations
American Geophysical Union, President-Elect
American Meteorological Society, Fellow
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Professional Activities
Co-Chair, NASA Sun-Solar Systems Connections Roadmap, 2005
Principal Investigator, NASA TIMED Doppler Interferometer Investigation
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Killeen.
Dr. Solomon.
STATEMENT OF DR. SEAN C. SOLOMON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
TERRESTRIAL MAGNETISM, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON
Dr. Solomon. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member
Gordon, and Committee Members. I am very pleased to be with you
today.
I am both an Earth scientist and a planetary scientist. I
am a former President of the American Geophysical Union, and I
am a principal investigator for one of NASA's missions to
explore another planet.
Five years ago, I was asked by Ghassem Asrar, in this
audience, to chair a working group to guide the science
community in the development of a long-term vision for solid
Earth science at NASA. And over two years, our group
deliberated. We gathered advice, and in 2002, we published our
recommendations. That effort of ours served as a microcosm for
the Earth science decadal survey indeed for the challenge NASA
now faces as it integrates top priorities across all of its
programs.
Today, I would like to summarize the criteria that our
group used to prepare that strategy, the most important
questions we felt should guide NASA's programs and solid Earth
science and most critical mission opportunities that our group
recommended NASA pursue.
The surface of the Earth, of course, is where we live.
Though largely solid, the interior of the Earth is far from
static. The Earth's internal motions and interactions of the
solid Earth with the atmosphere and the hydrosphere and the
oceans continually change our planet's surface. And some of
those changes occur very slowly, but some are, indeed,
catastrophic: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides,
floods, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.
If I could have the first view graph.
We understand the workings of the Earth, particularly the
solid Earth, are linked through the notion of plate tectonics
that the outer layer of the Earth is divided into rigid plates
that are in relative motion and interact primarily at their
boundaries, where earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountains are
concentrated. We have such boundaries in California and Oregon
and Washington and Alaska.
NASA's critical contribution to plate tectonics was to
provide the first direct measurements of the motions of the
plates through space geodata techniques. Research frontiers now
are focused on exactly what is happening at the plate
boundaries, what are the governing processes, and how does the
solid Earth interact with the rest of the Earth system.
Our working group developed four criteria to select among
future programs. A question to be addressed by NASA's programs
should be of fundamental scientific importance, criteria number
one. It should have a strong implication for society, number
two. It should be amenable to substantial progress through new
observations, number three. And there should be unique
contributions that NASA could provide.
With these criteria, the working group identified six grand
challenges, questions of highest priority, in the area of fault
zones, landform change, sea level change, volcanic activity,
internal dynamics, and the Earth's dynamic magnetic field.
Next slide, please.
In the near-term, the highest priority new mission that our
group recommended for solid Earth science is a satellite
dedicated to Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, also
known as InSAR. Such a mission, depicted in this animation
flying over southern California, is technically feasible and
addresses five of the six grand challenges for the solid Earth,
and it is a critical element of the EarthScope project in
partnership with the National Science Foundation and the U.S.
Geological Survey. The mission will open the globe to new
measurements of surface movements in earthquake zones, such as
depicted here.
And on the next slide.
It would provide critical observations as well as other
areas, such as active volcanic centers. What you see are four
volcanic areas in South America thought to be inactive until
InSAR observations showed that they were, in fact, inflating,
as you see here in these Interferograms. But these volcanoes
could have been in Oregon or Washington or Alaska, for that
matter. InSAR, as well, can address that movements of the
Earth's major ice sheets, coastal zones, areas susceptible to
flood or landslides, and can reveal the underlying processes as
well as provide a basis for hazard mitigation and response.
Of course, the recommendations of our working group are for
the solid Earth component of the Earth system, and those must
be integrated into the broader spectrum of NASA programs for
all of Earth sciences.
But it is important, as I think this committee recognizes
on the basis of the opening remarks, that our nation's space
agency, as it carries out its many missions of exploration,
does not lose sight of the special role that it can play in
unraveling the mysteries of our own planet.
For the foreseeable future, ladies and gentlemen, the Earth
is our only home. We owe it to our children and theirs to
understand how to live here to the betterment of all.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean C. Solomon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of
the House Science Committee. I am pleased to join you today to comment
on NASA's programs in Earth science.
By way of introduction, I am both an Earth scientist and a
planetary scientist. I am the Director of the Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a former President
of the American Geophysical Union--with more than 40,000 members the
world's largest professional society in the Earth sciences, and the
Principal Investigator for one of NASA's missions in solar system
exploration.
First, let me begin by affirming my conviction that NASA has a
continuing, strong role to play in the study of our planet. As the lead
federal agency for technical innovation in space, with a clear charter
for advancing basic knowledge of how this planet operates and for
applying that knowledge to address problems of substantial societal
importance, NASA can contribute to an understanding of the Earth and
its workings in unique and fundamental ways. As this committee has
expressed on many occasions, NASA's responsibilities in the Earth
sciences are worthy of sustained national support.
Second, I applaud the Earth science community for undertaking a
decadal survey of Earth science and applications from space. This
survey, co-chaired by Dr. Moore and operated under the aegis of the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, is long
overdue. Like the decadal surveys that the astronomy community has
produced for the last four decades and the decadal survey that the
solar system exploration community published in 2002, this decadal
survey for Earth science and applications from space will provide a
rationale for the most important missions and programs that NASA should
undertake in the coming decade, established on the basis of sufficient
community input and set out with sufficient clarity so that the program
is seen by all as both achievable in scope and compelling in vision.
In 2000 NASA's Associate Administrator for what was then the Office
of Earth Science asked me to chair a working group ``to guide the
science community in the development of a recommended long-term vision
and strategy from solid-Earth science at NASA.'' Over a period of two
years that Solid Earth Science Working Group gathered advice from the
community, and in 2002 we published our recommendations for a NASA
program in solid-Earth science and applications for the coming quarter
century. That effort served as a microcosm for the ongoing Earth
science decadal survey and indeed for the challenge that NASA now faces
as it integrates the most important objectives across all of its
programs. Today I'd like to summarize the criteria that our working
group used to prepare its strategy, the most important questions that
our group felt should guide NASA's programs, and the most critical
mission opportunities that our group recommended NASA should pursue to
address those questions.
The surface of the Earth is where we live. Though largely solid,
the interior of the Earth is far from static. The Earth's internal
motions--and interactions of the solid Earth with the oceans,
hydrosphere, and atmosphere--continually change the surface of our
planet. Some of those changes progress at rates that seem nearly
imperceptible over human lifetimes, but others concentrate
catastrophically during earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides,
floods, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. Space offers a
particularly special vantage point from which to study these phenomena,
because of the broad, synoptic view and the global coverage afforded.
Many of the workings of the solid Earth are linked by plate tectonics--
the theory that the Earth's outer layer is divided into nearly rigid
plates that are in relative motion and interact primarily at their
boundaries. NASA's solid Earth program made a critical contribution to
this theory, when space geodetic techniques provided the first direct
measurements of plate motions previously inferred only from the
geological record. The frontier research areas now are in understanding
the details of deformation and volcanism near plate boundaries and the
interaction of the solid Earth with the rest of the Earth system.
The Solid Earth Science Working Group utilized four criteria for
selecting the most important questions in solid Earth science that
could be addressed by NASA. First, the question should be of
fundamental scientific importance. Second, the question should have
strong implications for society. Third, the question should be amenable
to substantial progress through new observations. And fourth, there
should be unique contributions that NASA can make toward providing
answers. These are quite general criteria that can be applied equally
well across other NASA programs.
On the basis of these criteria, the working group identified six
grand challenges, questions of the highest priority for NASA's solid
Earth science program over the next 25 years:
1. What is the nature of deformation at plate boundaries, and
what are the implications for earthquake hazards?
2. How do tectonics and climate interact to shape the Earth's
surface and create natural hazards?
3. What are the interactions among ice masses, oceans, and the
solid Earth and their implications for sea-level change?
4. How do magmatic systems evolve, and under what conditions
do volcanoes erupt?
5. What are the dynamics of the mantle and crust, and how does
the Earth's surface respond?
6. What are the dynamics of the Earth's magnetic field and its
interactions with the Earth system?
Addressing these challenges involves leveraging partnerships with
other NASA programs, with other federal agencies, and with
international space agencies. Nonetheless, there are specific
technological capabilities and orbital opportunities that only NASA can
provide. The Solid Earth Science Working Group identified several
observational strategies--each combining spaceborne and ground
measurements with technological advances--where NASA should provide
leadership: surface deformation, high-resolution measurements of
topography and topographic change, variability in Earth's gravity and
magnetic fields, imaging spectroscopy of Earth's changing surface,
space geodetic networks and the International Terrestrial Reference
Frame, and promising new techniques.
In the next several years, the highest-priority new mission for the
solid Earth sciences is a satellite dedicated to Interferometric
Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR). Such a mission is technically
feasible today and addresses five of the six grand scientific
challenges for the solid Earth. Operating at a frequency that can
penetrate vegetative cover (L-band) and that has weekly access to any
land area, such an InSAR system could measure surface displacements at
the one mm/yr level over 50 km horizontal extents. InSAR satellites
flown by European and Canadian space agencies have revealed the
enormous potential of such a technology, but at radar frequencies and
repeat viewing rates that are not optimum for understanding solid Earth
phenomena. The recommended mission would open the globe to new
observations of ongoing surface movements in major earthquake zones, at
active volcanic centers, on the Earth's major ice sheets, along coastal
zones, and in areas susceptible to floods and landslides. Such
observations are likely to reveal diagnostics of the governing
phenomena and can provide a regionally complete basis for disaster
mitigation and response.
A NASA-led InSAR satellite is a critical element of the multi-
agency EarthScope project, whose other elements--supported by the
National Science Foundation--include seismometers, GPS sensors,
strainmeters and a San Andreas Fault drilling project that together
will address the nature of deformation within western North America as
well as the structure and governing geological processes of the North
American continent. A NASA InSAR satellite has also been requested by
the U.S. Geological Survey to assist that agency with their ongoing
assessment of seismic hazards and their mitigation within the United
States.
The recommendations of the Solid Earth Science Working Group, of
course, cover only one component of NASA's Earth science programs. The
NRC decadal survey and NASA's own roadmapping activities, both
currently underway, promise to provide a broader framework of
recommended programs within which the component addressing the solid
Earth and its interactions with the other elements of the Earth system
will hold a natural place.
NASA is an agency that is carrying out a truly impressive range of
human and robotic missions designed to explore our space environment,
our planetary neighbors, and the entire cosmos. It is important as NASA
carries out its many missions of exploration that we do not lose sight
of the special role that only NASA can play in unraveling the mysteries
of our own planet. For the foreseeable future, Earth is our only home,
and we owe it to our children and theirs to understand how to live here
to the betterment of all.
Biography for Sean C. Solomon
Sean C. Solomon is the Director of the Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a position he has
held since 1992. He received his B.S. from Caltech in 1966 and his
Ph.D. from MIT in 1971, after which he was a Professor of Geophysics at
MIT for more than 20 years.
A seismologist, marine geophysicist, and planetary scientist,
Solomon has worked on a wide range of problems in earthquake
seismology, geodynamics, and the nature and evolution of the
terrestrial planets. He served on science teams for NASA's Magellan
mission to Venus and Mars Global Surveyor mission, and he is the
Principal Investigator for NASA's MESSENGER mission now en route to
orbit the planet Mercury.
From 2000 to 2002 Solomon chaired NASA's Solid Earth Science
Working Group, which developed a long-term vision and strategy for
solid-Earth science at NASA. Solomon earlier served on NASA's Space and
Earth Science Advisory Committee, Solar System Exploration
Subcommittee, and Earth System Science and Applications Advisory
Committee. He also sat on the National Research Council's Space Science
Board and chaired its Committee on Earth Sciences. He currently serves
on NASA's Strategic Roadmap Committee for Earth Science and
Applications from Space.
Solomon is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Fellow
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a past President of
the American Geophysical Union. A former Alfred P. Sloan Fellow and
John Simon Guggenheim Fellow, he received the Arthur L. Day Prize from
the National Academy of Sciences, the G.K. Gilbert Award from the
Geological Society of America, the Harry H. Hess Medal from the
American Geophysical Union, and NASA's Public Service Medal.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Solomon.
Dr. McNutt.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARCIA McNUTT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MONTEREY BAY
AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. McNutt. Chairman Boehlert, Mr. Gordon, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity.
In my testimony today, I have chosen the tactic of simply
answering your questions.
So let me go immediately to the first one, which is
prioritizing future missions.
Chairman Boehlert. I might add that that is a novel
approach.
Dr. McNutt. My own institution, the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institution, was founded and privately funded by David
Packard to be a sort of NASA for the oceans, albeit on a much
smaller scale. And like NASA, we constantly struggle at my
institution to balance our various missions: exploration,
societally-relevant research, technology development, and
maintenance of time series.
In my written testimony, I have described how we manage to
balance that diverse portfolio and many of the lessons we have
learned along the way in doing so. I regret I don't have time
to tell you all about that today. You can read about it, but
frankly, it is not rocket science.
But let me pass on just one piece of advice from that
portion of my response.
I have heard some argue that NASA could prioritize better
if it handed out wholesale areas of NASA research, such as its
Earth sciences program, to another civilian agency in order to
focus its efforts. Severed from the root of the technology
program that feeds it, innovation and the program would
eventually wither, and it would die.
Okay. Next question.
You asked me to list some of NASA's greatest achievements
in the Earth sciences from the past decade.
Certainly one of the most unexpected surprises was the
contribution of satellite altimetry to so many areas of ocean
sciences, such as measuring sea level, waves, currents, tides,
air moisture, and for mapping the topography of the sea floor
using its gravitational effect on the shape of the ocean's
surface.
In my first figure, I show a dramatic comparison of our
knowledge of the ocean floor topography in the South Pacific
before, on top, and after the availability of satellite
altimetry data.
I recall 14 years ago serving as Chief Scientist on an
oceanographic expedition to the South Pacific. One night, we
were steaming full-speed ahead when I called to the bridge from
the main lab to say that based on my processing of the
satellite altimetry data, we were headed straight towards a
major undersea volcano with a very shallow summit. The mate on
watch responded that nothing was marked on the navigational
charts, but they agreed to slow down anyway. Less than 10
minutes later, I heard a seaman yell out in the moonlight:
``Breakers at 100 yards and closing.''
Second--next slide.
I will mention a different NASA development, and that is
the instruments to measure ocean color to monitor the
concentration of microscopic plants in the upper ocean. These
small plants, called phytoplankton, are responsible for
producing half of the oxygen we breathe, and they are the
fundamental basis for nearly all of the oceanic food chain.
This is an image of ocean color around the island of Tasmania,
south of Australia, and it was acquired by NASA's SeaWiFS
satellite in about one minute. It would have taken 10 years of
nonstop operations of an oceanographic ship to acquire the same
amount of information, and all of the dynamic details, such as
the effect of eddies and currents on the distributions, would
have been smeared out beyond recognition.
These satellite data have shown the changing productivity
of the oceans in response to El Nino, reduction in polar ice
extent, intensity of seasonal upwelling, and purposeful iron
fertilization of the oceans.
Such monitoring of the biological changes in the ocean help
us to understand the consequences of both natural and manmade
changes to the physical and chemical environment in which these
plants survive.
You also asked me to list the highest priority unanswered
questions in Earth sciences that can be addressed from space.
If I could have the next slide.
Within the next decade, reconstruction of past climate
records from sparse data have demonstrated that the Pacific
Ocean temperature and productivity of fisheries all change in
lock step to a thermal rhythm that waxes and wanes over decadal
time periods. This temperature variation, which is called the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, involves temperature
changes of one to two degrees. That is it. The figure shows
that the ``cool'' phase of the PDO ruled the Pacific in the
early 1960s and it corresponded to the crash in the sardine
fishery in my own hometown, Monterey, California.
Landings of sardines fell from 3.6 million metric tons in
the 1930s to less than 10,000 metric tons by 1965. During that
same time, when the sardine fishery was crashing, the anchovy
fishery offshore Peru became the largest single-species fishery
in the world. In the mid-1970s, the regime shifted, and the
Peruvian anchovy fishery, in turn, crashed.
The most recent regime shift, which coincided with the
1997-1998 El Nino, was captured by a number of satellite
sensors. Seal level, as measured by altimetry, ocean
temperature, and ocean plant production, as measured by ocean
colored, all shifted together back into the ``cool,'' or the
anchovy-rich phase.
So what forces caused the shift? What rhythms govern the
time scale? We don't know. But much is at stake. The numbers of
seabirds in Hawaii, Monarch butterflies in Mexico, and salmon
in Oregon all appear to vary at the pace of the PDO.
We have only captured one shift with high-quality satellite
records, but the hope is that with patience, we will understand
how the system works and hopefully avoid another fisheries
crash, like the one that devastated Monterey.
In your last question, you asked me about the future of
NASA's contributions to Earth sciences.
Well, there are exciting couplings emerging among the
physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the ocean, that
point to a planetary metabolism that is best observed and most
efficiently monitored from space. I have no doubt that upon
further investigation, we will find that many changes in the
land-based biosphere are also marching in step to that rhythm.
Understanding exactly what will happen before it happens is
clearly a powerful position to be in, because it enables to
take actions that benefit from the regime shift as opposed to
remaining in those that suffer from it.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you on
these critically important issues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcia McNutt
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this morning on the
issue of NASA's past, present, and future outlook for making
contributions to the Nation and the world in the area of Earth
Sciences. My name is Marcia McNutt, and I currently serve as the
President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
better known as MBARI. I am a Past President of the American
Geophysical Union, the largest professional society serving the
geosciences. It has been more than a decade since my own research was
funded by NASA, and NASA contributes only one percent of my
institution's annual operating budget. I mention these facts merely to
make the point that I have no financial incentive to provide you with
anything other than my best advice.
Prioritizing Missions
First, you ask about prioritizing future missions. My own
institution, MBARI, was founded and privately funded by David Packard
to be a ``NASA for the oceans,'' albeit on a much smaller scale. Like
NASA, we constantly struggle at MBARI to balance our various missions.
We must continue to explore the ocean in new dimensions while still
conducting societally-relevant ocean research. We must apply emerging
technologies to next-generation ocean systems without abandoning
critical long-term time series.
There is no magic formula for making these hard choices. Tackling
societally-relevant problems with near-term payback justifies the
investment to today's taxpayers, while exploration lays the foundation
for the societally-relevant research of the future and entrains the
next generation. NASA is the only civilian agency that has the required
capacity, tradition, and track record to vigorously pursue the
technology development that will fuel tomorrow's discoveries. But at
the same time, NASA has an obligation to maintain certain critical time
series as long as the societal relevance is high, the rate of
discoveries continues unabated, and the incremental cost is low as
compared with the cumulative prior investment. Unlike most S&T
products, the value of time series only increases with age since
inception. I have heard some argue that NASA could hand off wholesale
areas of NASA research, such as the Earth sciences program, to another
civilian agency in order to focus its efforts. Severed from the root of
the technology program that feeds it, innovation in the program would
eventually wither and die.
So how do we at MBARI maintain a balanced portfolio given these
different, but essential missions? First, we determine what rough
percentage of resources should be reserved for each mission area, and
enforce the quota vigorously. The quotas are set so as to maintain
critical mass and set a reasonable level of expectation in each program
area such that the associated researchers can make long-term plans. If
our overall budget grows, everything grows proportionally. If the
overall budget shrinks, everything shrinks proportionally. Within those
mission areas, projects compete with other like projects, but it would
be unfair to pit exploration, for example, versus societally-relevant
research because different criteria need to be used to measure their
respective values.
Like NASA, my MBARI also undertakes high risk, long-lead time
projects. Through experience, we have learned a few important lessons:
1. Protect the rest of the research portfolio from being
consumed by the large, long-term project by respecting the
percentage quotas. It is the rest of the research portfolio
that helps to manage risk, retain balance, and nurture the
seeds of the next big project.
2. Structure the big project so that it provides science
return at many incremental steps along the way. We didn't have
to discover this for ourselves at MBARI, because the Earth
sciences community had already learned this lesson the hard way
through the Mohole Project in the 1960s. The initial objective
was to drill through the ocean crust into the underlying mantle
rocks. The project proved to be so technically challenging and
so mired in management missteps that after many years and many
wasted millions of dollars it took an act of Congress to kill
it. Out of the ashes of the Mohole Project arose the Deep Sea
Drilling Project, now known as the Integrated Ocean Drilling
Program. The Mohole's successor program had much more modest
and achievable goals that kept the scientific community excited
and engaged as remarkable discoveries were made in every ocean
basin. The seafloor spreading hypothesis was confirmed. Climate
records extending back more than 100 million years were
recovered. And now, nearly 50 years after the Mohole Project
was first conceived, we are finally on the brink of drilling
into the oceanic upper mantle!
3. If the project is really big, get lots of help. We get help
from institutions like Woods Hole and JPL for our biggest
projects. The drilling program discussed above involved 23
different nations and is, in fact, held up as a model for
international scientific cooperation.
4. Get realistic cost and schedule estimates for the big
project before undertaking it, including an assessment of the
value of what will need to fall off your agenda if you pursue
it. And then make sure you can afford it. If you have
structured the big project for incremental science return (see
#2 above), then it won't matter if you don't achieve your goal
right away because the discoveries along the way will maintain
the project's momentum, keep the research community engaged,
and justify the investment.
NASA's Greatest Achievements in the Earth Sciences
You also asked me to list some of NASA's greatest achievements in
the Earth Sciences from the past few decades. There are so many--the
discovery of the ozone hole, the direct measurement of plate tectonic
drift from space, the detection of post-seismic crustal deformation
that influences the pattern of future earthquakes using Synthetic
Aperture Radar, . . .. The list goes on. Knowing that you will be
hearing from Drs. Solomon and Killeen on the accomplishments in the
area of solid Earth and atmosphere, respectively, I'll concentrate on
the oceans.
Certainly one of the most unexpected surprises was the contribution
of satellite altimetry to so many areas of ocean sciences. NASA
pioneered the technology for measuring sea surface height from 800 km
altitude in space to 10 centimeter accuracy nearly 30 years ago. The
technique was so successful for measuring sea level, waves, currents,
tides, and air moisture, and for mapping the topography of seafloor
using its gravitational effect on the shape of the ocean surface, that
a number of other agencies both foreign and domestic launched follow-on
altimeter missions. NASA continues to operate altimeters from space
today, and each generation improves in its accuracy and scientific
return.
Figure 1 shows one dramatic comparison of our knowledge of the
ocean floor topography before and after the availability of satellite
altimetry data. I recall 14 years ago serving as chief scientist on an
oceanographic expedition to the South Pacific. One night we were
steaming full speed ahead, when I called to the bridge from the main
lab to say that based on my processing of the satellite altimetry data,
we were headed straight towards a major undersea volcano that might
have a very shallow summit. The mate on watch responded that nothing
was marked on the navigational charts in the vicinity, but he agreed to
slow down anyway. Less than 10 minutes later I heard a seaman yell out
in the moonlight: ``Breakers at 100 yards and closing!'' Because the
mate had already backed down on the engines, the ship was able to turn
before crashing into the reef.
As a second, very different example, I will briefly mention NASA's
development of instruments to measure ocean color to monitor the
concentration of microscopic plants in the upper ocean. These small
plants, called phytoplankton, are responsible for producing about half
of the oxygen that we breathe and are the fundamental basis for nearly
all of the oceanic food chain. One teaspoon of seawater can contain as
many as a million of these fast-growing plants. NASA satellites have
monitored the temporal changes in the concentrations of these minute
plants from 700 km in space for a little more than two decades. This
image of ocean color around Tasmania south of Australia was acquired by
the SeaWIFS satellite in just about one minute. It would have taken 10
years of non-stop operations of an oceanographic ship to acquire the
same amount of information, and all of the dynamic details, such as the
effect of eddies and currents on the distributions, would have been
smeared out beyond recognition. These satellite data have shown the
changing productivity of the oceans in response to El Ninos, reduction
in polar ice extent, intensity of seasonal upwelling, and purposeful
iron fertilization of the oceans. Such monitoring of the biological
changes in the ocean help us to understand the consequences of both
natural and man-made changes to the physical and chemical environment
in which these plants survive.
Highest Priority Unanswered Questions
In your second question, you asked me to list the highest priority
unanswered questions in Earth Sciences that can be addressed from
space. Again, I will choose an ocean example. Within the last decade,
reconstruction of past climate records from sparse data have
demonstrated that the Pacific ocean temperature and productivity of
fisheries all change in lock step to a climate rhythm that waxes and
wanes over decadal time scales Figure 3). This temperature variation,
called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, involves temperature
changes of just one to two degrees and has also been well correlated
with changes in sea level recorded by satellite altimeters. The Figure
below shows that the ``cool'' phase of the PDO that ruled the Pacific
in the early 1960's corresponded to the crash in the sardine fishery in
my own hometown, Monterey, CA. Landings of sardines fell from 3.6
million metric tons in the 1930's to less than 10,000 metric tons by
1965. During that same time, the anchovy fishery offshore Peru became
the biggest single-species fishery in the world. In the mid-1970's, the
regime shifted, and the Peruvian anchovy fishery crashed. The most
recent regime shift which coincided with the 1997-98 El Nino was
captured by a number of satellite sensors: sea level (as measured by
altimetry), ocean temperature, and ocean plant production (as measured
by ocean color) all shifted together back into the cool (anchovy
dominated) phase. So what forces cause the shift? What rhythms govern
the time scale? We don't know, and its long life span (20-30 years
between regime shifts) means that we must be patient. But much is at
stake. The numbers of seabirds in Hawaii, monarch butterflies in
Mexico, and salmon in Oregon all appear to vary at the pace of the
PDO--despite the fact that the temperature variations are one to two
degrees! We have only captured one shift with high-quality records, but
the hope is that with patience we will understand how the system works,
and hopefully avoid another fisheries crash like the one that
devastated Monterey.
Future Prospects
In your fourth question, you asked me about the future of NASA's
contributions to Earth Sciences. I hope that I have already made the
point that there are exciting couplings emerging among the physical,
chemical, and biological aspects of the ocean that point to a planetary
metabolism that is best observed and most efficiently monitored from
space. I have no doubt that upon further investigation, we will find
that many changes in the land-based biosphere are also controlled by
similar rhythms, just as scientists have been able to demonstrate the
connection between the El Nino event in the eastern tropical Pacific
and, for example, drought in South Africa. Understanding exactly what
will happen before it happens is clearly a powerful position to be in,
because it enables us to take actions that benefit from the regime
shift, as opposed to those that suffer from it. I am personally very
excited about the prospects of monitoring salinity directly from space,
in order to get the second necessary component for understanding the
thermo-haline circulation that transports so much of the planets' mass
and energy. I see the potential for monitoring the planet's carbon
cycle from space through both direct measurements and better modeling
of the thermohaline circulation. For example, we estimate that the
oceans take up a net 2,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere annually, but that number is the small difference
between two very large numbers: 90,000 million tons of CO2
taken up by ocean plants and other processes versus 88,000 million tons
of CO2 returned to the atmosphere from the ocean through the
upwelling of deep ocean waters. Clearly our ``balance of payments'' (so
to speak) in terms of the carbon budget is very sensitive to both the
physical and biological states of the ocean, which in turn vary with
both the El Nino and the PDO oscillations. There is so much to learn,
and only when we have a better understanding of all of these cycles and
where we are within them will we be able to make wise policies to
protect and sustain our Earth environment.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you on these
critically important issues.
Biography for Marcia McNutt
Marcia McNutt is the President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute (MBARI) in Moss Landing, California. MBARI is a
nonprofit research laboratory funded by the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation to develop and apply new technology for the exploration of
the oceans.
McNutt is a native of Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she graduated
class valedictorian from Northrop Collegiate School in 1970. In 1973,
she received a BA degree in Physics, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa,
from Colorado College in Colorado Springs. As a National Science
Foundation Graduate Fellow, she studied geophysics at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, where she earned a
Ph.D. in Earth Sciences in 1978.
After a brief appointment at the University of Minnesota, she spent
the next three years at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park,
California, working on the problem of earthquake prediction. In 1982,
she joined the faculty at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. At MIT, she
was appointed the Griswold Professor of Geophysics and served as
Director of the Joint Program in Oceanography and Applied Ocean Science
and Engineering, a cooperative graduate educational program between MIT
and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
McNutt's research ranges from studies of ocean island volcanism in
French Polynesia to continental break-up in the Western U.S. to uplift
of the Tibet Plateau. She has participated in 15 major oceanographic
expeditions, and served as chief scientist on more than half of those
voyages. She has published 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles.
In 1997, McNutt took over the leadership at MBARI. McNutt has
encouraged the institution to tackle the sort of research problems that
traditionally have been difficult to support under federal grants and
contracts, such as high-risk ventures, development efforts with long
lead times between conception and scientific return, and
interdisciplinary research. She has also encouraged her researchers to
develop affordable technology for ocean exploration and observation
that can be passed on to the larger oceanographic community.
McNutt's honors and awards include membership in the American
Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In
1985, she was awarded a Mary Ingraham Bunting Fellowship from Radcliffe
College. She also holds honorary doctoral degrees from the University
of Minnesota and from Colorado College. In 1988, McNutt won the
Macelwane Award from the American Geophysical Union, presented for
outstanding research by a young scientist. In 2003 she was honored as
the Scientist of the Year from the ARCS Foundation. In 2004, she
received the Outstanding Alumni Award from the University of California
at San Diego. She is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the
Geological Society of America, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and the International Association of Geodesy.
McNutt served as President of the American Geophysical Union from
2000-2002. She also chaired the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration,
convened by President Clinton to examine the possibility of initiating
a major U.S. program in exploring the oceans. She currently serves on
numerous evaluation and advisory boards for institutions such as the
Monterey Bay Aquarium, Stanford University, Harvard University, Science
Magazine, and Schlumberger.
Chairman Boehlert. And thank you for your direct response
to our questions, but you left us with a bigger questions with
your, ``Breakers at 100 yards and closing,'' and then you went
off in a new direction. I assume the ship did, too.
Dr. McNutt. The ship, because it had slowed down, was able
to turn in time, and we missed the reef.
Chairman Boehlert. And that permitted you to be here with
us today.
Dr. McNutt. Yes. Thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. You are welcome.
Dr. Williamson.
STATEMENT OF AND DR. RAY A. WILLIAMSON, RESEARCH PROFESSOR,
SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Williamson. Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Minority Member
Gordon, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
today to testify on NASA's Earth science efforts and their
impact on U.S. citizens.
For nearly 25 years, I have followed and analyzed the
development of U.S. Earth science and applications
capabilities. During that period, federal investments in Earth
science research and technology have led to powerful methods
for improving weather and climate forecasts, including advanced
warnings of changing weather, damaging weather, transportation
planning and monitoring, agricultural planning, energy
efficiency, and other geographically- and environmentally-
influenced activities.
Yet despite the substantial progress over the years, a lot
more can and should be done. And it should be done to assure
that the benefits of future Earth science research actually
reach the American public. NASA's Earth science research is
critical to that goal. It is a major national asset.
In recent research co-funded by NASA and NOAA, my
colleagues and I have explored the scope and scale of social
and economic benefits provided by NASA's Earth science research
and by NOAA's applications of some of that research. We
determined that realized benefits were quite substantial, but
not well quantified. Nevertheless, all available studies
indicate, with little doubt, that improved weather and climate
forecasts have saved millions of dollars in property damage,
prevented the loss of life from severe storms, and contributed
millions or even billions of dollars to industrial efficiency.
Now other members of this panel have sited other examples
of--many examples of Earth science research. I want to add one
that is also--is on my list but hasn't been mentioned, and that
is the significant science and technical support in the
development of a $3.5 billion, that is yearly, satellite and
aerial remote-sensing data and applications industry, which is
now growing at a rate between nine and 14 percent per annum.
At present, as I have mentioned, we cannot draw
quantitative conclusions about the total social and economic
benefits of NASA's Earth science information. This means that
benefit studies cannot yet be used with confidence to guide
future investments in space systems. Since NASA is at the
cutting edge of Earth science research in this country, it
should focus more attention on this important subject in order
to guide its future research.
Mr. Chairman, I see four major issues related to NASA's
ability to support the country in Earth science research.
First, as has been mentioned, declining Earth science
budgets and delayed or canceled Earth science missions.
Second, U.S. leadership in the international Global Earth
Observation System of Systems. We initiated that effort nearly
two years ago, and it stands to bring greater benefits than
ever to the United States and to the world. Congress should
support that leadership.
Three, the general lack of quantitative and qualitative
data on the benefits of Earth science research. In other words,
what are we buying with our dollars, and how much has it gotten
us.
Four, insufficient attention to developing the methods and
paths to NASA's--take NASA's research efforts into operations
and to applications for end-users, in other words, the American
public.
In summary, NASA's Earth science program has provided
substantial benefits to the United States. I see several ways
in which this committee could be especially helpful in assuring
that the public actually reaps the benefits of this research.
One, eliminate the steady decline in the proportion of
NASA's budget devoted to Earth science. NASA's Earth science
program produces real benefits to the American public and
should be maintained at a level that maintains strong U.S.
leadership in Earth science research.
Two, provide additional resources to support U.S.
leadership in the Global Earth Observation System of Systems.
Three, authorize NASA to direct a greater attention to the
quantification of the benefits of Earth science research
applications to America's industry and the public sector and
the policy implications of those benefits.
Four, include an exploration of the issue of transition
from Earth science research to useful applications in the
Committee's next hearing related to Earth science and
applications.
In the eyes of many, Earth science research is not nearly
as sexy or as cutting-edge as exploration beyond Earth orbit.
It doesn't get the headlines. It certainly doesn't command the
same sort of public attention as the astounding results from
the Hubble Telescope or the Cassini Mission to Saturn.
Nevertheless, Earth science research truly does involve
exciting new technological developments and may be, in the long
run, vastly more important in direct impacts to the economy and
the public welfare than these other examples.
Just imagine what our lives would be like if our Earth
science and meteorological satellites all suddenly failed. It
is hard to imagine. Tomorrow's weather would again become
guesswork, and electricity would start to cost us more. Local
and regional environmental trends would be next to impossible
to determine and monitor, as we have heard. Ships in the North
and South Atlantic would be vastly more susceptible to iceberg
collisions, and other hazards, such as underground volcanoes.
Even the security of our homeland would be lessened and our
defense efforts hindered. It is not well understood, I think,
how much of NASA's Earth science efforts have drifted in and
supported our homeland security--or could support our homeland
security and our defense applications.
In short, we would stand to lose the substantial benefits
that we have already gained from Earth science research
applications. Continued aggressive support of these R&D and
operational efforts is an essential component of the future of
the economy and security of our nation.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
present my views on these issues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Williamson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ray A. Williamson
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
today to testify on NASA's Earth science efforts and their impact on
U.S. citizens. This is an important and crucial subject in these days
of increasingly tight federal budgets for science and the development
of useful applications of science results. For nearly 25 years I have
followed and analyzed the development of U.S. Earth science and
applications capabilities, first for the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment and since 1995, as a Research Professor in the
Space Policy Institute within The George Washington University.
During those two and a half decades, the United States has made
dramatic progress in Earth science and applications. Investments in
several geospatial technologies have contributed to the development of
powerful methods for improving weather and climate forecasts (including
advance warnings of severe weather), transportation planning and
monitoring, agricultural planning, energy efficiency, and other
geographically--and environmentally--influenced activities.
Whether through NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, or though
university research funded by the National Science Foundation, the
federal investment has been key to bringing the science and the
resulting methods and technologies to a status that they can truly
benefit not only the Federal Government including important defense and
homeland security programs but also State and local authorities, the
private sector, and especially the average citizen. Yet, despite the
substantial progress over the years, a lot more can and should be done
to make sure that the benefits of science research actually reach the
American public.
Benefits of Earth Science Research
Mr. Chairman, among other things, your letter of invitation to
testify in this hearing asked about past accomplishments from the NASA
Earth science program and what future benefits can be expected. In a
recent research project co-funded by NASA and NOAA, my colleagues at
the Space Policy Institute and I explored the scope of social and
economic benefits provided by NASA's current Earth science research and
NOAA's applications of science results to weather and climate, and
determined that in sum they were quite substantial. However, reliable
estimates of the total of such benefits do not exist and the available
socioeconomic studies focus on specific examples of benefits to
particular industries, geographical areas, and types of storms or
damage. All of the available studies indicate with little doubt that
improved weather and climate forecasts have saved many millions of
dollars in property damage, prevented the loss of life from severe
storms, and contributed further millions of dollars to industrial
efficiency.
Both NASA and NOAA have made substantial contributions to the
development of more accurate, longer-term weather and climate
forecasts. NASA has provided the lead in new instrumentation, new
understanding of the basic chemistry, physics, and biology of Earth
systems, and advances in modeling and data assimilation techniques.
NOAA has provided long-term, routine observations focused on improving
forecast models and other decision support tools directly benefiting
the end user of weather and climate information. More specifically,
benefits of NASA's Earth science research include, but are certainly
not limited to:
1. A much deeper and broader scientific understanding of Earth
systems and how they function, which in addition to
contributing to general scientific knowledge, also provide the
basis for applied use of this important knowledge;
2. Development of sophisticated satellite sensors capable of
monitoring Earth systems for the benefit of U.S. citizens;
3. Significant scientific and technical support in the
development of a $3.5 billion dollar satellite and aerial
remote sensing data and applications industry that is now
growing at a rate between nine and 14 percent per annum [1];
4. Data, models, and other decision support tools for weather
and climate forecasts, including forecasts of damaging storms.
Data from the TRMM satellite, for example, enable forecasts to
predict hurricane paths and rainfall amounts much more
accurately [2].
When we examined the economics and related benefits literature
related to NASA's Earth science research for quantitative economic
studies or value analysis, we found relatively few in-depth studies.
Further, although most studies cited sizable benefits, each study was
carried out using a different valuation methodology, or was focused on
a narrow element of the industry under study. Taken together, these two
factors mean that few quantitative conclusions can be drawn about the
total social and economic benefits of NASA's Earth science information
to U.S. industry and to Federal, State, and local government
applications. This means that benefits studies cannot yet be used with
confidence to guide future investments in space systems.
Yet our studies show that the supportable, qualitative benefits of
Earth science research are quite high to nearly all sectors of industry
and to the public sector. Since NASA is at the cutting edge of Earth
science research in this country, it should focus more attention on
this important subject in order to assist in guiding its future
research agenda. This is not to say that expected practical benefits
alone should determine NASA's future research agenda, since such an
approach might stifle creative, breakthrough research efforts, but such
benefits should play a role in the decision process when difficult
decisions are being made among projects.
The Electric Energy Industry
In order to understand the range of issues surrounding the
development of benefits estimates, we focused on the potential social
and economic benefits to the electric energy industry of improved
weather and climate forecasts and other information derived from a
combination of satellite data and other weather information. This
industry, on which the United States depends as a critical part of the
infrastructure of economic growth and well being, relies deeply on
accurate weather and climate forecasts to estimate its customers'
future demand for electricity and the company's needed future fuel
supplies. Because satellites operate either globally or over very large
regions, they provide synoptic views of meteorological conditions over
substantial portions of the globe that cannot be monitored cost-
effectively from aircraft or ground stations. In fact, some 90 percent
of the data now used in weather forecasts derive from satellite
measurements.
Our study shows that electric utilities derive the greatest
economic benefit from weather forecasts that are accurate over 2-4
days. Improved 7-10 day weather forecasts would also provide additional
economic benefit for utilities.[3] The companies use monthly and
seasonal weather forecasts for scheduling maintenance and for meeting
EPA-set yearly emission allotments. Longer-term forecasts assist in
planning for new power generation facilities.
The industry also depends on such forecasts for severe weather
warnings. As noted above, most of the data inputs for these forecasts
derive from satellites. The latter data are especially important in
geographic areas at risk from severe storms. Our study also shows that
the industry has need of other types of satellite data. For example,
some companies use NASA's MODIS data to estimate snow cover and Landsat
data to assist in meeting environmental regulations on transmission
line rights of way. All of these data contribute an economic benefit to
the industry, which, in a competitive environment, will generally
result in greater efficiencies and in lower electricity prices to
customers.
Satellite information can also provide significant benefits in
planning and operating electric production dependent on renewable
sources of energy such as wind, sunlight, and water. At least seventeen
(17) states have now mandated the use of renewable energy sources in
generating electrical power; in the future, other states are likely to
add similar regulatory requirements. Satellite-based remote sensing can
aid in realizing the potential of exploiting renewable energy resources
by helping in the optimal location of generating facilities as well as
in the operational decisions of generating facilities and electric
power grid management. The future growth and development of this
increasingly important sector of energy generation would be
significantly assisted by NASA satellite data which can provide a
principal ingredient for this effort to assist in the siting and
operations of these energy sources.
More accurately measuring the economic value of the contribution of
satellites would help in guiding federal policy toward the electric
utility industry. However, the use of weather and climate forecasts and
other satellite data in this industry represents only part of the total
benefit inherent in the environmental information gathered by
spacecraft. Many other weather-dependent economic sectors, including
water resources, agriculture, construction, recreation, and the general
public would also profit from a better understanding of the benefits
and mechanisms of both weather forecasting and the use of those
forecasts. These economic benefits are most evident in the ability of
better weather forecasts to reduce the risks and uncertainty in
planning and performing a wide variety of economic and social
functions.
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOS)
In July 2003, the United States invited other countries to enter
into discussions regarding the establishment of an Integrated Global
Earth Observation System (IEOS) that would gather as much information
as possible from current Earth observation systems operating in space,
the atmosphere, and on Earth, with the goal of establishing
comprehensive data and information systems to guide our management of
planet Earth. That initial meeting was a resounding success and led to
the current 10-year Implementation Plan agreed to by more than 30
countries in July of 2004.
The Implementation Plan, which consumed considerable effort in all
countries party to the agreement, is only the beginning of many years
of additional effort to bring the plan to fruition. NASA plays a very
important role in this effort, supplying new, more useful satellite
data sets and assisting with development of models and other tools to
make the data sets truly useful.
This international system can provide significant additional
benefits to the United States, as well as to the rest of the world, in
many ways such as reducing hunger and providing better warnings of
impending natural disasters. I note, for example, that one of the chief
tasks of GEOSS will be to focus on methods and means to reduce the
impact to life and property from natural disasters, such as earthquakes
and Tsunamis. Satellite data and methodologies have an important place
in this effort through their ability to gather real-time data on a
worldwide basis which is one very key element of the modeling,
forecasting, and warning system.
Having established its leadership in GEOSS, the United States must
now follow through on its implementation. This will require sufficient
funding for the U.S.
effort, the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) both in
continuing NASA's Earth science program at a robust level, and in
supporting the involvement of other agencies in the endeavor. As noted
in a recent report by the American Meteorological Society, ``there will
have to be a long-term robust research program designed to add value to
the operation of IEOS.''[4]
Such support should also include research on the expected benefits
from such expenditures and sustained efforts to include the inputs of
information users--the final stakeholders in the IEOS process. After
all, there is only so much public money to go around, especially in an
era of increasing budget deficits, and understanding the areas likely
to return the greatest benefits will help NASA managers and Congress
make better funding decisions among the many worthy research projects
and proposals.
Bringing Benefits to Users
Despite the importance of maintaining a vigorous Earth science
program at NASA, obtaining more accurate, more detailed scientific data
from satellites does not automatically lead to economic benefits to
users of the information. The many and complex steps between the
development of forecasts and other decision support tools from
satellites mean that expected benefits are not always fully realized by
the end user. Hence, considerable effort must be expended to improve
both the understanding of all parties involved in the process. This
especially includes the communications between the research community
and the ultimate users of the information.
Second, the transfer of Earth observations information from the
producing agencies of the government to the end users must occur in a
timely manner and in easily used formats. At present this is not always
the case. With better appreciation of the roles and needs of the
research, modeling, and end user communities, economic and social
benefits of weather information can improve. We need a series of
efforts to improve the flow of research results to information end
users. I cite as an excellent example, H.R. 426, the Remote Sensing
Applications Act sponsored by Representative Mark Udall, which would
institute a series of competitively awarded pilot projects to encourage
public applications of Earth observations data.
Yet, such efforts to incorporate beneficial Earth science results
into the wider community will not be enough. In general, NASA and the
agencies that use its data to improve their operations also need to
focus on more effective technology transfer, communication, and
coordination among them. After all, NASA is in the research and
development (R&D) business, and the user agencies as well as the
private sector mold NASA's data and other research results to specific
users in the transition from research to operations. It is always
easier and more accurate to quantify the end-use applications than the
R&D. Yet, they are so inter-linked in a ``but for'' chain of events
that benefits achieved by the end users would not and could not exist
without NASA's research. NASA's Earth Science Applications Program is
on the right track in centering its efforts on working with the user
agencies to improve their processes. However, it will need continued
support and encouragement from Congress and from within NASA itself.
Conclusions
In summary, NASA's Earth science program has provided sustained
benefits to the United States. Nevertheless, in order to do more
focused, cost-effective planning for the next steps in Earth science
research, the United States needs a comprehensive, long-term effort to
estimate both the measurable economic impacts and non-quantifiable
social benefits of Earth science research and applications.
I see several ways in which this committee could be especially
helpful in assuring that the public actually reaps the benefits of
Earth science research:
1. Eliminate the steady decline in the proportion of NASA's
budget devoted to Earth science. NASA's Earth science program
produces real benefits to the American public and should be
maintained at a level that maintains strong U.S. leadership in
Earth science research.
2. Provide additional resources to support U.S. leadership in
GEOSS.
3. Authorize NASA to direct greater attention to the
quantification of the benefits of Earth science research and
applications to America's industry and public sector, and the
policy implications of those benefits.
4. Include an exploration of the issue of ``transition from
Earth science research to useful applications'' in the
Committee's next hearing related to Earth science and
applications.
In the eyes of many, Earth science research is not nearly as
``sexy'' or as cutting-edge as exploration beyond Earth orbit. It
certainly doesn't command the same sort of public attention as the
astounding results from the Hubble telescope or the Cassini Mission to
Saturn. Nevertheless, though it may not be as much in the public eye,
Earth science research truly does involve exciting new technological
developments and may be vastly more important in direct and near-term
impacts to the economy and the public welfare than these other
examples. Modern society has come to depend on the new knowledge and
technologies that NASA's Earth science program provides. Just imagine
what our lives would be like if our Earth science and meteorological
satellites all suddenly failed. Tomorrow's weather would again become
guesswork and electricity would start to cost us more. Local and
regional environmental trends would be next to impossible to determine
and monitor. Ships in the North and South Atlantic would be vastly more
susceptible to iceberg collisions and other hazards. Resource
exploration and resource management would be much more difficult to
undertake. Even the security of our homeland would be lessened and our
defense efforts hindered. Finally, we would be deprived of the benefit
of seeing for ourselves the satellite weather maps on the evening news
or over the Internet. In short, we would stand to lose the substantial
benefits that we have already gained from Earth science research and
application to the detriment of society. Continued aggressive support
of these R&D and operational efforts is an essential component of the
future of the economy and security of our nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present my views on
these important topics. I welcome questions or comments.
REFERENCES
1. Charles Mondello, George Hepner, and Ray A. Williamson,
``10-Year Industry Forecast: Phases I-III--Study
Documentation,'' Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, Vol. 70, No. 1, January 2004, pp. 7-58, 2004.
2. National Research Council, Committee on the Future of the
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, ``The
Future of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission: Interim
Report,'' December 2004.
3. Ray A. Williamson, Henry R. Hertzfeld, and Avery Sen,
``Weather and Climate, Satellite Data, and Socio-Economic Value
in the Electric Energy Industry,'' Unpublished report, soon to
be available at http://www.gwu.edu/ spi, reports.
4. The American Meteorological Society, ``IEOS/GEOSS
Implementation Issues,'' Washington, DC: American
Meteorological Society, December 2004.
Biography for Ray A. Williamson
Ray A. Williamson is Research Professor of Space Policy and
International Affairs in the Space Policy Institute, The George
Washington University. He is Principal Investigator for the NASA-NOAA
funded study of the Socioeconomic Benefits of Earth Science Research,
and was recently Co-Investigator of the U.S. Department of
Transportation-funded Consortium: Disaster Assessment, Safety and
Hazards for Transportation Lifelines. He is co-author of a recent major
report on the U.S. remote sensing and geospatial market, and was Chair
of the Space Policy and Law Department in the International Space
University 2004 Summer Program.
From 1979 to 1995, he was a Senior Associate and Project Director
in the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress. While at
OTA, Dr. Williamson was Project Director for more than a dozen major
space policy reports on a variety of space subjects.
Dr. Williamson is a faculty member of the International Space
University (ISU), Illkirch, France, teaching general space policy and
Earth observations for the ISU Masters of Space Studies and Summer
Session programs. He has lectured on space technology and policy in
regional, national, and international forums.
Dr. Williamson received his B.A. in physics from the Johns Hopkins
University and his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Maryland,
and spent two years on the faculty of the University of Hawaii studying
diffuse emission nebulae. He taught philosophy, literature,
mathematics, physics and astronomy at St. John's College, Annapolis for
ten years, the last five of which he also served as Assistant Dean of
the College.
Dr. Williamson is a contributing editor to the journals Space
Policy, and Imaging Notes. From 1998-2001 he was a member of the
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Academy of
Engineering. He is also a Corresponding Member of the International
Academy of Astronautics.
Published books include:
2001: Commercial Observation Satellites: At the Leading Edge of Global
Transparency, ed., with John C. Baker and Kevin O'Connell (RAND
and ASPRS).
2001: Dual-Purpose Space Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for
U.S. Policy-making, (Washington, DC: Space Policy Institute)
2001: Space and Military Power in East Asia: The Challenge and
Opportunity of Dual-Purpose Space Technologies, editor, with
Rebecca Jimerson, (Washington, DC: Space Policy Institute).
2000: Science and Technology in Historic Preservation, editor, with
Paul Nickens (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers).
Recent articles, reports, and presentations include:
2004 ``The Evolution of Earth Science Research from Space: NASA's Earth
Observing System,'' (with John McElroy). In Space Science, Vol.
6 in Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History
of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Washington, DC: NASA.
2004 ``10-Year Industry Forecast'' (of the U.S. remote sensing and
geospatial industry) (with Charles Mondello and George F.
Hepner), Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,
January 2004, pp. 7-58.
2003 Co-Chair, Tracks to Space, (survey of space technologies,
innovation strategies, and major technology thrusts in China,
Japan, Russia and the United States) International Space
University, Summer 2003.
2003 ``Multi-criteria evaluation of safety and risks along
transportation corridors in the Hopi Reservation,'' Applied
Geography, (with D. Fuller, M. Jeffe, and D. James) accepted
for publication.
2003 ``Weather Satellites and the Economic Value of Forecasts: Evidence
from the Electric Power Industry,'' IA-03-IAA-3.1.03 (with H.
Hertzfeld and A. Sen). Presented at the 54th Annual
Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Sept. 28-Oct. 3.
2002 ``Rocketry and the Origins of Space Flight,'' (with Roger
Launius). In To Reach the High Frontier: A History of U.S.
Launch Vehicles, Lexington Kentucky, The University Press of
Kentucky, pp. 33-69.
2002 ``The Biggest of Them All: Reconsidering the Saturn V,'' In To
Reach the High Frontier: A History of U.S. Launch Vehicles,
Lexington Kentucky, The University Press of Kentucky, pp. 301-
333.
2002 Remote Sensing for Transportation Security, with Stanley Morain,
Amelia Budge, and George Hepner, National Consortium for
Safety, Hazards, and Disaster Assessment, July 2002 (peer-
reviewed report).
2002 ``Lending A Helping Hand: Using Remote Sensing to Support the
Response and Recovery Operations at the World Trade Center,''
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, September, Vol.
68, No. 9, pp. 870-875.
2002 ``Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Historic
Preservation: Mapping the Ancient Trails of Southeast Utah,''
presented at the Eurisy Conference, Space Applications for
Heritage Conservation, Strasbourg, France, November 5-8, 2002
(with Winston Hurst and Michael Jeffe).
2002: ``The Socioeconomic Benefits of Earth Science and Applications
Research: Reducing the Risks and Costs of Natural Disasters in
the USA,'' (with Henry Hertzfeld, Joseph Cordes, and John
Logsdon) Space Policy 18 (2002): 57-65.
2002 Remote Sensing for Transportation Security, with S. Morain, A.
Budge, and G. Hepner, National Consortium for Safety, Hazards,
and Disaster Assessment, July 2002 (report).
2002 ``Legal and Policy Issues in Satellite Remote Sensing,'' in
Project 2001--Legal Framework for the Commercial Use of Outer
Space, Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel, ed., Vol. 16, Schriften zum
Luft- und Weltraumrecht, Koln: Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, pp.
165-178.
2001 ``Using Geospatial Technologies to Enhance and Sustain Resource
Planning on Native Lands,'' Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, February, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 167-169.
2001: ``Remote Sensing Policy and the Development of Commercial Remote
Sensing,'' in: John C. Baker, Kevin O'Connell, and Ray A.
Williamson, eds., Commercial Observation Satellites: At the
Leading Edge of Global Transparency.
2001 ``Satellite Remote Sensing and Transportation: Increasing Safety,
Reducing Hazards,'' presented at the 52nd International
Astronautical Congress, October 1-5, 2001, Toulouse, France,
IAF-01-B.5.02 (with Douglas Fuller).
2001 ``100-Eyed Argus: The Promise and Challenge of Commercial Remote
Sensing,'' presented at the American Society of Photogrammetry
Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO, April 2001.
2001 ``International Legal and Policy Issues in Commercial Remote
Sensing,'' presented at Project 2001, the International
Colloquium, on the Law of Outer Space, Koeln, Germany, May 29-
31.
2000 ``The Implications of Emerging Satellite Information Technologies
for Global Transparency and International Security'' (with John
C. Baker). In: Kristin Lord and Bernard Final, Power and
Conflict in the Age of Transparency. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
1998 ``Satellite Remote Sensing and Maintaining Environmental Security:
The Market Perspective,'' In G. Haskell and M. Rycroft, eds.,
New Space Markets, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.
283-290.
Discussion
The Importance of Earth Science at NASA
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Williamson, for focusing
on the very real and tangible benefits that the Earth science
program brings to us on the planet Earth.
You know, these aren't the easiest of times in terms of
budgetary consideration, and we are not surprised when
distinguished scientists come before us and say, ``At least
give us as much, if not more.'' It is impossible to honor all
of those requests, but I am somewhat concerned that NASA is
being viewed, by some, as almost a single-mission agency, and
it is much more than a single-mission agency. And I am proud to
identify with the various missions of NASA, including the
President's Vision for Space Exploration.
But Mr. Diaz, thank you very much for your testimony, and I
noted, with particular interest, the comment that we are
clearly emphasizing a continuing commitment to Earth science
and NASA's commitment to study the Earth science. And you say
that is clearly reflected in our national objectives, maybe in
the objectives, but not as clearly reflected in the budget
submission. And I see programs being canceled. I see the fate
of the GPM mission, the Global Precipitation Mission, which the
Academy says is extremely important and we should go forward.
And so, you could have fooled me, I guess I say in response
to your assertion that this is a very high priority. It is
important, but it is not as high a priority as some of us would
like.
And I would like to ask the other witnesses across the
board: can you give us a sort of insight as to your view of
NASA's particular role in Earth science and why it is so
important?
Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore. I think that you put it perfectly with the word
``science,'' that many of the extraordinary benefits that Dr.
Williamson mentioned, practical benefits, came from first the
research, scientific basis. My best analogy--because the Earth
sciences are somewhat different from the astrophysics, say
Hubble, my best analogy is the medical sciences. I think the
Earth sciences are in the same relationship. They have a
responsibility for science, because they are scientists, as
well as the applications of that science.
My concern is that the scientific part may be undermined. I
certainly recognize that we have to look at this collaboration
with NOAA. But it certainly cannot be a collaboration of
centrally moving observational capabilities to NOAA and not, at
the same time, bringing new observational capabilities into the
agenda with rich scientific funding. That is what worries me is
that there could be a decline at NASA, and maybe even an
increase at NOAA, but the balance would not be right.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
Dr. Killeen.
Dr. Killeen. NASA plays a crucial role in the fabric--the
intellectual fabric of capacity and human capital in the
Nation. I think the AAAS mentions that NASA provides 34 percent
of the funding to our whole national Earth science capability,
environmental sciences capability. So it is a dominant agency.
But its role is--the focus, as Berrien points out, on the
research, on the seed corn, on the new technologies, on the
innovation that then can be extended and utilized more broadly
to support society through operational capabilities.
And I think the history has shown that it does that
extremely well. The doors have opened on plate tectonics, air
pollution, weather, climate, many of the examples you say could
be filled up with--there are numerous examples where we could
point to NASA's innovation opening intellectual doors. I think
we stand at a point in history where the work of the past
decades has suggested that we need to take this life science
analogy and look at the Earth as a system. We are capable of
looking at the Earth as a system and actually investigating its
metabolism, its function across a whole range of parameters and
factors. NASA will support that. NASA is probably the only
agency in the world that has the wherewithal, the track record,
and the access to the human capital to make that happen. And
that is going to be something that is so important for future
generations, and it is going to drive economic benefits.
If you think about the U.S. economy, roughly 1/3 of it has
some sensitivity to environmental change: leisure, tourism,
energy, transportation. And we are going to need decision
support systems to support those enterprises that take into
account the changes that occur locally, regionally, and
globally as well.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
Dr. Solomon.
Dr. Solomon. First of all, I agree with what Dr. Moore and
Dr. Killeen have said.
To me, NASA's special role is the combination that they
bring of scientific exploration and discovery and technological
innovation. And I don't think they are matched anywhere in the
federal system or even internationally. That gives them a
special perspective, an opportunity to contribute to scientific
issues.
And as previous speakers have said, the scientific issues
driving Earth science are highly relevant to all of us who live
on this planet. If we are trying to understand why earthquakes
occur, why--where they do and when they do, from a purely
scientific standpoint, that is a first-order question in Earth
dynamics. But if you are living on a fault in California or
Colorado or Oregon, it is more than an academic issue. The same
thing can be said about other natural hazards where space can
provide a perspective, and what is needed are new ideas, new
technologies, new observation tools to open up the discoveries
that will allow us to understand these systems. That is what
NASA does best. And I see NASA playing a special role for
continued investigation of the Earth for the foreseeable
future.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
Dr. McNutt.
Dr. McNutt. Yeah. NASA is simply the only civilian agency
that has the required capacity, tradition, and track record to
undertake the technology development to fuel tomorrow's
discoveries. Imagine if we had a business community in the U.S.
and we cut it off from the venture capital completely. And
imagine what would happen to our business community. That is
exactly what you would be doing to Earth sciences. NASA
provides that venture capital.
Chairman Boehlert. I like your style. You put it in very
practical terms. But I want to make sure that everyone
understands this is not some esoteric discussion among
scientists. This is something that has very real, very
practical implications on our daily lives, as Dr. Williamson
pointed out, in terms of billions of dollars in economic
activity and saved lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in
saved--Dr. Williamson?
Dr. Williamson. Oh, I think to echo some of my colleagues'
points, the--a lot of the benefits that I have talked about in
my testimony and other people this morning and at other times
have discussed, started the understanding that you needed to
pursue those practical benefits down the line really started at
NASA. And you know, I know when I worked as a staff member for
the Congress a few years ago, I used to get a little impatient
with scientists, my fellow scientists, who would come to us at
the Office of Technology Assessment or in one of these hearings
and argue for more money for science for the sake of science.
But in fact, I don't see that happening. I see a very
reasoned exposition in the National Research Council report
that actually looks in detail at why one wants to support
certain kind of critical missions. And the GPM is certainly one
of those.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
Here is the situation. We have a call of the House for a
vote. We will have time for Mr. Gordon's questions, and then we
will take a brief recess and hope we can get back in a timely
manner. And I would urge all of my colleagues to return. This
is a very important hearing.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earth Science Cuts
Mr. Diaz, I recognize that your job here today is to defend
the cuts and cancellations that NASA has made to the Earth
science budget, and you may feel like the victim of a drive-by
shooting, but these are all very legitimate concerns and
questions. And they really--they are predicated on the fact, as
Mr.--or Dr. Killeen pointed out, that NASA has a great history
and providing--and you have been a part of it, of research that
is real-world to the country, and that we are afraid that this
research and billions of dollars in foundation could be
irrevocably damaged here in this window. So these are
legitimate concerns.
With that said, I would like to better understand, if you
could help me, NASA's rationale for making some of the cuts.
For example, NASA's fiscal year 2006 funding request for the
Combined Earth-Sun Science Program is some $645 million lower
than the funding plan for fiscal year 2006 that was contained
in NASA's fiscal year 2004 funding request. That is a 24-
percent reduction in NASA's Earth-Sun Science fiscal year 2006
funding plan in just two years. Why did NASA decide to cut its
planned funding request for the Earth-Sun Science Program so
much, and where did the NASA-diverted funds go?
Or take another example. Just last year, then-Administrator
O'Keefe told the American Meteorological Society that we hope
to accelerate the flight of Glory Mission to as early as 2007
to provide earlier availability to this space-based pilometer.
Yet we now find that fiscal year 2006 budget request that NASA
is, in fact, canceling the Glory spacecraft and has no clear
plan for flying Glory instruments any time soon. Was
Administrator O'Keefe misinformed, or was the money intended
for Glory diverted to some other purpose?
And finally, I mention NASA's decision to cut the out-year-
funding plan for Earth science contained in last year's budget
request by a significant amount. Why, given all the stresses on
NASA's Earth science budget, did NASA decide to cut NASA's out-
year funding plan for Earth science instead of taking the
alternative course of slowing the pace of new exploration
initiative? Mr. Diaz?
Mr. Diaz. Well, there are a lot of questions there. And if
we have the time, I would like to first start by saying I find
myself in this unusual position of being refreshed by the
observations of everyone in the panel who have talked about the
wonderful success that NASA has achieved. And as you said, it
does feel good to have been part of that.
And yet I also find myself in a situation where I can
understand the concern, because of the change in strategy that
is taking place.
The reason that I feel more confident is largely because I
believe that when we come out of this transition, we will be
much better positioned to do the work that we have been doing
in the past than we would otherwise. What has been said is that
we have made major investments over the past 15 to 20 years,
and that is exactly correct. But a lot of that investment, I
would hesitate to say how much of it, has gone into what I call
infrastructure, platforms that hold instruments. The wonderful
achievements that people are talking about here have to do with
the achievements associated with the instruments that fly on
these platforms. The platforms themselves are very similar to
the ones that--if not identical, to the ones that NOAA flies
for operational programs.
And so the strategy that we are on is one that would try to
minimize the investment that needs to be made by the government
overall in infrastructure to support these instruments. And
many of the changes that----
Mr. Gordon. Well, is NOAA going to be given the funds to go
along with these additional----
Mr. Diaz. NOAA already flies these platforms, and----
Mr. Gordon. So there is no additional expense that will be
incurred?
Mr. Diaz. As I said in the past, I don't have the
particulars with respect to the NOAA budget, and I cannot tell
you whether or not----
Mr. Gordon. Well, don't you think--I mean, that is--you are
saying you are going to the swimming pool, but you didn't check
to see if there is any water in it.
Mr. Diaz. Well, I--we know that they are building the
platforms, and it is not clear to me how much money they are
spending on them, but they are building the platforms.
Mr. Gordon. Well, one of the things that I have been very
encouraged by your conversation is you want to have an
openness----
Mr. Diaz. Right.
Mr. Gordon.--and a dialogue. Well, don't you think part of
this dialogue ought to be checking with NOAA and with the
Administration? I mean, but even if what you are saying can be
done and that there--and that basic science and applied science
can be combined here, it still has to be paid for.
Mr. Diaz. Yes.
Mr. Gordon. So I mean, I am not even sure that, again, it
can be consistent. But even--but if your premise is correct,
don't you think you need to check and see whether or not it is
going to be funded and--as part of this dialogue you are
having?
Mr. Diaz. Well, I think what I--well, we have assurances
and have gotten assurances that the development of the
platforms has been funded and that there is space on them for
us. But I just use that as a backdrop trying to get to
answering your question.
There were--in the course of the past two fiscal years,
your numbers are correct, and we have reduced overall in the
Earth System Science as well as the Sun-Earth Connection
combined, by that amount of money. If you look at what we did
in Earth sciences alone, that is what was Earth science in
2004, because I can't compare--because they weren't combined in
2004, there was a reduction taken in 2005 and virtually no
reduction in 2006.
I can answer the question about the details. I am not sure
that you have the time at this point.
Chairman Boehlert. When we have--we do have to go, because
we are down to four minutes.
Mr. Diaz. Okay.
Chairman Boehlert. We will resume, at this point, when we
come back. But I just would like to observe, you talked about
the handoff----
Mr. Diaz. Right.
Chairman Boehlert.--and I am enough of a track man to know
it takes two hands for a handoff. And one hand is extending to
hand off, but there has got to be a recipient with a plan and a
program and the funding behind the program. And so--and we
don't see that.
So we will take a brief recess and be back as soon as
possible.
Mr. Diaz. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Boehlert. We will resume, and before recognizing
Mr. Calvert, before we were so rudely interrupted by the House
demanding our presence there, we were having a very important
discussion. And there is a minute left on Mr. Gordon's time,
and then we will go to Mr. Calvert.
Relationship Between NASA and NOAA
Mr. Gordon. I guess quickly, Dr. Moore, would you like to
respond to Mr. Diaz's comments?
Dr. Moore. Yes. I think I know where you are going or what
you are thinking there. This relationship between NASA and
NOAA, is that what we are----
Mr. Gordon. And also following up on the Chairman's earlier
comment. In layman's terms, what are the particular sciences
that we could lose? I mean, are we going to have, in terms of
weather, agriculture, you know, what are some of the real-
world----
Dr. Moore. Right.
Mr. Gordon.--potential losses?
Dr. Moore. As I tried to say earlier, I think that the
partnership, the long-standing partnership between NASA and
NOAA is one of the most valued aspects of the United States
government. It is almost unique in the world, and it is
extraordinary. And I applaud anything to strengthen that.
However, I think we have to also recognize that they are,
by mandate, very different agencies. NASA is a research and
development agency. NOAA is an operational agency. NOAA has
research capability, but it is far, far smaller than the
significant, as Dr. Killeen pointed out, this very significant
research capability of NASA. My analogy, to use the medical one
again, would be if we somehow said we were going to move--
essentially remove the NIH and rely on the hospitals to do the
research, granted hospitals do research, we have research
hospitals, but we certainly need the NIH. I think in the same
vein that the Earth science program at NASA is central for
NOAA's long-term viability that the--that all of the
observational capability, such at NOAA, first came through NASA
and that that train--or that theme should not stop. The areas
of research we are just beginning to understand how the
atmosphere is changing.
The point that Dr. McNutt made on climate variability, all
of this has come about in the last 10 or 12 years, and we still
are just beginning to understand it.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert, the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee
that has responsibility for the wonderful programs within NASA.
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to make a couple of comments and to ask a question.
Transferring Earth Science From NASA to NOAA
I feel compelled to come to the defense of NOAA and the
United States Geological Survey. I used to chair that
Subcommittee before Mr. Ehlers and--for a number of years, and
I found the people at NOAA and USGS to be top-rate, and some of
the--and there is science taking place there. I think that some
folks are saying that--if you would listen to some of the
panelists, you wouldn't think that there is any other science
taking place other than NASA.
And I would like to ask Mr. Diaz a question. Has the
Administration ever said that they are going to get out of the
Earth science business?
Mr. Diaz. No, they have not.
Mr. Calvert. No, that is not what I have heard you say. You
are talking about a national policy on Earth science, which I
think is an important thing. We a number of agencies--and I
also serve on the Armed Services Committee. The United States
Navy is doing a tremendous amount of research. We have the
National Reconnaissance Office. It is--it puts up satellites.
As a matter of fact, we have one coming up next month and
another one the month after that. We have a number of agencies
doing work, and I suspect those agencies are not talking to one
another. I know they are not, because I looked at a map of
underwater--of the obstacles that we deal with underwater. I
suspect the Navy has done a lot of things that we,
unfortunately, can't talk about or look at that are
significantly more involved than what NOAA has done or NASA has
done, for obvious reasons.
And so we need to have more interaction, so a national
policy, I don't think, is a bad thing to pursue. You know,
change is hard in this town. And I do agree with the Chairman
that we should never make strategic decisions based on budget
constraints. Strategy should always come first. That should
always--whether it is on the aeronautics side and having a
vision for aeronautics as we have on a vision for space, which
I certainly support. We ought to have a vision for Earth
science and how we deal with that in the future.
But Mr. Diaz, I want to give you the opportunity, because
you are kind of outnumbered here today, to defend the
Administration's position and how we can improve science and
improve the interagency cooperation, which is not taking place
today.
Mr. Diaz. Well, as I said, I do find myself in this unusual
position. Having worked with Berrien Moore for so many years,
it is heartening to hear him say that--how much we value what
NASA has done, and he didn't say anything in his last statement
that I disagree with.
I will say that I think there has been an awful lot of
change taking place and an awful lot of dialogue between the
agencies that is documented in at the program level and is also
documented in assignments that come from nationally-directed
programs. But we do not have a single place to point to that
talks to the strategy that NASA and NOAA are following to
transition to this new environment. There is no intention that
I have seen, nor do I see any evidence, of NASA abandoning
Earth science. This is about transitioning to a different way
of doing it.
Mr. Calvert. As I see it, a better way of managing the
resources, and to come out----
Mr. Diaz. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert.--with a--hopefully, a better outcome. I agree
that NASA should not be a single-purpose agency, but it should
have priorities, and I think its number one priority is space
exploration. And the technology to get the satellites in orbit
at low-Earth orbit or whatever orbit we choose to put it in to
make sure that we have the ability to get NOAA or any other
agency that we need to deal with the ability to do the type of
science that we are looking at.
And so I just wanted to come to the defense of NOAA and the
United States Geological Survey and the job that they are
doing, and I think they are competent folks over there. And I
hope that as we go through this process, that we recognize the
good work that they are doing and look at ways we can do a
better way of interagency cooperation.
One last point. NASA lost a considerable amount of business
in the last number of years, I have only been Chairman of this
committee for a little while, to the Department of Defense. For
whatever reason, the Department of Defense took it upon
themselves to do research in aeronautics and space design
outside of the NASA preview. That was unfortunate, Mr.
Chairman. And for whatever reason, we need to help rebuild that
relationship. And I think we have a new Administrator that can
look at the entire scope of what NASA has done in the past,
where have they gone and maybe lost their sight of where they
need to go. I am an old business guy. I believe in business
plans. And get them back on track. And I don't think the
Administration is trying to hurt the Earth science industry. I
think they are trying to help it.
So with that, thank you for letting me have the time.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
And just let me say how much we value your continued
contributions to this committee and its deliberations. I
couldn't agree more with you that the national policy is very
good in theory, and I want to have that national policy. And
Dr. Moore, I hope in the study you might maybe give us a road
map on how we accomplish this. I mean, a national policy makes
sense for a nation. But maybe it is NASA doing the basic
research and maybe the applied research is done elsewhere. That
is part of a coherent, national policy. But while I am
comforted by your continued commitment to Earth science, the
fact of the matter is when you said to Dr. Moore how much you
welcome his comments on how valued Earth science is, I welcome
those comments, too. And I know how valuable it is. That is why
I hate to see the Earth science budget significantly reduced
because of the great value in very real terms to the Nation and
its important impact on the Nation in practical terms, not just
theoretical discussions among scientists.
With that, let me recognize the distinguished gentleman,
Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
I would like to thank you for the panel that we have assembled,
the witnesses. Outstanding, each. And I think that you have
given a neophyte a wealth of information, and I greatly
appreciate what you have shared with us.
Glory
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to refer to a table
from the NAS report, Table 3.1, styled canceled, descoped, or
delayed Earth observation missions. And I would like to just
mention a few things from this table, and I shall do so
quickly.
Missions, global perception--pardon me, precipitation,
measurement, this one is unclear, atmospheric surroundings--
excuse me, soundings from geostationary orbit canceled. Ocean
vector winds, canceled. LandSat data continuity, reformulated.
And then Glory is listed as unclear. I would like to focus on
Glory, because there is much talk about global warming. And
there seems to be the notion that it really does not exist. I
was hoping that Glory would give us additional feedback such
that we could make some intelligent comments about this global
warming debate that has been raging in our country. My
understanding is that Glory was to be a stand-alone mission in
2008. Thereafter, there was talk about a piggyback mission,
that is with another mission on-board, with another mission.
And I see now that there is an NAS Committee interim report,
which addresses the possibility of it being suitable or capable
of being timely placed with another satellite.
So my question is, after much consternation, are we going
to have a Glory mission, and if so, what type of timeline
should we expect?
Mr. Diaz. Well, I assume that is for me.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Mr. Diaz. Okay.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Diaz.
Mr. Diaz. Okay. Yes, we do have plans in place and are
developing the elements for a Glory mission. The current
situation is that the budget that we have supports the
development of the instruments for a Glory mission with the
expectation that we were going to fly those on a--one of the
NPOESS satellites. In the current situation, with the review
ongoing of the NPOESS satellites, we decided to continue the
development of a spacecraft, which is a spacecraft that was
partially built and is being built by Orbital Sciences here in
the Washington area. We are continuing that with the
expectation that over the course of the next several months we
will make a decision as to whether or not to fly Glory as a
stand-alone mission or to fly the instruments on a bus. If we
fly it on a--as a stand-alone mission, we will need to complete
the development of that spacecraft and then decide how to get
it launched. But want to assure you that we intend to fly the
Glory mission and are continuing to develop the instrument.
There is some uncertainty about how we would ultimately get the
instruments into space.
Mr. Green. And a quick follow-up, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
How have we budgeted the mission, because if we are not
sure that it will be stand-alone or piggyback, how are we
managing to budget that?
Mr. Diaz. In terms of the runout, we have budgeted it,
excuse me, as if it was going to fly on one of the NPOESS
satellites. In terms of this fiscal year, the budget that we
have available will support the continuation of the bus
development. And what we will have to do, if we decide to fly
it as a stand-alone, is to change the budget in the out-years
during the fiscal year 2007 budget process.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
And I just want to make sure you appreciate the fact that
this committee doesn't think that global climate change, global
warming is a figment of somebody's wild imagination. I might
point out, neither does the President. He recognizes it as a
serious issue, as he should. But whether you are for or against
on that argument, the fact of the matter is people on both
sides recognize the importance of what Mr. Diaz and his people
are doing and we are hearing from these distinguished
scientists confirming the importance of that.
Thank you very much.
The Chair is pleased to recognize Dr. Schwarz.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Effects of Earth Science Cuts on Universities
To my fellow University of Michigan Wolverine, Dr. Killeen,
many universities have programs in Earth science and topics and
subjects that are pertinent to Earth science that are pretty
well developed, University of Michigan, of course, being one of
them, but there are so many others. If NASA continues to
decrease the size of what it does in Earth science and in the
Earth sciences, how is that going to affect programs in places
like Madison or Cambridge or Berkeley or Durham, New Hampshire
or other places? Is this a deleterious effect, or does life go
on without NASA going heavily into Earth science and
aggressively into Earth science.
Dr. Killeen. I think that there is a potential for a
deleterious effect on the development of human capital in
universities, such as University of Michigan, and other places.
And I note that NASA has 34 percent of the national investment
in Earth sciences. Most of that is--the predominant part of
that is in satellites, platforms, database management systems.
But there is also a very significant fraction in the research
and analysis programs that extend into the research
laboratories in the universities and from graduate students,
undergraduate research topics, curriculum development efforts
as well. And those are very vitally important programs, I
think, across the Nation. So the research and analysis. And I
think at the last reckoning that NASA is, like, ranked number
third in terms of federal agencies in supporting that element
of the program.
These are important for our students as they come forward.
I used to teach at the undergraduate level non-science majors,
Earth system sciences, and I can tell you from firsthand
experience that these young people coming forward in the
universities are very interested in how the Earth functions,
what is going on, and how they can play a role. We used to talk
about the need for a pre-life course sequence as well as a pre-
med. course sequence in these major research universities. And
the content of those curricular elements are similar to the
slides that we have been showing today: sea surface, oceans,
atmospheres, tectonic plates. NASA has provided really exciting
content that is enrapturing our youth and building this human
capital, and it is taking place across the country in research
university campuses, certainly.
Mr. Schwarz. Can I deduce from that that there would be
fewer--and Dr. Moore, please jump in, if you feel like you
would like to, there would be fewer graduate students, post-
doctoral scholars, research scientists on campuses were NASA to
back off in their Earth science pursuits?
Dr. Killeen. Well, I will defer to Dr. Moore, but certainly
if the funding goes down, in terms of research grants to
university campuses, and NASA is a substantial contributor to
this arena, then there would be fewer opportunities for
graduate students to come forward. And those are the very
individuals that we expect to design and implement the new
technologies that will be transferred to NOAA operationally 10,
15, 20 years hence. So I think there is a pipeline of talent
issue here.
Dr. Moore. Well, we have already begun to sense the
pressure on the research and analysis budget and how that
pressure translates to the availability of graduate
fellowships. And even though the fellowships say budgetarily
are extremely small, under pressure, this begins to be felt,
and we have already experienced it.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, sir.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield back.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Doctor.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall, who had a wonderful opening
statement, and is going to spare us the reading of it. It will
be inserted in the record with all of the other wonderful
opening statements.
But now we will go with you for your wonderful questions.
Mr. Udall. You can all see why it is such a pleasure and
how wonderful it is to serve with Chairman Boehlert.
I did want to, in particular, welcome Dr. Killeen, and
remind my good friend from the State of Michigan that Dr.
Killeen now lives in my hometown of Boulder, Colorado, and I
don't think he has gone to the dark side and supports the
Colorado University teams, but----
Mr. Schwarz. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Were he still in Michigan, I believe he lived in Dexter,
and he would be a constituent of mine.
Dr. Killeen. No need to fight over me.
LandSat
Mr. Udall. I want to direct my questions at Mr. Diaz on the
LandSat situation, but I did want to acknowledge Dr. McNutt, in
particular, on the second page of your statement, where you
talk about some of the long-term lessons you have put into
place. And I think the Committee and the community would be
well-advised to take a look at what you have discovered. So
thank you. And I think it--there is an application across the
board.
Mr. Diaz, I mentioned LandSat, and as you know, the current
LandSat 7 is now past its design life and operating in a
degraded condition. How much longer do you--your engineers
estimate that LandSat VII will remain operational?
Mr. Diaz. If you don't mind, I have Dr. Asrar here with me
who has been intimately involved in that, and I would ask him
to come to the table and answer that specific question, if you
don't mind.
Mr. Udall. If you could do it with dispatch, it would be
appreciated.
Mr. Diaz. Yeah. He is right here.
Mr. Udall. We would like to hear from him.
Dr. Asrar. Thank you very much. My name is Ghassem Asrar,
the Deputy Associate Administrator in the Science Mission
Directorate.
We have been working with our partners, NOAA and USGS, to
do a complete assessment of the life expectancy, the
reliability of the system. The current projection is that
probably maybe two or three more years, although those are
estimates. The same estimates that were used for LandSat 5, and
we had projected LandSat 5 will not last longer than, probably
eight or nine years. This is--I believe it is celebrating its
15th birthday. So these are engineering estimates. Probably,
maybe two to three more years. And then in parallel, we are
looking at other sources of data to mitigate any risks
associated with the discontinuity, should it come to pass. And
so we are preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, as
we will work our way toward the transitioning the LandSat
capability into the national operational infrastructure.
Mr. Udall. Thank you for enlightening us in that particular
point.
I noticed concern about a gap that may be produced that you
are speaking to, but I want to ask Dr. Williamson, what user
groups would be most affected if there is a gap in the flow of
this data.
Dr. Williamson. Well, there is a wide variety of user
groups throughout the world that use LandSat data for
environmental monitoring. As you know, the swath width and the
resolution size of each pixel in the image is much broader than
it is for, say, the commercial high-resolution satellites. And
that has an advantage, if you are doing exploration of the
coasts and understanding large-scale issues that are taking
place along the coasts or inland. In your State of Colorado,
for example, LandSat imagery was very important in the fires
that occurred, what, now three years ago, I believe----
Mr. Udall. Yes.
Dr. Williamson.--just south of you. And it--those images
really helped to understand the scope of the fire and the way
it was progressing over a considerable amount of time. So you
find a tremendous usage of those data throughout the world in
similar kinds of projects. So losing LandSat would be a serious
issue in part because it is a unique instrument. There aren't
other instruments exactly like it. So it means that on the
operational side, it becomes very difficult to take the data
that you have been used to using from LandSat and then
substitute other data and get the equivalent results. Other
examples I could site would be down in Brazil, for example,
watching the--tracking the deforestation in Brazil. The same
thing in Russia and other parts of the world. And as has been
already said, the environmental--major environmental changes
that take place elsewhere in the world affect us as well. And
we need to understand those better.
Mr. Udall. Yeah. Well, the old saying, ``We are all
downwind from everybody else in the world.''
If the Chairman might indulge me just for another question
directed back at NASA and Mr. Diaz.
Given what we have heard and I think what we understand
about LandSat, what are you doing to address this potential
data gap, and how much money are going to budget to obtain
LandSat-like data from alternative sources?
Mr. Diaz. Again, Dr. Asrar is involved in actually working
that, so let me ask him to come back and talk about that.
Mr. Udall. If I could, too, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit some additional questions to NASA----
Chairman Boehlert. Sure. That would be----
Mr. Udall.--along this line of questioning, but if we have
a minute to hear----
Chairman Boehlert. Sure. As all Members of the Committee
are going to be afforded that opportunity, and we would
appreciate, obviously, timely responses.
Doctor?
Dr. Asrar. Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you for the
opportunity.
Given the sort of broad reach of LandSat, its utility
throughout the government, we at NASA haven't been doing this
unilaterally. We have been working with all of our sister
agencies and the Offices of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to develop a national plan for dealing with
the potential data gap. And all of the users are at the table:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of Interior, and NOAA. So the plan that we are
developing, given that it is a work in progress, we thought of
scoping what is required and what are the sources of data and
which part of the data could be obtained through international
cooperations. For example, the 33-year record of LandSat data
is something that everybody is benefiting from. But there are
other nations, like India and, as of late, China, who have
developed comparable capabilities. They have these type of
observations. On the EOS spacecraft, there is an instrument
called ASTER that has comparable LandSat capability with much
reduced swath, about 60 kilometers. We have another technology
demonstration satellite on orbit called Earth Observer I that
has comparable LandSat capabilities. So we are going to bring
all of the data sources together, regardless of whether the
government-owned or internationals to fulfill the LandSat data
continuity needs, and depending on what are the best solutions,
identify the resources within the government to fulfill that.
The major commitment is to maintain the continuity and whatever
resources are required to make it happen, I am pretty sure our
government will be up to supporting that.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Doctor. I think we are all concerned
on this panel that data conversion, that data integration is
still a very complicated and challenging one, and I think Dr.
Williamson put it very, very well.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I don't want to destroy the
wonderful spirit that we have at work here, but I do have
some--a couple pointed questions, maybe. And Mr. Chairman, it
might be nice to have at least one person on the panel who can
actually stimulate the discussion by having a different point
of view. And just my suggestion in the future.
Chairman Boehlert. We always rely on you for that.
Climate Change Research
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. I just can't tell you how, you
know, just enlightening it is to understand that we are still
considering another global warming mission. You know. Glory. I
mean, just--I mean, how many billions of dollars do we have to
spend on this? I mean, is it actually going to change global
warming to have yet another satellite up there? My calculations
since I have been here, that we have spent tens of billions of
dollars trying to prove global warming, and every budget that
we pass has this. And let me note something that happened, Mr.
Chairman, when I first--not when I first came here, but sort of
a few years into my tenure on this committee. A very high
ranking official from NOAA came to see me to tip me off that El
Nino was going to happen in six months and it would hit
California. You know, we would hit it in about six months and
the effect that it would have. And let me note he was exactly
right. And that was--it really impressed me. And I said, ``Gee,
these guys really are focusing on some things that are
useful.'' And being a surfer and everything like that, I really
wanted to know the water was going to be warmer and the--more
fish and there might be some forest fires because of the rain
coming down, et cetera.
Anyway, the same fellow, by the way, in a hushed voice,
leaned over to me and said, ``Just to let you know, but don't
tell anybody that I told you, but all of these calculations
about global warming that they have made so far, they haven't
taken into consideration the cloud cover on the days that the
temperatures were taken. You think that might have something to
do with whether or not they have a valid calculation?'' And
then--he was afraid to say that in public, but he sort of
whispered in my ear. I just--you know, it just amazes me when
you hear that so much what I would have to say is just fear,
expressions of fear when the President starts talking about
making just a restructuring of how we house and where we put
research in the government.
Let me ask Dr. McNutt. I mean, you stated--I mean, this
goes--this is something that I just would like to know how you
justify this that somewhere from its root of the technological
program that feeds innovation, the program would eventually die
and wither--or wither and die. Aren't there just research
programs that don't have to also have people who put machines
together? And what makes you think that all research is going
to wither and die if not tied directly to the technology that
implements the research?
Dr. McNutt. What I meant by that is that if we--all we need
to do is take the same sensors we already have and continue to
fly them in space with no changes, no upgrading, then we
probably could hand those off to another agency and put it just
in maintenance mode. But I don't think anyone on this panel
would support the idea that there won't be newer and better
measurements that really need to be made to answer some of
those questions. For example, you bring up the issue of cloud
cover. Cloud cover has to do with aerosols. Aerosols are one of
the most, right now, unknown parts of the climate formula. And
putting new sensors in space would allow us to take some of
those hushed questions that you are hearing behind closed doors
and actually answer them so that we can make predictions for
climate change.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I guess all of those clouds, you know, in
the past that people talked about before we had aerosol cans
were just not really relevant to whether or not the Earth has
changed its weather patterns over these last----
Dr. McNutt. Well, we are talking about aerosols not in
aerosol cans, so to speak.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me note that other testimony
that I have heard here indicates that a lot of our investment
that we--that even NASA already has in space, you know, our
Earth Observing System, et cetera, that we have enormous
unanalyzed data. Isn't this a travesty that here we are talking
about how important it is to keep NASA in the loop, but here it
has organized itself in a way that the product of what we are
getting out of the investment, a huge amount of this data
remains unanalyzed? Why--wouldn't we think that perhaps it
might be better to give some other agency that is actually more
oriented towards analysis and research some authority here
rather than just keep giving it to the engineers that run NASA?
Go right ahead. I mean----
Dr. Moore. I would like to comment on that.
I think that there was a time when your statement was true.
But I don't think that is the current situation. And I believe
that it is not the current situation because of actions of NASA
and also of the technological infrastructure of the United
States and the planet. Today, undergraduates and high school
students and graduate students, and even aging professors, look
at NASA data every day on our desktop. It is remarkably easy to
analyze these fire hoses of data, which 10 or 20 years ago,
with punch cards, it was a very tough thing to do. So in a
sense, modern society has caught up with Earth observation. And
I do think you were correct in your assessment, but I don't
believe it is where we are today.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But does that still mean NASA has to
continue to be the vehicle? I mean, I just--it----
Dr. Moore. I think the issue here is that NASA is the
primary R&D Earth observing organization. And as such----
Research Priorities
Mr. Rohrabacher. But the question is whether it should be
or not. I mean, when we are talking about--NASA has its
missions, you know, and here we have--it has evolved into what
it is today. And when--I don't imagine there is anyone on the
panel that would disagree with a hypothesis that there is some
research that the government pays for that is less deserving
than other research. I mean, I imagine there are--even among a
panel that is so committed to assign money for research, there
is some research that would be better--the money might be used
elsewhere. Well, when you restructure--and like the President
is talking about, that is when you get rid of things that
aren't worthy of the investment. That is where you make your
choices as to what should have priority. And if you never
restructure, it is just going to continue like it is, which is
yet another global warming project, yet another global warming
project rather than having a--or whatever the projects are,
rather than trying to find out what things are more valuable
with the use of government money. When I was--I am sorry I am
going on here, but let me just note this that when I first--
when we first got the majority and I was the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Environment and Research--and Energy Research,
I looked over all of the different projects that were being
funded, and I said, ``How are we going to cut the budget, and
how are we going to make sure the money is being best spent?''
And I just looked down and said, ``Which one of these projects
is spending the most money and having the least results?'' And
it happened--I know everybody is going to get mad, fusion
energy happened to come up, and of course, the academic
community has never forgiven me for that. But the fact is, they
hadn't come up with the results that other people were coming
up with. And shouldn't we have a restructuring, in some way,
that lets people use our science money in the most--and channel
it towards the--actually the most sufficient rather than
keeping on--always keeping on the project. Once it is--you
know, once it is funded, it has eternal life. And I will leave
that question with the panel. But----
Mr. Schwarz. [Presiding] The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from North Carolina----
Mr. Rohrabacher. If the Chair would indulge Dr. Killeen,
just--he had something he wanted to say about that.
Mr. Schwarz. University of Michigan, anything. Keep it
brief.
Dr. Killeen. Thank you. Thank you very much for those
challenging comments.
I think, on the panel, we are talking about an end-to-end
system of research--education, research innovation, transition
to operations, support for the societal needs. They are quite
practical, in fact. The element that we are emphasizing,
because we were asked to, was the NASA element, which has been
the R&D, the technology development, the invention of new
instrument types, et cetera, as opposed to the deployment of
operational systems. So that said, I think if we were--and we
could all defend NOAA. In fact, my institution works closely
with NOAA on next-generation weather forecasting and all sorts
of things, and they are great people and do a wonderful job.
But if you think about the NASA's past contribution, which
we have tried to highlight, in terms of technological
innovation that has meaning, for prediction of El Nino, for
prediction of the five-day weather forecast, for the prediction
of what is going to happen in the next two hours in an airport
when you are landing, for prediction of next season's thermal
structure in the Northeast where the natural gas needs to
deploy natural gas on a delivery, those are all things that
society needs for which we need a knowledge base. And I think
what might be at risk if NASA pulls back from its R&D mission
in the Earth sciences, is developing that knowledge base that
will support those kind of systems and tools into the future.
And I could go on on this, but I won't.
Mr. Schwarz. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TRMM
Just following up on that, there have been several members
of the panel, and of this committee, who have pointed to Earth
observation as not something that simply satisfies a curiosity
of academics or as, perhaps, and employment program for
academics, but it has a definite application. And certainly in
weather forecasting, it is useful to look at the comparison.
This last--of where we are now and where we have been. This
last year, we had an unusually active hurricane season. I think
most of us who live on the East Coast watch with fascination
the storms form on the west coast of Africa and march across,
westward across the Atlantic, and make landfall here. We had at
least two storms that were category four, which is an unusually
powerful hurricane. Hurricane Charlie hit--made landfall in
Florida. It was a category four. It resulted in 31 deaths,
which is, of course, tragic. Hurricane Ivan also struck as a
weak category four and resulted in 49 deaths, including 10 in
North Carolina, largely as the result of flooding from heavy
rains. And of course, that was tragic, too.
But the comparison of the kind of damage that came earlier
in our history when we were much less populated but did not see
it coming is dramatic. In, I am sorry, 1893, a storm of unknown
intensity made landfall in Louisiana. The estimate is that
there were 2,000 deaths from that storm. That same year, again,
a storm of unknown intensity, made landfall in South Carolina
and Georgia. The estimate of the loss of life is at 21,000. And
of course, in 1900, the--what we now estimate to be a category
four storm, hit Galveston without warning and resulted in eight
to 12,000 deaths. And in 1928, a storm struck with very, very
little warning in Florida and resulted in 1,800 deaths. That is
a striking contrast, the level of loss of life that we suffered
when we did not see it coming and could not prepare versus what
we see coming--versus where we are now versus where we were
then in our ability to prepare and how much difference it
makes. And I certainly do hope that we grown in our ability to
foresee other natural disasters and to forecast them to predict
their--predict and prepare.
Mr. Diaz, I had a couple of questions about what NASA has
decided, in at least one case, and more importantly, I think,
how you decide. Last year, Japan announced that it was
withdrawing from the partnership for the Tropical Rainfall
Monitoring Mission, TRMM, and NASA initially announced that it
would discontinue TRMM, even during that hurricane season. And
the evidence, I think, or the belief of scientists is that the
information from TRMM has aided in the forecasting of
hurricanes, their intensity, and their path and I think largely
because of the intervention of Members of Congress. Mr.
Boehlert wrote a letter, Chairman Boehlert wrote a letter. Mr.
Lampson from Texas, who I think was then Chair of the--or
rather Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics wrote a letter to object and ask at least that TRMM
continue in operation through the end of that hurricane season.
Dr.--or rather Admiral Lautenbacher, is that the correct name,
who is the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, which I think has jurisdiction over NOAA, wrote to
Mr. O'Keefe and asked and said given our growing dependence on
these NASA satellite instruments, I would appreciate an
opportunity to work with you to develop a more formal mechanism
for dialogue with NASA as--well in advance of any termination
date for research data streams.
Mr. Diaz, you said that there is an awful lot of dialogue,
I think was your phrase earlier, with the other agencies that
depend upon NASA. Is there now--actually, Admiral Lautenbacher
asked for a joint working group. And it is apparent that he
thought that NOAA had been left in the lurch, simply being told
that NASA was discontinuing the TRMM project.
What are current plans for TRMM, one? And then second, are
you doing anything to develop that formal mechanism for
dialogue so that the other agencies that depend upon NASA do
not simply find out from reading the newspapers that NASA is
discontinuing programs that they depend upon?
Mr. Diaz. Thank you for that question.
And let me start by saying what the current status is of
TRMM. Just--TRMM is currently being operated, as it always has
been, and it will continue to be operated until such time as
either one of two situations occur: either it becomes clear
that it will exceed the hazard criteria associated with
uncontrolled reentry that NASA policy requires for us to take
action at, or until it becomes clear that it is no longer
valuable as a resource or is less valuable than is worth
continuing.
Now I will say that in the case of the former, we have some
standards, and we have continued to look at the condition of
the satellite and its ability to do a controlled reentry and
have always had that capability.
In the case of the latter, that is the value associated
with it, there was no formal process in place that had us
interacting with NOAA or, for that matter, the rest of the
community.
In the case of TRMM, there was a joint working group put
together under the auspices of OSTP, and we came to the
conclusion that TRMM ought to be continued as long as there was
no hazard associated with it. And so we are in the process of
continuing to monitor when that action would have to be taken,
the de-orbit action.
But in the case of this value issue, we have put in place
what is called a senior review process, which is much the same
as the review process that we have in space science that will
periodically, typically every several years, look at the
continued--or look at the fleet of missions that are available
to continue and prioritize them with respect to continuing them
from the standpoint of scientific value. And in fact, as we sit
here, the first of those senior reviews for the Earth science
satellites is currently ongoing.
In terms of what the expectation is with respect to TRMM,
we think within the next several months we will have to make a
decision about deorbiting the TRMM mission. And if you don't
mind, I would ask Dr. Asrar, who has more details, if you need
anymore details, to go beyond that.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you.
The gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to mention briefly that before my colleague
from California, Mr. Rohrabacher left, I entered his rhetorical
question about how many more missions we would need on global
warming, and I said, ``We will probably keep doing them until
you believe it is true.'' And I told him he had the power to
stop the missions.
Transferring Earth Science From NASA to NOAA
Having said that, Earth science is a very important part of
NASA, and I have to say, even though I am a scientist, when
this was first discussed, I thought, ``That is kind of a waste
of money. Why should we waste all of that space hardware on
Earth observation?'' But I was dead wrong, because there is so
much you can do from space in terms of Earth observations. And
we often tend to neglect, as I did in my initial response,
neglect our own planet. A good example of that is we had
several thousand people now climb Mt. Everest. We had 100 or
more--several hundred astronauts go into space, and we have
only had two people exploring the depths of the ocean really at
very significant depths. We tend to neglect our own planet. And
I, during the Easter recess, gave lectures at two major
universities on different parts of the country, but these are
both on the top of American universities. And in both cases,
the Earth scientists sought me out and said, ``We are very
concerned about what is going to happen with Earth science if
NASA pulls the plug.''
Well, I understand you are not quite pulling the plug, but
you are saying, ``We will just move it over to NOAA.'' NOAA
does not have the capability at this point. You can't simply
expect that if new sensors are developed we can just plop them
on one of the weather satellites. There is compatibly issues,
scheduling issues. I think it is--in view of NASA's excellent
record on Earth observation, they have to continue to be
involved, and not just say, ``Okay, we will help design the
sensors. We will put them up into space, but it is going to be
your satellites. You have to manage that somehow.'' I am really
concerned, too. It sounds as if NASA--NOAA has not been heavily
involved in any way in the planning of this. If I am mistaken
on that, I would like to know. But it sounds to me like the
real problem is that NASA is low on money because you have been
given big new missions, and you don't--weren't given the money
to do it, so you are cutting and scraping as much as you can to
get rid of what you regard as non-essential to the new
missions. And I believe it is very important for you to
continue to be heavily involved in Earth science.
And so I just think it is essential for us to keep a robust
Earth Observation System going and both at NOAA and at NASA.
They are complementary. And if we are going to transfer over to
NOAA, what you suggested could go over to them, we are going to
have to transfer some money from NASA to NOAA to do it, because
we are not going to find any new money these days. Since they
are both in the same Appropriation Subcommittee, I suspect it
would be quite easy to make that transfer.
So if you are trying to save money, you may not end up
saving money by doing this. I would be happy to listen to any
responses from anyone on the panel.
Mr. Diaz. Well, I would like to make sure that we don't
leave the impression that--number one, that this is being done
unilaterally. We are in conversation with NOAA very frequently,
and we do have agreements in place for many of the elements
individually. What we don't have in place is an overall
strategy that is articulated that does what I have mentioned.
And so I do think that if NOAA were sitting here today, they
would recognize the fact that the things that we are talking
about transferring or the things that we are talking about
doing jointly, and I would rather think of it as things that we
are talking about doing jointly as opposed to sending them
things that we ought to be doing----
Mr. Ehlers. I hope you would, but I would also point out
something else you don't have, and that is the approval of the
Congress. Please remember that.
Mr. Diaz. Okay.
Mr. Ehlers. You may proceed.
Mr. Diaz. And the--in any event, I just wanted to make sure
that we did register that NOAA is involved in these
conversations and I think would acknowledge that, if they were
here.
Mr. Ehlers. I appreciate that.
Anyone else wish to comment then?
Dr. Killeen? Anything from Michigan.
Dr. Killeen. Repeating theme.
I would like to comment on that. The central point of my
testimony, for example, today is that a fundamental
restructuring of the national program, which is what we are
talking about here, should be done very carefully,
deliberatively, with appropriate assessment of the effective
contributions of the component parts. I do believe that the NRC
decadal survey that is being commissioned by NASA and NOAA is a
critically important part of that. It will take time to fully
come to grips with it. We are not looking at the final report
here, and I am not part of that panel. I am on the outside. But
that assessment, I think, is essential to be so that all of the
``I''s are dotted and all of the ``T''s are crossed and so
there is confidence in the communities that are invested in
this and in the Nation that we will be able to proceed forward
with this big enterprise.
Mr. Ehlers. Anyone else?
Yes, Dr. Williamson.
Dr. Williamson. I think nobody on this panel would disagree
with the importance of occasionally restructuring how we think
about our research and applications effort in Earth science,
but I do think that we differ in detail on some of these
matters probably, but in general, I feel that dropping or
delaying longer missions like GPM and so forth, which are very
important, not only to research, but to helpful and beneficial
applications is probably not the way to go.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. I thank all of you, and I want to
reassure you, Mr. Diaz, this--my questions and statements
probably sounded antagonistic. They were not intended to be
that so much as a warning. This is something--we regard this as
a very major change, and it is going to take a good deal of
work, hard work and coordination between yourself and NOAA, if
it is to take place, and also the concurrence, and I would also
say, involvement of both the research community and the
Congress.
I--as a research scientist, I know how complicated research
science is and how essential it is to plan well. And it can't
be something that is just done because you want to get out from
under the financial burden. I hope it is--the goal on your
part, as well as NOAA's is to improve the science that is done.
And if you can do that and improve efficiency at the same time,
we will certainly be open to looking at that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Diaz. Well, thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Schwarz. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Costa from California.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Use of Earth Science Programs to Manage the Water Supply
I, too, share a similar feeling that the gentleman from
Michigan expressed that I think many of the Members of this
committee feel in terms of the prioritization for the Earth
sciences program within NASA's budget.
I have been informed that Dr. Williamson and perhaps Dr.
Killeen might be best to address a question that I have. For
many years, I have been involved on the application of
addressing California's current and long-term water needs. We
have a saying in California that water is the lifeblood of our
state and if you want to understand how California has
developed economically and socially, you can trace it to one
resource issue, and that is how we have managed our water
resources.
But I think it is applicable, frankly, as it relates to the
world. I think one of the sweeping issues we have today is the
availability of water to sustain our population throughout the
world and not only for communities for water quality, but also
to provide for our crops, which obviously provides the
sustenance.
I am concerned, Dr. Williamson, about the applicability, as
we look at our water management tools in our water toolbox,
about the availability of the use of the Earth science program
and specifically the satellite technology as we try to address,
not just in California's case, but throughout the country,
availability of water as we try to forecast for crop
productions and crop--annual crop yields as we try to attempt
to ensure that we are doing our best to manage our water
resources.
Would you care to comment?
Dr. Williamson. Yes, I will. Thank you.
You know, a famous poet once wrote that there is water,
water everywhere, but not a drop to drink. And it usually is
thought in that case, specific case, it applied to the ocean.
But we are beginning to face that in critical areas around the
world and certainly through the United--throughout the United
States. And in your State of California, you have faced, over
the years, a lot of concerns about that issue. And I appreciate
that.
One of the tremendous advantages of satellite technology,
and supported by adequate research, is the ability for
satellites to see areas together in a so-called synoptic view,
all together at one time. And that ability to gauge water
resources by observing the quality of water in large freshwater
areas and observing the sources of water in--especially in the
State of California. A lot of your water is supplied by the
snow in the wintertime in the northern parts of California and
the states somewhat east of you. And in fact, we can begin to
understand how much water is available by looking at snow cover
and snow depth and so forth, and satellite imagery, satellite
measurements of all kinds are very useful in that endeavor.
So there are a number of different applications that are
possible, but we need better science to support those
observations, and I know that NASA has a program to look at
those kinds of things and that certainly needs to be continued.
GPM is a good example of a system that would assist in that
effort.
Mr. Costa. Dr. Killeen.
Dr. Killeen. May I comment, too?
Mr. Costa. Sure.
Dr. Killeen. The problem with a regional access to water is
a wonderful case study of this need for Earth system science to
produce decision tools to help predict and manage resources
regionally. And in my testimony, I hope--I was trying to make
the case that we are on the threshold of being able to do that
with regional fidelity that is unprecedented, and the U.S. is
in the leadership in this arena. If you think about water in
California, it is dependent on snow. It is dependent on
precipitation. It relates to El Nino and La Nina cycles that
Mr. Rohrabacher was talking about.
Mr. Costa. We used to think that droughts lasted five to
seven years. Today, by new studies that have come out, it is
estimated historically that droughts have lasted anywhere from
50 to 70 years because of new science that has come forth.
Dr. Killeen. There are long-term droughts that have lasted
longer than that in the continental United States in the
historical record, and so we need to understand the factors,
the harbingers that will--would change materially the provision
of water to states like California. It means a regional
decision support system, which is going to be derived from
satellite data sets, data resimulation into numerical models,
large computational models that have fidelity and that are
tested continued against reality to make sure that they work
and they are real. And these are the sort of important
scientific underpinnings for management of natural resources,
such as in your state.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Effects of Decreased Earth Science Funding
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I
thank the Ranking Member for I think what is a very important
hearing. I think, as I look at the panelists whose testimony I
will review, and I thank you for your indulgence of the several
meetings, and even meetings in the anteroom with constituents.
But Mr. Diaz, let me thank you very much for your service. And
I think I will focus more particularly on some of the others.
And I will ask a broad-based question.
Let me just let it out of the bag. I am a strong supporter
of the human space flight and the Shuttle. I come from Houston.
But I have been on this committee now for going on 10 years, or
maybe almost 10 years. I have never stepped away from the
valued importance of Earth science. And it disheartens me to
know that our government is in the horns of a dilemma in
borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, unnecessary, from my
perspective. Now it seems to me that there is dynamic research
going on in the private sector, academic institutions. So I am
going to be asking broad-based questions. I want to know if
that is the case. I want to know what value it is to have a
government entity actively engaged in Earth science, you know,
how does that--you know, we have always heard the story that
the Internet generated out of DOD and look where we are today.
And somebody might want to--I think someone is smiling because
of who may have taken credit or not. But the point is that we
know that it was a government-based energy that came forth.
So I want these broad-based questions which is, you know,
how are we harmed if we diminish our efforts in Earth science.
That is the first one. That perilous route are we now taking by
the government's major cuts that we are now experiencing and
suffering in the Earth science area? Mr. Diaz has to defend a
budget that I think is non-defendable. And then, in particular,
I want to speak about what Earth science NASA has been able to
do and that is dealing with the NASA Global Precipitation
Management satellite and the fact that we have had to cancel or
scale back most Earth science missions, this satellite is to be
coordinated with launches of related satellites by other
nations, was first scheduled to be launched in 2007, currently
launching in 2010, and would be considered on schedule.
Obviously, it is not on schedule because of the budget.
The other point that I wanted to be pointed about, I went
to Sri Lanka right after the tsunami and walked the streets,
heard the stories of our government officials, meaning embassy,
heard how they got a call, how they heard and thought that
someone in Hawaii had heard something but had no ability to
communicate it, and so it was an enormous tragedy, and to
understand that NASA has the capacity, potentially, to detect
that kind of, forgive me for being a non-scientist, that kind
of disturbance, that kind of disruption, that kind of notice
that might have been given to those ocean-based persons, and
they could have had a greater saving of life.
So there is Dr. Moore, Dr. Killeen, I believe, Dr. Solomon,
Dr. McNutt, Dr. Williamson, and is there--is that, Dr.
Williamson, going that way. Would you kindly--my light is still
green, but I am going to yield to you. If you could just
quickly go down the line with those bullet points: the perilous
route that we are taking, how we are suffering with not doing
this Earth science at the pace I think we should.
Thank you, gentlemen and lady.
Dr. Moore. Yeah, I think these cuts are significant, and
therefore, they are damaging. You could not have significant
cuts and not have damage. An analogy that I have used earlier I
would like to return to. The United States government helps
ensure the medical care for this country through the National
Institute of Health. The NIH funds fundamental research in
medicine throughout the country, both at universities and in
the private sector and in national labs. NASA plays, in a
unique way, that same role. The uniqueness is in the Earth--the
ability to have the Earth observing from satellites. And so
when we begin to cut into that research base, we do damage.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Dr. Killeen.
Dr. Killeen. I would say that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And now we are on the beige light. The
next light is red, so we--and it is facing me, not you, but--so
that is----
Dr. Killeen. I think the Nation does stand to be damaged
with a reduction in--major reduction in support in the Earth
sciences and the NASA contributions there. You asked how will
we be harmed if this--it is hard to be precise in quantitative
terms, but we are a knowledge-based society, and we will be
reducing the amount of knowledge we will have in the future to
support decision-making. If you only think about the ozone hole
and what that meant to us and the fact that NASA, in fact, was
the agency that allowed--it was provided the smoking gun that
gave us the relationship between chlorine--man-produced
compounds and loss of ozone, and we were able to understand
that problem and then react to it with international protocols.
One gets a sense that this is an important capability that we
need to sort of maintain for our community.
I am most concerned about the pace of change. Rapid change
in an enterprise like this can cause irrevocable damage, not
only to the building systems but also to the human capital and
infrastructure for Earth science research.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. McNutt? Oh, Dr. Solomon.
Dr. Solomon. Let me give a quick answer on top of Dr.
Killeen, and then Dr. McNutt can respond.
I think the danger in not carrying forward as ambitious and
thoughtful a program in Earth science as we can afford is two-
fold. One is knowledge, as others have said. And we have heard
examples all morning and into the afternoon where space gives
us an opportunity to track hurricanes based--you saw firsthand
the tragic consequences of a tsunami where having in place more
sensors and the capability to convey warnings would have saved
lives. The same is true with volcanic eruptions. The same may
be true some day with earthquakes themselves. So that knowledge
is an opportunity cost that is very hard to gauge. But the more
we have, the better we can deal with the inevitable changes to
our--to Earth. We are not going to stop tsunamis, and we are
not going to stop volcanoes from erupting, but to know that
they are going to happen and to have warning systems in real
time can make a real difference.
The other loss that we could sustain if we cut back, and
any program as ambitious as Earth science and space or human
space flight, which is something that you follow, is the loss
of interest of the next generation. I think these programs are
enormously appealing, and the young people who are choosing
what careers to go into, they are very smart, and they can
see----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Trends.
Dr. Solomon.--trends. They can see where there is going to
be interesting things to do 10 or 20 years from now and where
things are shutting down.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think that is the greatest devastation.
You are absolutely right.
Dr. McNutt.
Dr. McNutt. Yes. I wanted to briefly comment on the tsunami
and NASA's role in it. Your reference was indeed right that the
adjacent altimeter satellite was in the right place at the
right time, that it detected the tsunami wave. That was, I
think, a chance occurrence. One couldn't count on that as a
reliable warning system, and I think you have already heard
testimony of systems that could be put in place.
I will mention, however, another NASA contribution, and
that was in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, NASA
satellites were able to record, with quite high fidelity, the
damage that was done by the saltwater that affected the crops,
the forests in the area. This kind of information was important
for assessing what the economic damage would be and where help
most needed to go in order to bring relief to the affected
populations. So I don't think NASA can be blamed for lack of a
warning system, but I think they should get some credit for the
relief efforts.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I was not intending to blame. I was saying
that enhancing what they had could, in fact, have put us in a
better position that Earth science is valuable.
Dr. Williamson, thank you.
Dr. Williamson. Yeah, well, I--as you have noticed from my
testimony, I tend to focus on the more practical aspects of
whether the outcomes of research and so forth. And it is
certainly true that our store of previous research and
knowledge that we have built up over that period has
contributed tremendously, not only to our quality of life, but
directly to the economy. And I notice that we have suffered a--
somewhat of a reversal in the economic growth in the last
quarter over the previous quarter.
One of the things that needs to be thought through in these
efforts is how the Earth science program actually contributes
to the economy. And I think it is a substantial contribution
and certainly NASA's research, starting at the beginning,
basically, it is basic research that provides the foundation
for these wonderful applications that we all benefit from
really needs to be continued and at a reasonable important--you
know, pace, if you will, and amount.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very
much, one, for your indulgence. If I might just ask unanimous
consent to have my statement, my full statement placed in the
record and just place on the record the fact that this is a
very important hearing, particularly for those of us who are
advocates of space exploration, and to say that we are not
advocates of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul or advocates from
taking from one program or another.
I happen to be a strong supporter of the International
Space Station, and I think there is a wonderful partnership,
potential partnership between Earth science research and the
Space Station. The most devastating aspect of the testimony of
all of the distinguished gentlemen, including Mr. Diaz, who I
thank for his service, is that we are killing--to use a very
strong and harsh term, we are killing the spirit of the future
scientists of America, and I think we would do a disservice to
do that. I hope we can find a way in this bipartisan Committee
to restore some of the funds for Earth science.
I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Schwarz. Without objection.
Mr. Diaz, Dr. Moore, Dr. Killeen, Dr. Solomon, Dr. McNutt,
Dr. Williamson, this has been a very edifying morning for all
of us, for me especially. I appreciate your coming to testify
before the House Science Committee. And if there is no
objection, the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Alphonso V. Diaz, Associate Administrator, Science
Directorate, NASA
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. You stated at the hearing that ``We are in conversation with NOAA
very frequently, and we do have agreements in place for many of the
elements.. . . [I]f NOAA were sitting here today, they would recognize.
. .the things that we are talking about transferring or the things we
are talking about doing jointly.'' Please provide any Memorandum of
Understanding or other document relating to NASA working jointly with
NOAA, or transferring projects or project elements to NOAA.
A1. The NASA-NOAA partnership is governed by the NASA-NOAA Basic
Agreement, with annexes to address specific areas. The two agencies are
currently working on an annex to cover research and operations
transitions that are now under study. NASA and NOAA also have an
agreement with CNES and EUMETSAT on an operational ocean topography
mission. Copies of these agreements are attached.
Q2. You also said at the hearing, ``What we don't have in place is an
overall strategy that is articulated that does what I have mentioned.''
Are there any plans to articulate such a strategy? Who would have to
approve such a strategy at NASA, NOAA and the White House?
A2. OSTP has provided specific guidance on the incorporation of
Landsat-type instruments into the NPOESS program as the means to secure
long-term continuity of land cover remote sensing. More broadly, the
Executive Branch has developed and approved a strategic plan for an
Integrated Earth Observation System as the U.S. contribution to the
Global Earth Observation System of Systems. This plan primarily covers
the operational components of a national observing system. The research
components are coordinated through various interagency programs,
including the Climate Change Science Program. Both operational and
research observation plans are coordinated through the U.S. Group on
Earth Observation (USGEO) of the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The USGEO is
co-chaired by officials from OSTP, NASA, and NOAA. In addition, senior
officials from both NASA's Science Mission Directorate and NOAA are
Principals of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources and
must sign off on CENR plans.
Q3. The first recommendation of the Academy panel is that the Global
Precipitation Mission (GPM) be launched without delay. It is unclear
whether GPM is funded at an adequate level in the FY06 budget proposal
to be able to achieve this launch schedule. The FY 2005 budget request
reduced the funding for GPM to allow for a 2012 launch date. The FY
2006 budget maintains this reduced funding level, despite stating that
GPM is now scheduled to launch in 2010. Is GPM funded at the level to
allow for a 2010 launch? How much funding must GPM have to ensure that
the mission launches in 2010?
A3. GPM is a mission in formulation, and therefore does not have a
fixed life cycle cost. In FY 2006, NASA has requested $24 million to
support a 2010 launch date.
Q4. As part of the procurement for the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI),
does NASA plan to include two high-frequency channels (specifically,
166 and 183 GHz) for the instrument? If not, why not?
A4. The two high-frequency channels are options, as is a second GMI
unit, in the current contract with Ball Aerospace Technologies
Corporation to develop and build the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI). The
decision on exercising the high frequency option will be made based on
scientific merit and cost during the next several months.
