The Astrophysics Working Group met at NASA Headquarters on 17-18 April 2000. Present for all or part of the meeting were: continuing members Armstrong, Green, Harnden, Harrison, Miller, Peterson, Stachnik, Stebbins, Szymkowiak, Westphal, Wooden, and Yorke, and new members Bakes, Cheng, Edelstein, Eisenhardt, Herter, Jones, Lawler, Melnick, Quirrenbach, Wefel, and Wyse. This report is intended to provide a summary of the highlights of the meeting and action items that arose from it.
Two major changes have occurred in the structure of the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters. First, the theme directors (including Al Bunner, theme director for SEU, and Anne Kinney, theme director for ASO) will have budget responsibility in their respective areas. Second, Codes SM and SD have been merged into a single management structure under Ken Ledbetter in order to provide continuity in project management of missions from early development stages through launch and verification.
Astro-E: The Japanese have expressed an interest in flying a copy of Astro-E, which was lost on account of a booster failure. The Japanese share would be about $125M, and the US share would be about $30M. This would have to be approved as a "mission of opportunity" in response to an Explorer AO.
CGRO: This satellite has sufficiently massive components that they will reach the ground intact when the satellite re-enters. The satellite is currently one gyro failure away from loss of control, and for safety reasons, it has been decided to de-orbit CGRO on 3 June in order to make sure that the pieces that survive re-entry splash down in the equatorial Pacific.
GP-B: Currently scheduled for launch in 2002, the project has had several recent setbacks, the most serious involving thermal contact between the probe and coolant. The projected cost of getting the mission back on track is somewhere in the range $50-80M. The project is under close management scrutiny at this time.
An important issue that has been receiving attention in the space science community is the impact of stricter technology export laws on space missions that are covered by "International Trade in Arms Regulations" (ITAR). Background can be found in the 24 March 2000 issue of Science magazine (Volume 297, pp. 2138-2139). These regulations place restrictions on export of information about space technology, including non-defense or dual-use items, that are making foreign collaborations difficult: these issues concern not only space hardware, but personnel as well: participation of foreign scientists, even foreign graduate students at US institutions, may now be a significant obstacle.
AWG members felt that a statement from the AWG citing particular problems that have been experienced by NASA missions would be useful. We have therefore written to the current NASA astrophysics missions, particularly those in the development stages, to ask for a brief assessment of the ITAR restrictions on each individual mission. We used the information we received to prepare a letter to the State Department in an effort to raise the visibility of this problem.
Guenter Riegler has been working on a major reorganization of the Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T) program, as was discussed in the summary of the 1999 September AWG meeting. The basic concept is to reduce the number of independent AOs and NRAs from around 40-50 to a more manageable number that will also improve flexibility in moving funds among programs. The various SR&T programs are to be separated into approximately 9 clusters. Funds can be moved between programs within a cluster by Discipline Scientists, and each cluster will be managed by at least one civil servant and one IPA. Initially, the budget for each cluster will be determined by the sum of the current budgets for all the programs within the cluster. Approximately once every three years, it will be possible to move funds from one cluster to another on the basis of recommendations to be provided by a Senior Review. It is anticipated that the first Senior Review of the SR&T program will occur in summer 2001.
One of the budget-process surprises last year was the large cut to the SR&T program in the House Appropriations budget. Although most of the funding was restored in the Senate budget, it subsequently became clear that that the SR&T budget is poorly understood by the Congressional members and staff. In an attempt to remedy this situation, an explanatory brochure is being prepared. The intended audience for this full-color brochure, which will be similar to the public roadmap documents being prepared for the science themes, will be members of Congress and their staffs, as well as the general public. Several AWG members are involved in this effort.
The AWG is asked annually to comment on the Research in Space Science NRA. One issue that came up this year was the inconsistency between the Low Cost Access to Space wording in Solar Physics (section A.2.2.B) and the Space Astrophysics Research and Analysis program (section A.7). The difference is that the wording in the latter specifically mentions only "sounding rockets, stratospheric balloons, or long duration suborbital platforms" as possible carriers in the suborbital program: the Solar Physics section, on the other hand, allows a wider variety of possible carriers.
AWG members believe that opportunities that reward entrepreneurial approaches (such as finding flight opportunities as a secondary payload) should not be discouraged. However, members are also reluctant to in any way divert opportunities from the suborbital program, as both sounding rockets and balloons are regarded as essential elements of the NASA space science program that need to be protected.
An example of a problem that has arisen in this program in the past is that when small Space Shuttle opportunities were offered in anticipation of opportunities that in fact never arose. To avoid this problem, we suggest that any request for launch of small payloads on alternative must identify a credible (as interpreted by the discipline scientists) flight opportunity at the time of proposal submission.
Two issues arose from the floor and were discussed briefly: