<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:36145.wais]
NASA'S EARTH SCIENCE AND
APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEAR
2008 BUDGET REQUEST AND ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-145 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania TOM FEENEY, Florida
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
DAVID WU, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MIKE ROSS, Arizona JO BONNER, Alabama
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky VACANCY
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
June 28, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Tom Feeney, Minority Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Witnesses:
Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division,
Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Biography.................................................... 28
Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research; Co-Chair, Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space, National Research Council, The
National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 40
Dr. Eric J. Barron, Dean, Jackson School of Geosciences; Jackson
Chair in Earth System Science, University of Texas, Austin
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 42
Biography.................................................... 46
Dr. Timothy W. Foresman, President, International Center for
Remote Sensing Education
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 51
Biography.................................................... 60
Discussion
Balance in the Earth Science and Applications Program.......... 61
Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Climate Sensors Removed
From NPOESS.................................................. 61
Maintaining Climate Instrument Teams........................... 62
NASA's Plans With Respect to Resources......................... 62
Continuity of Climate Observations, Data Gaps, and Sensor
Calibration.................................................. 63
Transitioning Research Satellites and Measurements into
Operational Systems.......................................... 65
Follow-on to NASA's QuikSCAT Satellite......................... 66
Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS)--Maintaining the Team and
Potential Inclusion on Landsat Data Continuity Mission....... 67
Climate Measurements and `Decadal Survey' Missions............. 68
International Cooperation, Including Challenges of ITAR........ 69
Plans for Future Observations Systems to Address Societal Needs 71
NASA's Future Earth Observation Missions and Integrating
Decadal Survey Recommendations, NPOESS Changes, and
International Cooperation.................................... 74
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division,
Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).......................................... 78
Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research; Co-Chair, Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space, National Research Council, The
National Academies............................................. 94
Dr. Eric J. Barron, Dean, Jackson School of Geosciences; Jackson
Chair in Earth System Science, University of Texas, Austin..... 99
Dr. Timothy W. Foresman, President, International Center for
Remote Sensing Education....................................... 102
NASA'S EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET
REQUEST AND ISSUES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NASA's Earth Science and
Applications Programs: Fiscal Year
2008 Budget Request and Issues
thursday, june 28, 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 10:00 am, the House Committee on
Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will
hold a hearing to examine the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 budget request and plans for
the Earth science and applications programs, and issues related to the
programs.
Witnesses:
Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include the
following:
Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division, Science
Mission Directorate, NASA
Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President, Universities Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
Dr. Eric J. Barron, Dean, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of
Texas, Austin
Dr. Timothy W. Foresman, President, International Center for Remote
Sensing Education
Potential Issues
The following are some of the potential issues that might be raised
at the hearing:
What is the future direction of NASA's Earth Science program?
<bullet> The authors of the recently released National
Academies' report, Earth Science and Applications from Space:
National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (the
``decadal survey'') found that ``The NASA/NOAA Earth
Observation Satellite system, launched at the turn of the
millennium, is aging and the existing plan for the future is
entirely inadequate to meet the coming challenges.''
(Attachment 1) Over the last two years, for example, several
missions or instruments that were planned to study the climate,
weather, precipitation, and land cover changes have been
descoped, delayed, on the brink of cancellation, or canceled.
Examples of these decisions are listed below and in Attachment
2.
Deep Space Climate Observatory (decision not to
launch)
Hydros mission to measure soil moisture (canceled)
Global Precipitation Mission (delayed)
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) (descoped and delayed)
Glory (delayed)
Landsat Data Continuity Mission (changing
acquisition approaches, possible data gaps)
The authoring committee recommended a set of observing
systems and supporting research and technology elements needed
to meet the high priority Earth science and socioeconomic
challenges that face our planet over the next decade. The
committee estimated that returning to the FY 2000 budget level
for NASA's Earth science and applications program--
approximately $2 billion per year--would be sufficient for
building the recommended program. (Attachment 3) The
President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Earth science and
applications program and the projections through FY 2012,
however, do not include resources for initiating the future
missions or research activities recommended in the decadal
survey. What is NASA's plan for implementing the Earth sciences
decadal survey and what is the timeline? What future direction
will NASA's Earth science and applications program take given
the available resources? Which of the decadal survey priorities
will be addressed and what observations will be made?
How Important Are Observations from NASA's Earth Science Missions to
the Nation's and the World's Overall Climate Research Efforts?
<bullet> The recent release of the Fourth Assessment Report of
the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group
I found that the climate is warming and the catalysts for that
warming are due, in part, to human contributions of greenhouse
gases to the Earth's atmosphere. To what extent did data from
NASA Earth observing satellites contribute to the IPCC
assessment and which missions recommended in the Earth science
decadal survey can help reduce uncertainties mentioned in the
report? At the national level, an ``Overview of U.S. Research
in Climate and Global Change,'' noted that ``The USGCRP [U.S.
Global Change Research Program] and Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) will place major emphasis on requirements-
driven specification of comprehensive observing systems. . ..''
The attributes of those systems would include:
``Development of new observing capabilities to
illuminate Earth system processes and increase spatial,
temporal, or spectral resolution where needed to reduce
key uncertainties in climate change and address
emerging Earth science questions. . ..
Special emphasis on the complex observations and
monitoring systems needed to analyze terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystem variability.''
Are NASA's plans for Earth Science and Applications
consistent with the goals set out in the U.S. Global Change
Research Program and Climate Change Research Initiative? How
important are NASA's Earth observation satellites to the
Nation's and the world's climate research efforts? What
percentage of the world's space-based climate monitoring is
performed by NASA's Earth observing sensors? What percentage of
the Nation's and the world expenditures on climate research
does NASA's contribution represent? What is the potential
impact on plans and policies for adapting to climate change if
new observing systems are not developed?
<bullet> Leadership in Future Earth Sciences and Applications
Activities
According to the decadal survey, ``Sustained multi-decadal,
global measurements and data management of quantities that are
key to understanding the state of the climate and the changes
taking place are crucial.'' Sustaining multi-decadal
measurements requires commitment and leadership, as noted by
the survey's call for the U.S. Government to restore leadership
in Earth sciences and applications. In a recent interview on
National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition program, the NASA
Administrator said, ``I have no doubt that. . .a trend of
global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say
that it is a problem we must wrestle with.'' NASA's own
scientists use NASA Earth observation data to research Earth's
climate. Dr. Griffin has since apologized for his remarks on
NPR to employees at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, yet his
statements are leading some people to question NASA's
commitment to leadership in climate monitoring and Earth
science. How committed are the agency and the nation to
ensuring U.S. leadership in Earth sciences and applications? To
what degree will leaders commit to multi-decadal, global
measurements of the Earth system?
How Well Balanced is the NASA Earth Sciences Program?
<bullet> The National Academies' decadal survey emphasized
that NASA's Earth science and applications program must be
balanced across scientific disciplines within Earth system
science; across mission sizes (small, medium, and large);
technology maturity; and between observations and analysis,
modeling, and applications. Does NASA agree with this
definition of balance? How well is NASA's current Earth science
and applications program balanced according to these elements?
What performance measures might be used to assess balance
within and among NASA's Earth science program elements?
Importance of the Grants Program (Research and
Analysis) The decadal survey raises concern about
reductions in the research and analysis accounts
(grants for interpreting data, developing new concepts
for algorithms, models, technology, and missions, and
for training graduate students) and emphasizes the need
for a strong R&A program to support the ongoing and
planned missions. According to a 2006 National
Academies report, An Assessment of Balance in NASA's
Science Programs, ``The most serious impacts on the
long-term strategy and capacity-building efforts in
Earth science will result from the severe cuts in the
R&A program. Although the proposed R&A cuts across NASA
are approximately 15 percent, the cuts for FY 2007
appear to be closer to 20 percent in key elements of
the Earth sciences.'' In a constrained resource
environment, are there elements of a balanced program,
such as R&A, that should be protected beyond others? If
so, what are they? What is the appropriate mechanism
for assessing balance and making adjustments as needed?
What threshold of R&A resources is required to ensure a
healthy program? Are there measures to assess the
effectiveness of investments in R&A?
What is NASA Doing to Better Utilize Earth Science Research Data to
Address Societal Needs?
<bullet> The National Academies Earth science decadal survey
stresses the importance of ``advances in fundamental
understanding of the Earth system and increased application of
this understanding to serve the nation and the people of the
world.'' NASA's Earth science applications program supports
competitively selected proposals to apply NASA Earth science
research results, technologies, and data to high priority
societal needs. Those priorities include agricultural
efficiency, coastal management, energy management, air quality,
and public health among other application areas. The
applications program focuses on developing federal decision
support tools. Is NASA's application program structured to
address the decadal survey's recommendations on applications
for societal benefit? What, if any, changes to NASA's
applications program are needed to make NASA's Earth science
information more responsive to societal needs?
NASA Authorization Act and Earth Science
Applications. Section 313 of the NASA Authorization Act
of 2005 directs NASA to ``establish a program of grants
for competitively awarded pilot projects to explore the
integrated use of sources of remote sensing and other
geospatial information to address State, local,
regional, and tribal agency needs.'' NASA's response to
Section 313, so far, has been to note in its grant
solicitations that the applications program supports
organizations with connections to State, local,
regional, and tribal constituencies. Does this step
represent any change to grant solicitations prior to
the Authorization Act? Is NASA's response sufficient to
address the Section 313 directive? How many grants does
NASA issue that directly address State, local, regional
and tribal needs? To what extent do national decision
support systems serve as pilot projects to address
State, local, regional, and tribal agency needs?''
Commercial Initiatives in Using Earth Observation
Data. Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth are
making Earth observation data available over the
Internet at no cost to users. What impacts are these
initiatives having on the use of NASA--provided Earth
observations data for applications? What is NASA's
relationship to these commercial enterprises?
What is the Fate of the Climate Instruments That Were Removed From
NPOESS?
<bullet> When the NPOESS program was certified under Nunn-
McCurdy, a number of climate sensors were removed from the
system and the coverage and/or capability of some sensors was
reduced. Following the Nunn-McCurdy certification, OSTP
requested that NASA and NOAA assess the impacts of the
demanifested climate sensors on NASA's and NOAA's climate
objectives. OSTP also asked the agencies to propose options for
mitigating the impacts. At a recent meeting at the National
Academies Panel on Options to Ensure the Climate Record from
the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft, NASA and NOAA described
several possible mitigation strategies including returning some
of the lost climate sensors to NPOESS satellites; placing
climate sensors on other (non-NPOESS) planned Earth science
platforms; developing free-flyer platforms to fly the sensors;
or partnering with other U.S. agencies to fly sensors or obtain
the data. NASA and NOAA have asked the National Academies to
provide further input on options to mitigate the impact of the
lost sensors. NASA and NOAA are developing a set of near-term
actions and cost estimates to inform OMB and OSTP for the FY
2009 budget process. What are the implications of potential
data gaps on U.S. climate research and monitoring? What
contribution can the missions recommended in the Earth science
decadal survey make to minimizing potential data gaps? To what
extent will the reduced capability/coverage of the sensors
being retained in the NPOESS program compromise the
measurements needed for climate research and monitoring? How
well do the possible mitigation strategies address the required
accuracy for climate research measurements? When will funding
decisions be needed to accommodate development of satellites
and sensors on a schedule that avoids potential data gaps?
What Is NASA's Plan for Transitioning Research Data and Instruments
into Operational Services?
<bullet> NASA research satellites often provide vital data for
ongoing, operational services such as weather prediction and
disaster warnings. For example, data from the NASA QuikSCAT
satellite, which measures ocean wind speed and direction, is
being used at NOAA's National Hurricane Center to help
determine a hurricane's path. In a May 8, 2007 letter to NASA
Administrator Michael Griffin and NOAA Under Secretary Vice
Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., Representative Nick Lampson
voiced concerns about the lack of planning for a successor to
QuikSCAT, which has started its ninth year of operation and is
six years beyond its designed lifetime. Without QuikSCAT data,
hurricane predictions and evacuation plans would be less
accurate. The QuikSCAT example points to the larger challenge,
as noted by Rep. Lampson, for NASA and NOAA to ``systematically
evaluate the technology and capabilities from NASA's Earth-
observing missions for application to NOAA's operational
responsibilities.'' What are NASA's and NOAA's plans for a
follow-on to QuikSCAT and what is the status of those plans?
Congressional Legislation Section 306 of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 directed NASA and NOAA to
establish a joint working group and report on
coordination between the agencies on Earth science
missions and their potential for transition into
operational service. In addition, the Earth science
decadal survey states that ``The committee is
particularly concerned with the lack of clear agency
responsibility for sustained research programs and the
transitioning of proof-of-concept measurements into
sustained measurement systems.'' To date, NASA and NOAA
have not established a plan for transitioning research
into operations, and Congress continues to await NASA
and NOAA's response to the Authorization Act's
directive. What is NASA's and NOAA's plan for
transitioning from research to operations? As NASA
considers moving forward with missions recommended in
the decadal survey, how and when will decisions on
research to operations be made?