Q5. In your testimony, you mentioned that NASA is participating in a
Joint Research to Operations Working Group with NOAA. What is NASA's
funding level for this working group? Please describe the results of
the interactions between NASA and NOAA within this working group so
far.
A5. The R&O Transition Plan being formulated by the JWG includes a
systematic approach to develop Capability Implementation Plans for each
research capability that is identified for transition to operations.
The budget associated with transitioning the capability will be
included in the Capability Implementation Plan for senior management
review. The agencies will determine how transition cost will be
allocated, based on the approved version of the Capability
Implementation Plan. The funding for the working group so far has been
to support the personnel in the working group. There are 20 active
members of the working group (10 from NOAA and 10 from NASA). Even
though the civil servant support has been deemed part of the normal
course of the job, the value of the civil servant time and contractor
support to this effort is valued at $400 thousand.
An ad hoc Joint Working Group (JWG) was organized and has been
holding regular bi-weekly meetings since October 2004. Dr. Colleen
Hartman (NOAA) and Dr. Mary Cleave (NASA) are the senior managers
responsible for oversight of the ad hoc JWG. Gary Davis (NOAA) and Ron
Birk (NASA) are the co-leads for the ad hoc JWG.
The following are results for the NASA and NOAA interactions
through the ad hoc Joint Working Group to date:
Formulated and documented an organizational and
performance framework for this bilateral R&O activity,
including agency and user community roles.
Formulating, documenting, and coordinating joint
agency concurrence to a plan for implementing the R&O
transition process that includes seeking independent evaluation
and reviews of the plan.
Defining, documenting, and facilitating the process
for development and approval of Capability Implementation Plans
(CIP) for transition or use of specific research and
operational capabilities.
Coordinating identification of candidate transition
capabilities by integrating agency and user community input.
Forming Capability Implementation Planning Teams to
prepare Capability Implementation Plans for candidate
transition capabilities.
Recommending respective agency membership on
Capability Implementation Planning teams.
Formulating a process for JWG reviews of individual
Capability Implementation Plans (CIP).
The NASA Applied Sciences Program is focused on extending the
results of Earth science research to serve in operational systems
through partnerships with federal agencies and national organizations
and is supporting the JWG.
Q6. In your testimony you mentioned that one way NASA and NOAA have
worked together was funding the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2003
report, Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment, Accelerating
the Transition from Research to Operations. One of the major
recommendations from that report is that ``a strong and effective
Interagency Transition Office for the planning and coordination of
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
support of transitioning research to operations should be established
by and should report to the highest levels of NASA and NOAA.'' Does
NASA support establishing and Interagency Transition Office as
described in the NAS report? If so, what is NASA doing to establish the
Office? If not, why not?
A6. NASA and NOAA are actively engaged in establishing the Joint
Working Group on Transition Research and Operations (R&O). This joint
working group includes senior management from both agencies and a
structured approach to involve key personnel for each of the areas for
transition. The approach is to establish agreement on specific
capabilities to be transitioned and to assign teams with
representatives from NASA and NOAA to participate in developing the
Capability Implementation Plans.
Deliberations on the recommendations from the NAS 2003 report to
establish an Interagency Transition Office led to the development of
the Joint Working Group on Transition of Research and Operations. The
JWG is formulating a Transition Plan to systematically:
a. Identify the candidate capabilities for transition
(including community participation).
b. Establish teams with the appropriate knowledge to develop
Capability Transition Implementation Plans.
c. Formulate the detailed Capability Transition Implementation
Plans with information on schedule, budget, resource
requirements, and benefits to the Nation.
d. Senior review of the Capability Transition Implementation
Plans for subsequent decisions on budget and resource
allocations.
This approach optimizes the capacity of involving the appropriate
representatives for the functions of:
a. Establishing and evolving the processes for transitions.
b. Identifying the candidate capabilities for transition.
c. Developing the capability transition implementation plans.
d. Reviewing the capability implementation plans.
e. Identifying and allocating budgets and resources to
implementation the capability transitions.
Q7. What is the status of the NASA Earth Science and Applications from
Space Strategic Roadmap and what are the main conclusions of their work
so far?
A7. The NASA Earth Science and Applications from Space Strategic
Roadmap Committee completed its work with the submission of its report
to NASA on May 22, 2005. The NRC has separate congressional direction
to look at NASA science issues, including the six science roadmaps.
NASA has since provided to the NRC the science roadmaps received on May
22. In June, members from each of the six science committees will brief
the committee results to the NRC. The NRC will plan to provide a report
or other input on the science roadmaps to NASA by August 1, 2005.
The concepts and recommendations identified by the Earth Science
and Applications from Space Strategic Roadmap Committee are advice to
NASA and are subject to review by the NRC. The following are some of
the concepts put forward by the Roadmap Committee:
1. In addition to scientific objectives that motivate specific
missions and modeling, the committee identified integration
objectives that motivate the synergistic networking of systems.
2. The committee has identified a metric, the measurement
maturity index, to assist in the planning and management of
investigations, assess their potential transition to
operations, and as an aggregate measure of the balance of
investments in a research area. While needing more development,
the committee believes this could be developed into a useful
tool for planning future investigations.
3. The committee identified a preliminary mission timeline,
along with an approach (called ``awareness clusters'') to
organizing and building over time the integrated capacity to
observe and model the Earth system.
The near-term recommendations of the Committee include:
1. Complete the current, approved NASA program in a timely
fashion.
2. Begin advanced planning for several near-future missions
identified in the committee's timeline.
3. Begin advanced planning for the first ``awareness
cluster,'' including the technologies, missions, models,
networks, and educational and international cooperation
opportunities that support the science focus of the cluster.
4. Start at least one new mission in FY 2007 or FY 2008 and
the others as soon as possible after that.
Q8. The National Academy of Sciences interim report stated: ``The
committee is concerned that a significant reallocation of resources for
the research and analysis (R&A) programs that sustain the
interpretation of Earth science data has occurred either as a result of
the removal of the `firewall' that previously existed between flight
and science programs or as an unintended consequence of NASA's shift to
full-cost accounting.'' Please describe the extent to which NASA has
reallocated funding for the Earth Science R&A programs, and explain why
this has occurred.
A8. In recent years, NASA's research budget has been largely stable.
The research and analysis (R&A) program, one of about 60 projects
within the Earth-Sun Research Program, has been particularly stable,
with minimal year-to-year fluctuations. There has been only one
significant modification to this program in recent years. The
transition from ``business-as-usual'' to ``full cost accounting'' in FY
2004 led to an increase of approximately 20 percent in the R&A budget
over the FY 2003 budget, but the imprecision associated with this
transition led to an increase in requirements for center-related
funding that was approximately 50 percent greater than the increase in
funds, leading to an effective reduction in purchasing power of the R&A
program of the order of 15 percent. The shortfall in FY 2004 impacted
contractors at the NASA centers and the broader research community. In
FY 2005, the R&A program was adjusted to accommodate these full cost
transitions and per the mid-year operating plan, is $10 million higher
than the final FY 2004 operating plan.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. What specific Earth Science-related responsibilities is NASA
transferring or planning to transfer to NOAA?
a. What are the timetables for the transfers?
b. What are the estimated budgetary impacts of the
responsibilities transferred?
A1a,b. NASA has long served as the research, technology development,
and satellite development source for the Nation's civil space-based
remote sensing capability and will continue to perform in this
capacity. During the past several years, the NASA-NOAA partnership has
evolved across a broad front to meet the Nation's need for affordable
operational and research observations. (1) techniques; (2)
technologies; (3) measurement responsibilities; and (4) remote sensing
instruments and platforms. NASA's baseline budget reflects our
expectation that the ongoing partnership with NOAA will continue to
evolve. However, the budgetary impacts associated with the transfer of
responsibilities in not known at this time. Each of these areas
involves joint NASA and NOAA efforts that lead to the transfer of
innovative capabilities, as summarized below:
Techniques--The focus in this area is on the utilization of remote
sensing data to improve the models that NASA and NOAA use to create
weather and climate forecasts. NASA, NOAA and USAF have established the
Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation as a means to accelerate
the use of research data to improve operational weather and climate
forecasting. NASA has also been working with NOAA's National Hurricane
Center to improve hurricane track forecasting via new model algorithms
and data.
Technologies--New technologies will focus on the improvement of NOAA's
weather forecasting capability based on science and technology through
new spacecraft and modeling. The next generation weather satellites
will use satellite spacecraft that are based on those developed by NASA
and its prime contractor for the EOS Aqua and Aura missions.
Instruments and Platforms--The development of advanced instruments and
platforms by NASA in a research context that can be used in NOAA's next
generation of operational environmental satellites. The NPOESS VIIRS
and ATMS sensors, for example, continue the imaging and sounding
observations by the NASA EOS MODIS and AIRS sensors, respectively.
Measurements--New instruments prepare the way for transition of
measurement responsibilities. This includes plans, underway since the
late 1990s, to continue selected climate measurements begun by NASA's
Earth Observing System via transfer of instrument technologies and
measurement responsibilities begun by EOS Terra and Aqua to the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS). The first fruit of this effort will be the NPOESS Preparatory
Project, a satellite now in development jointly by NASA and the NPOESS
Integrated Program Office. This mission will carry both the VIIRS and
ATMS instruments as well as others. Based on the strategy of assuming
that a number of the critical measurements made by Terra and Aqua would
be done through NPOESS, NASA was able to reduce the planned budget for
systematic Earth science measurements.
NASA may propose innovative next generation missions to begin
during this time frame, in keeping with the general strategy of
transitioning mature measurement responsibilities so that operational
systems can benefit and NASA can move on to the next frontier. In
parallel, NASA, NOAA and their European counterparts have been working
over the last three years on a plan to transition ocean surface
altimetry measurements begun by the NASA/CNES TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason
missions to a future operational system using the Ocean Surface
Topography Mission now under development as a ``bridge.'' Not all
measurements begun by EOS are slated for transition to NPOESS, but the
significant ones that are, including the basic imaging and sounding
done by Terra and Aqua, help in enabling the reduced budget planned for
Earth science to still accommodate a mix of continued long-term
measurements, and first implementation of new types of global
measurements, for example through the Earth System Science Pathfinder
line of competed missions and the Global Precipitation Mission.
Opportunities flow in the other direction as well, for example in
the area of flight of NASA research instruments on NOAA spacecraft.
Currently, attention is focused on future geostationary missions. NASA
continues to build and launch Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites for NOAA, with the recent launch of GOES-N on May 20, 2005.
The next generation series will begin with GOES-R. NASA and NOAA are
discussing a strategy to reserve capacity on this series of satellites
for demonstration of advanced instruments of importance to both
agencies.
Major measurement transitions in work:
Climate quality atmosphere and biosphere measurements
begun by Terra and Aqua to NPOESS ( 2010) via NPP ( 2006)
Upper atmosphere ozone measurements from TOMS & Aura
to NPOESS ( 2010) via NPP ( 2006)
Land cover change measurements from Landsat 7 to
NPOESS Operational Land Imager ( 2010)
Ocean surface topography from TOPEX/Poseidon and
Jason to an NOAA/EUMETSAT operational system via NASA/CNES
development and NOAA/EUMETSAT operation of the Ocean Surface
Topography Mission (2008)
Next generation geostationary satellites beginning
with GOES-R ( 2012)
Q2. What do you consider the most promising future benefits that the
Nation might gain from continued investments in Earth Science research?
What will be the negative impacts on society if NASA's commitment to
Earth Science research and applications is diminished in the coming
years?
A2. NASA's Earth Science programs are our nation's primary innovators
in providing new information about the global Earth system using the
unique vantage point of space. NASA's perspective is global, and
emphasizes the ``Earth system view'' that encourages understanding of
the interconnections between various components of the Earth system
(atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere). NASA's
commitment to Earth science research and application directly enables
advanced understanding of the current interactions and future evolution
of the Earth system, as well as allows NASA to support the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP).
The space-based missions carried out by NASA provide information
about the global distribution of Earth system parameters never before
available on the spatial and temporal scales that NASA can provide.
Recent examples include ice sheet and sea ice changes in polar regions
(from ICESat), more accurate measurements of the Earth's gravitational
field and their analysis to determine information about water stored
underneath the Earth's surface (from GRACE), distribution and nature of
aerosol particles that affect climate, precipitation, and air quality
(from Terra), and distribution of precipitation over the ocean in the
tropics and subtropics (from TRAM). Future space systems will provide
significant enhancements in our knowledge of the global three-
dimensional distribution of clouds and aerosols, and then high-
resolution information about the global distribution of carbon dioxide
(suitable for inferring information about global sources and sinks),
and ocean salinity.
NASA contributes to the record of long-term satellite measurements
needed to help evaluate change in the Earth system and help scientists
separate between natural and human-induced changes. Examples include
studies of ozone distributions (from the TOMS series), solar irradiance
(most recently from UARS, ACRIMSAT, and SORCE), of ocean surface
topography (from Topex/Poseidon and Jason), and of the Earth's overall
radiation budget (most recently from the CERES instruments aboard the
Terra and Aqua spacecraft). The long-term need for precise and accurate
calibration is not something that has been available from operational
platforms in the past. NASA's efforts also include a significant focus
on modeling and data assimilation to be sure that new data can be
understood and used to test hypotheses of our current understanding of
the Earth system's behavior and to improve our capability to predict it
in the future.
NASA strives to facilitate the use of its data in supporting policy
development and resource management through its applied science
program, partnering with other federal agencies to accelerate the
process by which space-based data can be used to serve society (e.g.,
improve weather and climate forecasting and prediction of natural
hazards). NASA's technology program constitutes an investment in future
Earth science, developing the observational tools and techniques that
will enable new views of the Earth in the future, making possible
measurements not currently possible today as we look to push back the
frontiers in Earth remote sensing (e.g., more frequent temporal
sampling, improved determination of the vertical dimension in the
measurement of Earth system parameters). A vigorous basic research
program underlies all of the above so that as new information is
gained, scientists can innovatively incorporate new knowledge into
their studies, develop and test hypotheses, improve models, and develop
newer techniques that will enable new knowledge in the future.
Q3a. Two years ago, the Space Studies Board of the National Research
Council recommended the establishment of an Interagency Transition
Office to manage the issues involved in transitioning the capabilities
developed in research instruments to the operational systems that
support weather monitoring and forecasting.
Have NASA and NOAA taken any steps to establish such an
organization? If not, why not?
A3a. NASA and NOAA are actively engaged in establishing the Joint
Working Group on Transition Research and Operations (R&O). This joint
working group includes senior management from both agencies and a
structured approach to involve key personnel for each of the areas for
transition. The approach is to establish agreement on specific
capabilities to be transitioned and to assign teams with
representatives from NASA and NOAA to participate in developing the
Capability Implementation Plans.
Q3b. If so, when was the organization established who heads it, and
what is its charter?
A3b. An ad hoc Joint Working Group (JWG) was organized and has been
holding regular bi-weekly meetings since October 2004. Dr. Colleen
Hartman (NOAA) and Dr. Mary Cleave (NASA) are the senior managers
responsible for oversight of the ad hoc JWG. Gary Davis (NOAA) and Ron
Birk (NASA) are the co-leads for the ad hoc JWG.
The roles and responsibilities include:
NASA and NOAA designated representatives lead the
JWG. The JWG develops, implements, and facilitates a senior
level collaboration process. This collaboration process is used
to coordinate, evaluate, identify, and transition appropriate
NASA research results (capabilities) for NOAA operational and
applied research use; and appropriate NOAA operational assets
(capabilities) to support NASA research.
Designated NASA and NOAA senior representatives
jointly provide oversight of and accountability for, this
working group. These representatives are responsible for
coordination of performance measures and goals, and compliance
with their respective agency policies and processes relevant to
successful implementation and maintenance of a bilateral R&O
process.
An initial transition plan detailing the R&O process,
including an initial set of implementation plans for transition
of specific research result capabilities, will be submitted to
senior NASA and NOAA leadership for approval by September 30,
2005.
Q3c. Does the organization determine how transition costs will be
allocated between the two agencies? If not, who does?
A3c. The R&O Transition Plan being formulated by the JWG includes a
systematic approach to develop Capability Implementation Plans for each
research capability that is identified for transition to operations.
The budget associated with transitioning the capability will be
included in the Capability Implementation Plan for senior management
review. The agencies will determine how transition costs will be
allocated based on the approved version of the Capability
Implementation Plan.
Q4. Based on correspondence between Admiral Lautenbacher and then-NASA
Administrator O'Keefe, it appears that there was no advance
coordination between NASA and NOAA when NASA decided to terminate the
Tropical Rainfall Monitoring Mission last year.
a. Is that correct?
b. If so, why wasn't there adequate advance coordination?
A4a,b. There has been considerable coordination between NASA and NOAA
regarding TRMM, dating back to 2001. NASA and NOAA personnel have
discussed TRMM re-entry plans in a number of forums, including
workshops, correspondence, and meetings. In April and July 2003, NASA
sent letters to the two registered NOAA TRMM real-time data users (John
Paquette/NESDIS and Stephen Lord/NCEP) stating NASA's expectation that
TRMM's decommissioning could begin as early as the first quarter of
2004. In July 2004, ten days prior to the mailing of the correspondence
cited by Rep. Gordon, nine senior NOAA staff members representing a
broad cross section of NOAA were notified via e-mail of the imminent
decommissioning.
Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall
Q1. The FY 2006 budget request has combined the Earth Systems and Sun-
Earth Connections budgets. Please provide a detailed crosswalk between
the FY 2005 budget request and FY 2006 budget request and its five-year
runout with the Earth Systems and Sun-Earth Connections budgets broken
out separately.
A1. See attached budget crosswalk and five-year run-outs.
Q2. Due to a cut in funding, there are plans to end several extended
missions in October of 2005, including Voyager.
Q2a. Will there be a new Senior Review to reconsider the planned
terminations?
A2a. Yes, decisions on scientific priorities will be made once NASA
receives input from both the Sun-Earth Connection and Earth System
Science Senior Review Panels. These panels, composed of external and
independent senior researchers with relevant knowledge and experience,
meet periodically to review proposals for innovative research,
accomplished with existing space assets. The panels assist NASA by
evaluating the scientific merit of each extended mission on a
``science-per-dollar,'' basis in terms of the expected returns from new
science goals.
Q2b. If so, when will it take place?
A2b. The Earth System Science review is currently in progress and the
Sun-Earth Connection review is expected to convene in the fall of 2005.
Q2c. Will funding for these missions be maintained until a new Senior
Review is completed? How much funding would be required?
A2c. NASA will permit the Sun-Earth Connection missions to operate
while the Senior Review process provides for a new assessment of the
future scientific value of these operating missions. This is expected
to cost approximately $20.6 million in FY 2006. At the conclusion of
the Panels' deliberations, NASA will use their assessments and findings
to develop Agency decisions regarding the continued operation of these
missions.
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What priority is NASA's Earth Science program as NASA pursues the
President's exploration initiative?
Q1a. How have the recent decisions to cancel, de-scope, or delay
recent Earth observing missions or mission programs been made? In
particular, please explain the rationale for seeking the assistance of
the National Academies in determining what the highest priority areas
should be and then making changes before the results of that study are
known?
A1a. NASA's Guiding National Objectives specifically identify studying
the Earth system from space, and developing new space-based and related
capabilities for this purpose, as a priority for the Agency. Not only
are NASA's activities in Earth Science are essential to the achievement
of NASA's mission, they directly support three Presidential
initiatives: Climate Change, Global Earth Observation, and
Collaborative Oceans Research.
In all of NASA's science disciplines, decisions often must be taken
between Decadal Surveys or triennial strategic plans, and are taken
based on the best available data on science community priorities and
prior strategic plans and surveys. As such, the Science Mission
Directorate generally chooses to stay the course on missions already in
development, and if necessary, defer missions that were only in the
formulation stage, and cancel selected missions where an alternative
source of data could be identified.
By applying these criteria to NASA's Earth science missions, only
the Glory mission was descoped in the FY 2006 budget to an instrument-
only build. The remaining Earth science missions were left largely
unchanged, reflecting the need to respond to national priorities in
Earth science and in recognition of the fact that the results of the
Decadal Survey would not be available until late 2006.
Q1b. What role is full-cost accounting and the fact that it was not
accompanied by the appropriate reallocation of salary and other
infrastructure money to support those scientists working on critical
Earth Science projects playing in these decisions?
A1b. Adoption of full cost accounting practices has neither affected
the strategy for pursuit of Earth science by NASA in the era of the
Vision for Space Exploration, nor the process of prioritization of
research and missions in the Science Mission Directorate. There are
important questions to address in this arena, and this is the subject
of the National Research Council decadal survey for Earth science now
underway. However, these questions exist quite apart from the topic of
full cost accounting.
Funds previously carried separately for civil servant salaries and
institutional support were added to program budgets (including Earth
science) in FY 2005 and beyond. Implementation of full cost accounting
and management posed some challenges in the start-up phase, but the
magnitude of these problems should decrease over time as we get more
experience in working within this new environment. The inherent
difficulty in making this significant transition led to some short-term
transient effects and some near-term challenges in FY 2005 that
affected university researchers, civil servants, and contractors. We
anticipate the process of soliciting, selecting, and funding science
proposals from the community (in both academia and NASA Centers) in the
era of full cost accounting will be smoother in the coming fiscal year.
Questions submitted by Representative Al Green
Q1. Given the increasing vulnerability to extreme weather and climate
variations as seen by the tsunami and the various hurricanes that hit
Florida, what initiatives, if any, does NASA currently have to explore
such events? NASA has been a major sponsor of such research in the
past; what initiatives does NASA have planned for the future? What
effect will budget constraints have on these projects?
A1. Tsunami: A capable tsunami warning system must be both reliable and
cost effective. Tsunamis are caused by plate boundary earthquakes, with
the most devastating tsunamis occurring within a few hundred miles of
the earthquake's epicenter due to both the larger amplitude of the
tsunami wave and the lack of sufficient warning. As with all
geohazards, significant savings in life and property can result from a
tsunami warning system that provides the information necessary for risk
assessment, warning, and recovery. NASA's research and technology
sponsored primarily by the Earth-Sun Science Division of the Science
Mission Directorate seeks to address these fundamental requirements.
NASA is participating within the IWGEO and with other federal and
international organizations to insure the effective distribution of
these research and development results. Imagery from four NASA
spaceborne instruments shed valuable insights into the Indian Ocean
tsunami that resulted from the magnitude 9 earthquake southwest of
Sumatra on December 26, 2004. These images offered several unique views
of portions of the affected region. The data helped scientists and
government agencies to assist with disaster recovery and will be used
in mitigating the effects of future natural hazards and increasing our
understanding of how and why tsunamis strike.
Tropical Cyclones: One of the least understood issues regarding
tropical cyclone (TC) behavior are the factors that influence TC
genesis and rapid intensification. Hurricane Charley during 2004 is an
example of a TC that underwent unpredicted rapid intensification just
hours before landfall in northern Florida.
NASA is leading a major field experiment based in Costa Rica during
July 2005 called the Tropical Cloud Systems and Processes (TCSP)
campaign. The aim of TCSP is to investigate atmospheric and oceanic
processes governing the formation and intensification of hurricanes.
Costa Rica provides the ideal mission location for accessing a variety
of TCs developing across the western Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and
Eastern Pacific. In a manner similar to the highly successful series of
NASA CAMEX (Convection and Moisture Experiments) investigations, the
NOAA Hurricane Research Division P3-Orion aircraft will fly joint
missions with the NASA ER-2 and Aerosonde aircraft during TCSP. The
NASA ER-2 is a unique, high-flying platform with a sensitive Doppler
radar, passive microwave radiometer and atmospheric profilers that
serve as a ``virtual satellite'' and can thus be positioned to
optimally sample critical regions of developing tropical cyclones. One
important goal of TCSP is to improve the numerical representation of
hurricanes using the specially collected aircraft and satellite
observations. For instance, TCSP scientists will work closely with
Florida State University (FSU) scientists to identify data sets to
optimize the highly successful FSU Super ensemble hurricane forecast
prediction tool.
It is anticipated that the TCSP mission will answer many key
questions pertaining to the genesis of intense tropical vortices, in
addition to raising many other questions. For instance, NASA scientists
have a keen interest in understanding whether a core set of processes
is unique to tropical cyclogenesis and intensification anywhere around
the globe, irrespective of geographic location. TCSP will address many
of the issues associated with TC genesis in close proximity to a
central mountain chain (the Central American cordillera) and the fate
of African Easterly Waves as they interact with this terrain. However,
the African Monsoon Meteorology Experiment (AMMA), slated for the
eastern Atlantic in summer 2006, provides a potential opportunity to
investigate many of the TCSP hypotheses in a different geographical
setting. For instance, what is the influence of the Saharan Air Layer
on tropical cyclogenesis? Direct NASA participation with one or more
ground-based Doppler radars and possibly a high altitude research
aircraft stationed downstream of the African continent during AMMA will
be ideally suited to better understand why some tropical disturbances
develop into Atlantic hurricanes, while others do not. Historically,
the most destructive hurricanes that make landfall on U.S. soil
originate from Africa during the late summer-early fall.
In addition, NASA has hurricane modeling research in the areas of
advanced computational modeling coupled with the space borne
observations. A major experiment, in collaboration with NOAA, which
combines advanced weather prediction model, satellite observations, and
powerful computing platform, is currently underway for the 2005
hurricane season.
Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM): TRMM was originally designed to
be a three-year scientific research mission. It is now in its eighth
year of operation, having completed all of its original scientific
research objectives and more. NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency (JAXA) will continue their close collaboration beyond TRMM
through establishment of a new advanced capability for the measurement
of precipitation globally with the Global Precipitation Measurement
mission (GPM). This mission will be a critical component of the
International Global Earth Observing System of Systems and will
significantly improve upon the temporal and spatial resolution provided
by TRMM.
The GPM mission's Core Satellite is planned to carry advanced dual-
frequency radar that will provide rain measurements exceeding the
capabilities of TRMM. In addition, GPM will use an international
constellation of satellites to measure precipitation globally and much
more frequently (approximately every three hours) than TRMM. In
addition to Japan, Europe, Canada, France, India, South Korea, Taiwan,
Brazil, and others have expressed and interest in participating in GPM.
A science team is currently in place to study the impact of
precipitation variability on specific processes within the atmospheric
and/or surface water cycles, water budgets and their closure. The
precipitation science team is also interested in studying the rate of
water cycling through the atmosphere and surface, and the relationships
of linked precipitation-water cycle processes on weather and climate
through both forcing and feedback. The range of investigations, in
addition to modeling and data analysis, includes algorithm
improvements, validation, applications, and education/outreach efforts.
GPM is currently targeted for launch in late 2010.
Climate Variability: A subtle impact of extreme weather/climate
variation, but with far-reaching consequences, is the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO has its roots in a coupled atmosphere-ocean
interaction over the western Pacific, and NASA has been monitoring ENSO
with the TRMM and QuickSCAT satellites since the late 1990s. The
QuickSCAT satellite provides observations of reversing trade winds that
accompany El Nino, and NASA TRMM scientists have investigated several
El Nino and La Nina rainfall cycles of varying intensity and duration.
No two ENSO events are alike, and continued long-term monitoring of
ENSO with TRMM will increase our understanding of ENSO's peculiar
variations. Precursors to El Nino such as the short-term Madden-Julian
Oscillation (MJO) have been identified through TRMM's unique
combination of rain and ocean surface temperature measurements. As the
key linkage between MJO and ENSO is established, there is the hope that
TRMM data sets will be used to increase the predictability of El Nino
and its impacts on the United States.
NASA's TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-I are measuring ocean surface
topography, the MODIS instrument on the EOS platforms also provides
high-resolution observation of sea surface temperature. The Estimating
of the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean project sponsored by the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program is currently assimilating
long-term ocean observation data into a physically consistent climate
quality data set for the climate variability research. These efforts
will be augmented in the future with sea surface salinity data from the
Aquarius mission.
One aspect of climate change that has received much attention
recently is changes in the Earth's ice covered regions. NASA continues
to advance our understanding of these ice processes through a
combination EOS missions, e.g., the Ice Cloud and land Elevation
Satellite (ICESat), the AMSR instrument on Aqua, and ongoing and
planned activities with operational and interagency partners, such as
the Navy's SSM/I instrument, our partnership in Canada's RADARSAT
mission, and others.
The Research and Analysis Program currently supports--in addition
to investigations funded by individual programs--two major climate-
variability-related categories of interdisciplinary investigations.
These are in the areas of sea level rise and polar feedbacks in the
climate system, both of which have been identified as priorities of the
Climate Change Science Program and Integrated Earth Observing System
(IEOS). We continue to work with our interagency partners to maximize
investments in understanding the significant changes that have been
occurring in the Polar Regions, particularly in the framework of the
upcoming International Polar Year (2007-2008).
Q2. For years, there has been a major focus on the effects of
greenhouse gases, the thinning of the ozone, global warming, and the
melting of the ice caps. It is my assumption, and please correct me if
I am wrong, that one of the functions of a Global Earth Observing
System of Systems (GEOSS) initiative would be to monitor such activity?
Q2a. As an interagency and international effort, what effect will
budget cuts to NASA's Earth Science program have on this initiative?
A2a. NASA Earth system science results of research and development of
space-based observations and improved modeling capacity are recognized
as contributing nearly 100 instruments on 30 spacecraft for the
International Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). NASA
Earth science applications are recognized for contributing integrated
system solutions to each of the nine societal benefit areas highlighted
in both the Strategic Plan for a U.S. Integrated Earth Observation
System (IEOS) and the 10-Year Plan for a Global Earth Observation
System of Systems. The entire NASA Earth Science budget contributes to
goals and objectives of U.S. participation in GEOSS. The contributions
of NASA research results to GEOSS is not a separate budget line or
project. Thereby, any reductions in Earth Science funding would
decrease our contribution to GEOSS. NASA plans to contribute the
results of over $1B in Earth system science research and development
per the President's budget.
The International GEOSS and the U.S. IEOS include framework
architectures that can accommodate and benefit from the observations
and predictions/forecasts resulting from NASA research and development
of space-based Earth observation systems; including the ground
segments, data handling capacity, modeling, computing, knowledge, and
applied sciences and system engineering.
Q2b. Is it expected that NASA will continue with the GEOSS initiative
in FY 2006 and beyond? At what funding levels?
A2b. NASA's plans for research and development of Earth observation
systems include support for national and international priorities and
goals, including the U.S. IEOS and International GEOSS. The GEOSS is
architected to benefit from the full scope of the results of NASA
research and development programs, flight missions and applied sciences
partnerships on benchmarking enhancements to integrated system
solutions for the nine societal benefit areas. Per the response above,
the NASA budget for Earth science is the U.S. contribution to the
research and development efforts that contribute to the goals and
objectives of serving society as documented in the GEOSS 10-Year
Implementation Plan.
Q2c. To date, what role has NASA's Earth Science program played in the
Administration's new GEOSS initiative?
A2c. NASA leadership contributed to developing and refining the
framework and architecture of the U.S. IEOS and International GEOSS
plans. The plans provide guidance in the direction for evolving
research capacity (including NASA contributions) to enable improved
future operational systems. NASA contributes to the national
interagency activity through participation in the U.S. Group on Earth
Observation, a subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources (CENR). NASA senior officials serve in the roles of Co-Chair
and other positions of the USGEO and as alternate Co-Chair for the
Architecture SubGroup of the international Group on Earth Observations.
NASA missions (e.g., Terra, Aqua, and Aura), program plans (e.g.,
Earth Science strategies and implementation plans) and results (e.g.,
collaboration with EPA on enhancing the national air quality Nowcasting
system) are recognized through the USGEO and GEO as contributions to
the IEOS and GEOSS.
Q3. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services
Committee and have had the opportunity to take a close look at the
Administration's changes to housing programs. The Administration wants
to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD
programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move
them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some
cases and making minimal cuts in others. I also notice that in the same
fashion at the Administration's request, NASA has decided to combine
the Earth Science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun Science
program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission
Directorate.
a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program
will sustain the most drastic cuts?
b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA's Earth Science
program is a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program?
A3a,b,c. The combination of the former Earth Science Enterprise and
Sun-Earth Connection theme of the Space Science Enterprise into a
single unified Earth-Sun System Division has not led to cuts in any
Earth science projects. Significant reductions were made between FY
2004 and FY 2005 President's budgets. In FY 2006, the budget submit
using the new structure, resulted in no significant reductions to Earth
science.
The creation of a single unified Science Mission Directorate and
the grouping of the former Earth Science Enterprise and the Sun-Earth
Connection theme of the former Space Science Enterprise into a single
unified Earth-Sun System Division was done to better position us to
take advantages of potential synergies between formally different
organizations. However, the time elapsed since the agency
transformation that effected these changes is too short to determine
whether the benefits are being achieved.
NASA's Earth Science budgets are managed overall effectively. We
feel that one of the most important things that can be done to improve
management is to assure the stability of the program. Firming up of
budgets early in the fiscal year is also very important, as it allows
for early establishment of targets.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Berrien Moore III, Director, Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. In your written testimony, you state that the NAS committee
recommends that NASA and NOAA should commission an independent review
regarding the Landsat Data Continuity Mission. Please clarify why the
committee believes the Administration should perform another cost
benefit analysis of the decision to transition the Landsat measurements
to the NPOESS platform, as outlined in the Auguest 13, 2004 OSTP memo.
A1. In reference to the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, the Interim
Report of the National Academy of Science's Decadal Study team
recommended independent external reviews that involved the scientific
and operational users that focused upon suitability, capability, and
timeliness of the (OLI).
Our understanding of what happened to the Landsat Continuity
Mission can be summarized as follows:
Efforts to begin implementing a successor mission to Landsat 7,
called the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), focused on a plan to
purchase data meeting LDCM specifications from a privately owned and
commercially operated satellite system beginning in March 2007.
However, after an evaluation of proposals received from private
industry, NASA canceled a Request-for-Proposals (RFP) for providing the
required data in September 2003. Soon after, the Executive Office of
the President formed an interagency working group to discuss Landsat
data continuity in light of the cancellation. A memorandum from the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), signed on August 13,
2004 by the Director of OSTP, Dr. John Marburger, III, summarizes the
outcome of these discussions. The memorandum states ``the Departments
of Defense, the Interior, and Commerce and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration have agreed to take the following actions:
``Transition Landsat measurements to an operational
environment through the incorporation of Landsat-type sensors
on the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) platform;
``Plan to incorporate a Landsat imager on the first
NPOESS spacecraft (known as C-1), currently scheduled for
launch in late 2009;
``Further assess options to mitigate the risks to
data continuity prior to the first NPOESS-Landsat mission,
including a `bridge' mission.''
We know of no formal study that actually accessed the ``bridge
mission'' nor do we believe that the user community was adequately
involved in the formulation of the 13 August 2004 memorandum from OSTP.
We certainly applaud the steps of OSTP, NASA, NOAA, and USGS to help
assure the longer-term future of Landsat, but we believe that before
giving up on the bridge mission and before settling on NPOESS as the
implementation platform for OLI, there should be an independent study
weighing all the options.
Q2. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do.
Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its
significance and how it differs from what is done by National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)?
A2. The Earth science accomplished through NOAA support is important
and it is, as it should be, focused upon helping NOAA meets its
operational mandates. NOAA is a science-based agency with regulatory,
operational, and information service responsibilities. To fulfill these
responsibilities, it is essential that NOAA maintain a vigorous and
forward-looking research enterprise that has both near and longer-term
goals, but it must be recognized that the operational (near-term)
requirements will always be a significant pressure upon the research
enterprise. Moreover, in addition to having to respond to operational
concerns, the research budget at NOAA is relatively modest in
comparison to the Earth science research effort at NASA. Finally, Earth
science depends upon significant technological advances in order to
address the critical difficult challenges of today, for which there is
no budget nor is there a mandate for NOAA to mount significant
technology development programs that are needed to meet today's and
tomorrow's scientific and operational challenges.
In sum, the differences are a) NOAA's operational mandate, and b)
the relatively modest size of NOAA research budget (a significant
portion is consumed by the 30 NOAA Laboratories and Centers and 19
Joint Institutes), and the subsequent lack of a significant capability
for advanced technology development.
Q3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA
instruments on NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding
was provided?
A3. The advantages are increased collaboration, the ability to stage
``pre-operational instruments in an operational environment (which
should smooth the transfer to operations) and expanded access to space.
The main disadvantages are the narrow selection of orbits and launch
opportunities, a rather limited envelope for power, weight, and other
spacecraft resources, and the potential constraint on data transfer and
data processing. In addition, there is a concern that if NASA hands the
instrument over to NOAA, NASA then will not provide a Research and
Analysis function as it would for a purely NASA mission. This latter
issue could be addressed by policy; whereas, the narrow selection of
orbits, launches, and space, and ground resources are more troubling.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that
the Nation might gain from continued investments in Earth science
research? What will be the negative impacts on society if NASA's
commitment to Earth science research and applications is diminished in
the coming year?
A1. Future benefits. Improved scientific understanding, which forms the
foundation for practical applications that enhance the prosperity and
security of society. Businesses, government agencies, and even
individuals rely on products and services that have emerged from Earth
science research programs. For example, improvements in the ability to
forecast weather have had an enormous impact on society. Today's four-
day weather forecast is as accurate as two-day forecasts were 20 years
ago. The error in the three-day forecast landfall position of
hurricanes has been reduced from about 210 miles in 1985 to about 110
miles in 2004. Sea surface winds and precipitation can be observed at
accuracies that allow emergency managers to more efficiently evacuate
coastal residents in the path of hurricanes. As a result, lives are
saved and property losses are minimized. Increased knowledge about the
ocean-atmosphere-land system suggests that similar improvements are
possible in seasonal climate forecasts, which are needed for a variety
of agriculture decisions.
Today, we can track vast clouds of dust and pollution from their
source on continents across the oceans, permitting health alarms to be
sounded effectively. We can map deformations of the Earth's surface and
evacuate regions that may soon experience volcanic eruptions or
landslides. We can track changes in soil moisture and then redirect
food supplies to areas that may soon face drought and famine. We can
monitor long-term changes in the land surface, atmosphere, and oceans
and thereby characterize the impacts of human activities on climate. We
have documented ozone loss in the stratosphere, resulting in the
Montreal Protocol and termination of the production of the causative
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Despite many successes in applying Earth science information to
improve lives, security, and the economy, we have the ability to do
much more. The increase in knowledge produced over the last decade by
Earth scientists is itself a tremendous societal benefit with clear
public policy implications. And the experience in applying that
knowledge lays a solid foundation for more systematically selecting new
missions that address not only important scientific issues but also
critical societal needs. New observations, analyses, better
interpretive understanding, enhanced predictive models, broadened
community participation, and improved means for information
dissemination are all needed. If we meet this challenge, we will begin
to realize the full economic and security benefits of Earth science.
Negative Impacts. At NASA, the vitality of Earth science and
application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly
shrinking budget that no longer supports already-approved missions and
programs of high scientific and societal relevance. Opportunities to
discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished as mission after
mission is canceled, descoped, or delayed because of budget cutbacks.
These reductions and the change in priorities jeopardize NASA's ability
to fulfill its obligations in (other) important presidential
initiatives, such as the Climate Change Research Initiative and the
subsequent Climate Change Science Program. It also calls into question
future U.S. leadership in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems,
an international effort initiated by the current Administration.
This substantial reduction in Earth observation programs today will
result in a loss of U.S. scientific and technical capacity, which will
decrease the competitiveness of the United States internationally for
years to come. U.S. leadership in science, technology development, and
societal applications depends on sustaining competence across a broad
range of scientific and engineering disciplines that include the Earth
sciences.
Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall
Q1. The White House has proposed putting the Landsat imager on the
first NPOESS satellite, currently being developed by NOAA and DOD.
What are the technical and programmatic risks of
putting the new Landsat imaging sensor on the first NPOESS
platform? How serious are those risks?
Is the Landsat user community involved in determining
the requirements to be met if the Landsat sensor is added to
NPOESS?
A1. The main technical and programmatic risks are as follows:
a. Technical
1. Adequacy of the large NPOESS platform to adequately
meet the pointing and jitter requirements of the
Operational Land Imager (OLI).
2. Operational data interface from the Weather
Centrals to the land processing system.
b. Programmatic
1. Adequate involvement of the community in the
definition of the instrument performance requirements.
2. Impact of delay in the launch of NPOESS C-1 (first)
platform, which will compound the impact of the lack of
a bridge mission (see my comments attached below that I
submitted to one of Chairman Boehlert's questions).
3. Long-term commitment to process and distribute the
data.
4. Uncertain policy of response to OLI instrument
failure on orbit.
Q2. How do current NASA Earth science budgetary priorities and plans
compare to recommendations made by the National Research Council over
the past five years?
A2. Simply put, the current direction of Earth sciences is 180 degrees
from the recommendations of the Earth sciences community as expressed
through NRC reports. NASA is cutting or delaying recommended missions
that were in development, and it is not responding to recommendations
for other new missions; the Research and Development monies are being
cut and opportunities for graduate education are being diminished. By
and large, NASA is heading in the opposite direction from repeated
recommendations of the Earth sciences community.
Questions submitted by Representative Al Green
Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services
Committee and have had the opportunity to take a close look at the
Administration's changes to housing programs. The Administration wants
to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD
programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move
them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some
cases and making minimal cuts in others. I also notice that in the same
fashion at the Administration's request, NASA has decided to combine
the Earth science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun Science
program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission
directorate.
Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth science program will
sustain the most drastic cuts?
A1a. I believe that the Interim report captures the stand-alone
projects most severely cut through its list (Table 3.1 from the Interim
Report attached below) of missions that are either delayed, canceled,
or descoped. In addition, I believe that the next is the Earth System
Science Pathfinder program, which currently does not have sufficient
funds to execute in a timely fashion the mission that have been
selected in the ESSP-3 set and no monies for ESSP-4 Request for
Proposals. Addressing the issues implicit in the Table and ESSP would
be my top priority.
Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA's Earth science program
is a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
A1b. I do not have a strong view on combining Earth and solar physics--
I know that it can work productively since these sciences are combined
in a single institute at UNH and they were combined in the 1980s at
NASA. I do not think that this is a major issue.
Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program?
A1c. The development a coherent Decadal View is the next critical step-
this is the responsibility of the community through the NRC study. When
this is accomplished and adequately reviewed, then I believe that NASA
must align its program with that expressed view. For the moment, we
must stop the bleeding so that the patient does not die.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Timothy L. Killeen, Director, National Center for
Atmospheric Research
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do.
Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its
significance and how it differs from what is done by National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
A1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plays an
important role in performing and supporting Earth science research in
the U.S. NOAA and NASA are the only U.S. civil agencies that fund the
design, development and operation of Earth observing satellites that
provide global-scale measurements of the Earth system, and both
agencies also support a wide variety of modeling and research
activities that include efforts focused on weather prediction, climate
change, and oceans. There are, however, a number of important
differences.
NOAA's research focuses mainly on study of the atmosphere and
oceans (as the agency name implies), and is largely focused on
supporting NOAA's operational mission. NOAA certainly plays a leading
role in research relevant to weather prediction, although many other
agencies, including NASA and NSF are also active in this area. NOAA
plays a very important role in climate change research and,
particularly, in climate change observations. NOAA's ongoing work in
measuring the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is one of
the fundamental building blocks of climate change science, with a high
quality record that extends back to the late 1950's. Its effort to
establish a climate reference network of precise and ideally placed
stations to measure temperature, precipitation, and wind speeds will
likewise prove very beneficial to scientists and decision-makers if it
is strongly supported by the Administration and Congress over the long-
term. And NOAA ocean measurements and analyses have helped explain the
role of the ocean in storing much of the energy retained in the Earth
system as a consequence of the human-induced build-up of greenhouse
gases in the Earth's atmosphere. NOAA has also been a leader in
improving our understanding of climate variability as well as longer-
term climate change. The network of NOAA buoys in the tropical Pacific
has helped explain the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and its impacts.
NASA has supported a broader program of Earth science and global
change research that includes significant efforts in land use and land
cover change, terrestrial ecology, and solid Earth/geology, which are
not prominent in NOAA research. In addition to its broader scope, NASA
has been a much larger supporter of university-based research. Leaving
spacecraft and data system costs aside, AAAS analyses show that NASA
was the third largest provider of competitively awarded extra mural
funding for the university environmental science community in 2004,
trailing only the National Science Foundation and the National
Institutes of Health. Even small reductions in the NASA program have
large effects in the university community. As I noted in my testimony
before the Committee, such reductions have a negative affect on the
undergraduate and graduate education and training, and thus on the
technical capabilities of our nation's future workforce. In contrast,
NOAA is not a significant provider of peer-reviewed competitive
research opportunities for the academic community, instead spending
most of its research funding on intramural work that is conducted in
its own labs.
Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA
instruments on NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding
was provided?
A2. In general, there is no direct scientific advantage to placing NASA
instruments on NOAA platforms. There could be budgetary savings for
NASA if it did not have to pay for spacecraft development or operation.
But NOAA would have to bear these costs, which would require
significant increases in the NOAA budget. It does not appear that
shifting the responsibility for some part of overall mission costs from
one agency to another will reduce the overall expense to taxpayers. The
only scenario where one can imagine significant savings is if a single
instrument can serve both NOAA and NASA purposes. But the significant
differences between NASA science needs and NOAA operational needs make
such opportunities difficult to identify.
It is possible that societal benefits could accrue from tighter
integration of NASA and NOAA satellite activities related to weather
forecasting if such integration resulted in more rapid and effective
transition of advanced research capabilities to operations. However,
NOAA and NASA activity in this area is already much more integrated
than commonly realized, with NASA responsible for the construction,
integration, and verification testing of the spacecraft, instruments,
and unique ground equipment operated by NOAA. Satellites are handed off
to NOAA after they are checked out on-orbit. This responsibility will
be taken over by the Air Force when the U.S. begins operation of the
joint DOD-NOAA-NASA National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS), which will replace the current generation of
polar orbiting weather satellites in about 2008. Provision of NASA
research instruments to such a system could provide research and
operational benefits, but this requires that the overall program is
provided with sufficient budgets and managed in such a fashion that it
can ingest and make use of continued advances in capabilities.
There are important Earth science questions that can only be
addressed by maintaining accurate space based measurements for very
long periods of time, particularly in climate change, solar, and land
cover change research. One can make a rational argument that a set of
long-term research instruments should be included on NOAA operational
satellites that are expected to be maintained as part of our nation's
permanent infrastructure. But this only makes sense if there is a long-
term budgetary commitment to developing and maintaining the advanced
instrumentation needed to produce research-quality measurements.
Experience to date is not particularly encouraging in this regard, with
Landsat providing an unfortunate example of major difficulties in
maintaining long-term support for high-quality research measurements,
even when they also serve many practical, nearly ``operational''
purposes.
It should also be remembered that NASA is currently flying three
large Earth science satellite systems carrying a total of 15 different
instruments, along with about 14 smaller Earth science missions
carrying 1-3 instruments each. NOAA currently operates four satellites
at a time. Transferring even a small subset of NASA instrumentation
onto NOAA satellites implies a significant increase in the number and/
or capabilities of these systems (instruments require power, space, and
communications capacity), which will require substantial additional
funding over and above the amounts required for instrument design and
development. Such a step is also likely to require substantial
additions to NOAA staffing, perhaps by transferring large numbers of
NASA employees to NOAA. Conversely, significantly reducing the number
of research instruments that can be flown would significantly reduce
the scope of U.S. efforts to document and understand the planet upon
which we live and depend.
The primary disadvantage of flying NASA research instruments on
NOAA operational platforms is the difficulty of merging the differing
management requirements for operational and research systems. The
primary purpose of NOAA systems is protection of life and property,
which translates into a set of overarching management requirements.
Science will be a junior partner in such systems, and operational
requirements are almost certain to override science requirements if
there is a conflict between them. This is appropriate, but also
represents a potential cost to our nation's science efforts. For
example, a key instrument failure requires rapid launch of a
replacement NOAA satellite, even if the other instruments are still
working. The old satellite is then turned off. Adapting research
instrumentation to such a system either requires (a) the purchase of
multiple instrument copies so that the ``hot spares'' can include
replacement research instruments or (b) additional research funding to
support continued satellite operations if operational instruments fail.
In summary, it is possible that flight of NASA instruments on NOAA
satellites could provide benefits to both the science and operational
communities, and to our nation as a whole, but only if adequate budgets
are provided over the long-term and strong and effective interagency
management mechanisms are put in place. Maintaining an appropriate
balance of scientific and operational requirements and priorities would
be very challenging in such an arrangement, but is critical to
achieving success. This kind of program integration is not likely to
result in significant overall savings or efficiencies unless single
instruments can be made to serve operational and research purposes.
Reduction in the budgets devoted to Earth science satellite missions
and/or the numbers of Earth science instruments that are developed and
operated will slow the rate at which we improve our understanding of
the Earth system and how changes in the Earth system affect its
capacity to sustain life.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that
the Nation might gain from continued investments in Earth science
research? What will be the negative impacts on society if NASA's
commitment to Earth science research and applications is diminished in
the coming years?
A1. As I stated when I testified before the Committee, I believe that
rapid advances in NASA Earth observing capabilities, coupled with
revolutionary advances in information technology, have positioned us
for an extraordinary new era in Earth science research--one in which we
can quantitatively understand and predict the Earth as a system, with
the temporal and spatial fidelity needed by decision-makers at many
levels of our society: local, regional, and global. This will lead
directly to major societal benefits including:
improved national security
better weather forecasts and warnings
more targeted climate outlooks
better management of natural resources including
water, agriculture, and energy
more effective mitigation of natural disasters such
as drought, floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions.
The investments made in Earth science programs at NASA, the
National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey,
and other agencies are all important for enabling this progress. But
NASA plays a unique role in our overall national efforts as the only
provider of research-quality (i.e., well documented and very accurate)
global scale measurements from space. Reducing our investment in NASA
Earth sciences program will slow the rate at which we improve our
understanding of the Earth system and how changes in that system affect
its capacity to sustain life. Reduced investment will also slow the
rate at which we develop new practical applications of scientific
knowledge will provide the benefits listed above, even as other nations
are increasing their investments and expertise in this area.
Questions submitted by Representative Al Green
Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services
Committee and have had the opportunity to take a close look at the
Administration's changes to housing programs. The Administration wants
to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD
programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move
them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some
cases and making minimal cuts in others. I also notice that in the same
fashion at the Administration's request, NASA has decided to combine
the Earth science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun Science
program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission
Directorate.
Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth science program will
sustain the most drastic cuts?
A1a. This question is most appropriately addressed by NASA managers. I
do not have access to their internal decision processes about exactly
how they will allocate budget reductions that are proposed by the
Administration and approved by Congress. As an Earth scientist, I am
particularly concerned about a set of actions identified in the recent
report from the National Research Council, including:
Cancellation of the Ocean Vector Winds mission
Cancellation of the Landsat Data Continuity mission
Cancellation of the Glory mission
Cancellation of the Wide Swath Ocean Altimeter
Cancellation of the Geostationary Imaging Fourier
Transform Spectrometer
Delay of the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission
In a more general sense, I am quite worried about the possibility
that additional budget reductions will fall disproportionately on the
Research and Analysis component of the NASA program, which supports the
involvement of the academic community in NASA programs and enables the
creation of knowledge and useful information from space-based
measurements.
Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA's Earth Science program
is a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
A1b. I believe that it is up to NASA and those in the Congress and
Executive branch who are responsible for oversight of NASA to agree on
the most appropriate organizational structure for the Agency and its
programs. However, I am concerned that the combination of NASA's Earth
and Space science programs into a single organization and the reduction
of funding for both Earth and Space science is part of an overall
process of reducing NASA science funding and applying it to other
agency priorities. I believe this is a serious mistake. In my view, our
nation is better served by a balanced NASA program that provides strong
support to both science and human space flight and exploration funding,
and I would thus respectfully suggest continued maintenance of the
traditional ``firewall'' between science and human space flight
funding.
Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program?
A1c. As I stated when I testified before the Committee, I believe that
NASA should work with the scientific and technical community and its
partner agencies in the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to define
a NASA Earth science plan that is fully compatible with the overall
CCSP science strategy. In my view, the interaction with the scientific
and technical community should include both input from and review by
the National Research Council and direct interaction with the community
of investigators who are supported by NASA, and the aerospace industry
who are very familiar with NASA capabilities and developing
technological opportunities. I believe NASA should also find a means of
involving users and potential users of NASA-generated data in this
process, perhaps through public comment periods or a series of
workshops. This science plan should then guide the process of setting
mission priorities.
Defining criteria to use in comparing and deciding upon potential
mission would be an important part of this planning exercise. I would
recommend consideration of a set of criteria that include:
Compatibility with science priorities in the plan
Potential scientific return from mission
Technological risk
Direct and indirect societal benefits
Cost.
I believe that the decadal planning activity underway at the NRC in
response to a request from NASA and NOAA is a valuable step in this
process.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Sean C. Solomon, Director, Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do.
Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its
significance and how it differs from what is done by National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)?
A1. There are two fundamental differences between NOAA and NASA. First,
NOAA is primarily an operational or monitoring agency, whereas NASA's
strength is the ability to develop innovative technologies that enable
new types of measurements and new discoveries about how the Earth
functions as a planet. Second, NOAA's charter is focused on the oceans
and atmosphere, whereas NASA takes a planetary perspective, one that
integrates the land surface and interior with the oceans and atmosphere
as well as the Earth's space environment. Both NASA and NOAA play
important roles for Earth science and for this nation, but those roles
are distinct. This nation is stronger because of the complementarity
and cooperation between the two agencies.
Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA
instruments on NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding
was provided?
A2. Certainly there are often economies to be gained in situations
where NASA can place an instrument on a space platform operated by
another federal agency or international partner. Such situations can
save the cost of a dedicated satellite and can provide greater access
to space flight. The principal disadvantages, in contrast, are that the
choice of orbital characteristics, mission operations, or data
management for one mission may not be optimum for another experiment,
leading to compromises in experiment goals and lessened scientific
impact. Each such opportunity needs to be evaluated in light of the
full trade-off among benefits and costs.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that
the Nation might gain from continued investments in Earth science
research? What will be the negative impacts on society if NASA's
commitment to Earth science research and applications is diminished in
the coming years?
A1. We still have much to learn about how our planet functions.
Continued investment in Earth science can deepen our understanding of
how our atmosphere protects and sustains us, how Earth's climate and
weather are evolving, what controls the availability of fresh water,
how life influences and responds to environmental processes, and what
controls changes to the Earth's surface and interior. A diminished
investment by this nation in new technologies for studying our planet
will impact deleteriously our ability to mitigate natural disasters;
make the best use of our land, ocean, and fresh-water resources; and
better the lives of all of Earth's citizens.
Questions submitted by Representative Al Green
Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services
Committee and have had the opportunity to take a close look at the
Administration's changes to housing programs. The Administration wants
to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD
programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move
them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some
cases and making minimal cuts in others. I also notice that in the same
fashion at the Administration's request, NASA has decided to combine
Earth science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun Science
program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission
Directorate.
What stand-alone projects within the Earth science
program will sustain the most drastic cuts?
Do you believe the reorganization of NASA's Earth
Science program is a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
Would you have any recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program?
A1. The specific form of organization at NASA is less important than
the vision brought to the strategic planning process used to develop
mission concepts and prioritize new programs. During the late 1980s and
early 1990s the Earth and space sciences were combined into one office
at NASA, and all elements of the Agency's sciences programs fared
equitably.
There are ongoing efforts at strategic planning that should improve
the effectiveness of NASA's program in Earth science and applications.
The first decadal survey for Earth science and applications from space,
now underway under the aegis of the National Academy of Sciences, is an
important indicator that the Earth science community has embraced the
need to integrate its planning and prioritization processes. NASA's
scientific roadmapping efforts that were completed earlier this year
and are now under review by the National Research Council constitute a
parallel, complementary strategic planning activity that has produced
focused recommendations for the most important next steps for the
Agency's Earth Science program.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what NOAA
does not do. Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does
support, its significance and how it differs from what is done by NASA?
A1. The closest analogy I can make in trying to distinguish the
different roles visa-a-vis NOAA and NASA with regard to Earth science
is to say that NOAA is the ultimate consumer of scientific information,
whereas NASA is a creator of scientific information. As a consumer,
NOAA would thrive if it could satisfy its appetite for Earth science
information using systems developed, deployed, and operated by other
agencies. For many years, NOAA got its space-based Earth science
information using NASA satellites, sensors, and data systems. However,
NOAA couldn't guarantee that the diet for Earth science data that it
had become accustomed to and that it required to meet its mission-
specific obligations would always be provided by NASA, given NASA's
basic research objectives. Therefore, it made sense for NOAA to
replicate satellite missions that NASA had already developed, tested,
and proven once the NASA prototypes were no longer serviceable. In
fact, this approach was good for both agencies, because it freed up
NASA resources in the Earth sciences to work on better, more precise
instrumentation and new sensors that could measure important quantities
that had never been acquired from space before.
If all that was at stake here was continuing a time series using
existing instruments on standard platforms (e.g., the TOMS--Total Ozone
Mapping Spectrometer--missions that measure the evolution of the ozone
hole), I would be comfortable with the idea that NOAA could pick up
that part of the program. However, that is not what is being proposed.
Missions in NASA's Earth Science program that are prototypes of new
measurements from space are being canceled or indefinitely postponed.
NOAA does not have the history or the technology base or the mission to
take on these new developments. Furthermore, NASA is developing new
sensor systems for Earth science applications that don't necessarily
fit with NOAA's oceanic and atmospheric mission (e.g., synthetic
aperture radar--SAR--for earthquake and volcano hazard assessment) and
that therefore would never be taken up by NOAA. The SAR probably does
fit in with the mission of the USGS, but space-based SAR is never going
to be developed and brought to operational status by USGS, at least not
in any affordable way.
The bottom line is the following. If NOAA were to take on all of
NASA's Earth science research program, it would only be successful if
it spun up a technology development group in order to create the new
sensors and platforms necessary for the next generation of important
problems. But this would be a needless and expensive duplication of
what NASA is doing already. NASA's mission is to explore the universe.
Technology development is essential to achieve that objective. The
technology developments needed for exploration and research and
(eventually) operations are basically indistinguishable because they
are all part of the same continuum. It has made economic sense for many
years for NASA to be the technology innovator in Earth sciences, and
leave it to the other agencies to adopt and continue the most
successful of those programs, as measured by the importance of the
acquired data to their missions.
Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA
instruments on NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding
was provided?
A2. I believe that it would be possible to fly a NASA instrument on a
NOAA platform IF the platform could support the instrument, IF the
orbit were conducive to the measurement being made, and IF NASA were
still fundamentally in charge of the development of the instrument and
the shepherding of the data stream while the instrument is still in the
developmental stages. After all, NASA has done exactly this with other
international space agencies, so it should be possible to do this with
NASA. But these are a lot of ``if's, and as I understand it, this is
not what is on the table. NASA has reprogrammed money out of Earth
science, so there is no funding to transfer to NOAA to cover the costs,
and more than just the launches and the platforms have been cut from
the program. The better way to do just this is to leave the funding in
a NASA Earth Science program, and create an interagency transfer
mechanism to permit NASA Earth Sciences to purchase the launch and the
space on a NOAA platform when that indeed is the most cost effective
way to accomplish the mission.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that
the Nation might gain from continued investments in Earth science
research? What will be the negative impacts on society if NASA's
commitment to Earth science research and applications is diminished in
the coming years?
A1. Some benefits we can already anticipate because they are already
coming over our horizon. For example, I firmly believe that a continued
investment in NASA's Earth Science research and application program is
critical to the Nation's economy, with the sectors most likely to
benefit including energy, agriculture, and transportation. And these
are certainly not ``fringe'' elements of the U.S. economy! What these
sectors all have in common is the necessity to make predictions to
optimize the scheduling and deployment of resources in order to provide
services to society in a cost effective manner. Why plant a crop poorly
suited to the projected rain fall in the coming season if another crop
will thrive under those same conditions? A largely failed crop is a
needless waste of the grower's resources and leads to high prices at
the grocery stores for the consumers.
Doubtlessly the most important benefits are the ones that we hardly
dare predict yet. But let me be so bold as to suggest an example. The
GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) mission was launched in
March, 2002, as part of the Earth System Science Pathfinder program.
The GRACE mission detects changes in Earth's gravity field by
monitoring the changes in distance between two satellites as they orbit
Earth. GRACE's measurements are so precise that the satellite has been
able to detect seasonal and longer period changes in groundwater
storage beneath the land surface. As a resident of the Salinas Valley,
I can attest to the importance of groundwater as a storage mechanism
for temporally redistributing fresh water from the season when rain
falls--the California winter--to the other seasons when it is needed to
grow crops, fight fires, etc. Monitoring changes in water storage in
the planet's great aquifers from space makes a lot of sense because the
measurement is not limited to locations where there are wells and is
insensitive to the complication that where rain falls may be different
from where the water is stored. The gravity signal averages out local
variations and provides a consistent standard from region to region and
continent to continent. Fresh water is one of society's most valuable
and threatened resources. I anticipate that missions such as GRACE will
be important in helping us properly manage our fresh water supply.
Questions submitted by Representative Al Green
Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services
Committee and have had the opportunity to take a close look at the
Administration's changes to housing programs. The Administration wants
to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD
programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move
them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some
cases and making minimal cuts in others. I also notice that in the same
fashion at the Administration's request, NASA has decided to combine
the Earth Science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun Science
program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission
Directorate.
Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program will
sustain the most drastic cuts?
A1a. I will defer to Mr. Diaz to answer this question, as I understand
that NASA has not necessarily finalized its plan for which programs
will sustain the most drastic cuts and that there are some semantic
issues on whether at this point some missions are cut or simply
``postponed.'' However, I will add that in my experience, drawing a
project out over a longer time scale adds more to the cost to get the
same result. It is not an effective use of resources.
Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA's Earth Science program
is a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
A1b. I think it is a bad idea. I believe that the re-organization has a
high likelihood of marginalizing Earth sciences at the Agency. External
scrutiny of the distribution of resources between Earth and spaces
sciences will be greatly reduced, allowing space science to raid
whatever budget is left in Earth science. Like it or not, Earth is the
only planet we will have to sustain us for a very long time. NASA's
research is so key to our future on this planet that to downgrade its
status in the Agency is exactly the opposite of what should be done.
Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program?
A1c. I am a fan of Goldin's philosophy. I think we should be doing more
of the type of research that was encouraged through the Earth System
Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program. I prefer that to the large space
platforms that try to house every conceivable instrument, and result in
undesirable trade-offs in terms of orbit, altitude, etc., and take
forever to get launched.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ray A. Williamson, Research Professor, Space Policy
Institute, George Washington University
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. During the hearing much of the discussion concerned what the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do.
Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its
significance and how it differs from what is done by National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)?
A1. NOAA tends to support applied science, that science that directly
supports the needs of the American public, such as weather forecasting,
how the U.S. coastline is changing under the effects of global warming,
and how periodic medium- and long-term changes in ocean temperature may
affect fish and marine populations upon which the U.S. populations
depend for sustenance.
NASA, on the other hand conducts research into more basic Earth
science questions, such as how space technologies can support basic
science research into the underlying Earth systems and how they
interact with each other. What are the fundamental mechanisms of
weather and climate and how can this knowledge be used to build more
accurate weather and climate bio-physical-chemical models of Earth's
weather and climate behavior?
Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA
instruments on NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding
was provided?
A2. The answer to this question depends heavily on the precise function
of the instrument in question, and the specific orbital parameters of
the NOAA spacecraft compared to that of the NASA sensor under
consideration. Each orbit has its own particular characteristics. In
some cases, an appropriate fit may be found between NASA sensor and
NOAA spacecraft. In other cases, the missions of both sensor and
spacecraft would have to be compromised substantially in order to put
them together. In the case of the Landsat sensor and the Congressional
mandate to maintain the continuity of data delivery from the
instrument, placing a Landsat-equivalent sensor on the NPOESS
satellites means that the Landsat sensor would fly in a different
orbit, causing several differences in the characteristics of the data
acquired. Extensive experimentation with the resulting data by several
different categories of users would be required in order to determine
whether or not the differences are sufficient to require major changes
in the operational characteristics of the users' data analysis systems.
In the long run, such changes in operations might cost more to the
users than is saved through placing the instrument on the NPOESS
satellites.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that
the Nation might gain from continued investments in Earth science
research? What will be the negative impacts on society if NASA's
commitment to Earth science research and applications is diminished in
the coming years?
A1. Continued investments in Earth science research can, if adequately
funded, result in numerous benefits for the Nation, a selection of
which are listed below. Conversely, reduced funding can lead to loss of
these potential benefits, not only directly from the loss of NASA's
involvement in promoting new applications of its research, but also in
the loss over the long-term of the scientific knowledge such research
provides.
A Partial Selection of Potential Benefits:
Much improved weather, climate predictability (e.g.,
10 days advance forecast in place of the current seven days)
Improved safety of coastal populations and property
at risk from tropical storms through reduced loss of life and
property damage
Improved understanding of the generation, movement,
and possible mitigation of greenhouse gases and pollution-
causing chemicals
Contributions to airline safety from space weather
forecasts
Reduced loss of life from improved predictability of
earthquakes and volcano activity
Improved management of natural resources by federal
agencies and crop management by agricultural firms
Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall
Q1. The White House has proposed putting the Landsat imager on the
first NPOESS satellite, currently being developed by NOAA and DOD.
Q1a. What are the technical and programmatic risks of putting the new
Landsat imaging sensor on the first NPOESS platform? How serious are
those risks?
A1a. The current Landsat system is one of the most capable and
versatile land observation systems available anywhere. When operating
at full capacity, Landsat 7 was capable of producing maps of the entire
United States each season, data that are very useful for tracking
seasonal changes. Data are used for a wide variety of purposes, from
land planning, environmental management, agricultural management, and
for large-scale studies of environmental change. They are often the
first data sets that users turn to in order to have a general overview
of the landscape under study and often serve as a foundation for more
detailed analysis with higher resolution data with much less extensive
coverage. For the sensor to be placed on the NPOESS satellites, several
technical issues would need to be resolved, the details of which depend
strongly on the needs of data users, such as orbital height, swath-
width of the sensor, the number and placement of spectral channels, and
the frequency of coverage. Current users of Landsat data have built
their processing and analytic systems around the characteristics of
current Landsat data. Hence, any changes in the characteristics of the
data sets have far reaching consequences to the many users of Landsat
data.
Q1b. Is the Landsat user community involved in determining the
requirements to be met if the Landsat sensor is added to NPOESS?
A1b. It is my understanding that the Landsat data user community is
generally opposed to placing the Landsat sensor on NPOESS because most
users do not feel that it will continue to serve their needs. However,
if the Administration decides to move ahead with that transition
anyway, the needs of the user community would certainly need to be
taken into account in order to encourage those users to continue making
use of the data.
Questions submitted by Representative Al Green
Q1. At the Administration's request, NASA has decided to combine the
Earth science and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun science
program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission
Directorate.
Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program will
sustain the most drastic cuts?
A1a. This is not a subject with which I have sufficient knowledge to
provide an adequate answer.
Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA's Earth Science program
is a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
A1b. In some respects, this is a good idea because it recognizes in the
organization the extremely close connection between solar events and
their effects on Earth systems. For example, the study of solar-
generated space weather, which has been a subject of increasing
scientific interest and applied concern because of the sometimes severe
effects of space weather on technological systems, such as airline
flights and the electricity grid, could be affected positively.
Further, the sun, through space weather effects also affects
terrestrial weather. However, organizing NASA in this way means that
the program managers must give careful attention to coordination of the
different aspects of the program to assure that they are able to
achieve their overall objectives for the program.
Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program?
A1c. In my testimony, I noted the importance of following up NASA's
Earth Science programs to document the scale and scope of the many
benefits we derive from the funds NASA spends on Earth science. In my
view, the effectiveness of NASA's Earth Science program would be vastly
improved through a sustained effort to document and measure the
benefits of Earth science research, both the science results and the
applications developed in partnership with other U.S. agencies. As
noted in my testimony to this Committee, studies at the Space Policy
Institute ``show that the supportable, qualitative benefits of Earth
science research are quite high to nearly all sectors of industry and
to the public sector. Since NASA is at the cutting edge of Earth
science research in this country, it should focus more attention on
this important subject in order to assist in guiding its future
research agenda. This is not to say that expected practical benefits
alone should determine NASA's future research agenda, since such an
approach might stifle creative, breakthrough research efforts, but such
benefits should play a role in the decision process when difficult
decisions are being made among projects.''
The Committee could assist NASA by ``authoriz[ing] NASA to direct
greater attention to the quantification of the benefits of Earth
science research and applications to America's industry and public
sector, and the policy implications of those benefits.''
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record