What role should international partners play in NASA's future Earth
science system?
<bullet> NASA has a long history of using international and
bilateral cooperation on Earth science missions. NASA's Upper
Atmosphere Research Satellite launched in 1991 included
instruments from the United Kingdom and from a French-Canadian
team. U.S.-French collaboration on the Topex/Poseidon and
follow-on Jason satellites to measure sea surface height and
the U.S.-Japanese collaboration on the Tropical Rainfall
Measuring Mission (TRMM) and the Global Precipitation Mission
(GPM) that is currently in development are examples of
bilateral cooperation. The decadal survey discusses
international cooperation as a means for realizing the missions
recommended in the report. In a hearing of the House
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held on May 2, Dr. Alan
Stern, Associate Administrator for NASA's Science Mission
Directorate, testified that he plans to ``make strong progress
advancing all four decadal surveys. . .by increasing our
international collaboration efforts.'' Dr. Stern also testified
that NASA is considering international arrangements in which
the agency ``would collaborate at higher, more strategic
level.'' What, in specific terms, do Dr. Stern's proposals mean
for future NASA Earth science missions? What steps has NASA
taken to explore potential international arrangements on future
Earth science missions? What are the opportunities and risks
for working with international partners to advance the missions
recommended in the decadal survey? Are there mission areas,
technology areas, or measurements and observations that the
U.S. should carry out on a unilateral basis to maintain
leadership?
What are NASA's Near and Long-term Plans for Sustaining Land Cover
Observations?
<bullet> NASA's Landsat system has collected land cover data
for over thirty years. These data are used by U.S. Government,
scientific, State and local governments, non-profit
organizations, and international entities to study land use and
change. The currently operating Landsat 7 satellite has lost 25
percent of its imaging capability, according to NASA officials.
Landsat 7 is expected to cease useful operation by 2010 at
which point NASA anticipates a 6-12 month gap in the collection
of Landsat data until the follow-on satellite, the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission (LDCM), enters service in 2011. NASA is
involved in a Data Gap Study Team to assess ``alternatives to
at least partially offset the data gap.'' NASA is investigating
whether data from international satellites, including an Indian
satellite and a Chinese/Brazilian land observing system could
help address the data gap.
Instability in the Landsat Program Since 1999, NASA
has shifted its procurement approach for LCDM three
times. Approaches have included a public-private
partnership, placement on the NPOESS platform, and
finally the current plan for a free-flying mission to
be developed and launched by NASA and operated by USGS.
These procurement struggles echo a longer history of
difficulties in maintaining the program. What is the
current status of LDCM? Will LDCM provide data that is
comparable to or better than Landsat 7? How likely is a
data gap prior to the LDCM availability? What lessons
from the Landsat experience can be applied to plans for
future long-term observation systems, such as those
being considered for climate monitoring?
LDCM and Thermal Imaging Capability LDCM includes
one instrument, the Operational Land Imager (OLI).
According to NASA officials, this instrument will not
image in thermal bands, a capability that has been
provided on the last three Landsat spacecraft. The data
collected in the thermal bands provide information to
assist in the management of water resources, in
particular agricultural water uses. Adding thermal
imaging capability to LDCM will increase the mission
cost and delay the schedule. Is NASA considering
alternatives to LDCM for providing thermal image data?
LDCM as a Possible Platform for a Climate Sensor
NASA officials have also indicated that LDCM is being
considered as a potential platform on which to fly a
Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS)--one of the
climate sensors demanifested from the NPOESS system.
When will a decision on adding a sensor to LDCM be
made? How would adding the TSIS sensor affect the cost
and schedule of the LDCM mission, including the length
of the gap in land cover data?
Policy for Maintaining the Long-Term Land Cover
Record The Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) is preparing a long-term plan for acquiring
moderate resolution, space-based land observation data
following the launch of LDCM in 2011. The Landsat
Policy Act of 1992 seeks to ensure the continuity of
Landsat data. What is the status of OSTP's development
of a long-term plan for moderate resolution land
imagery? What would an operational program mean, in
specific terms, for the U.S.? What role would NASA have
in an operational land observing program? What
responses do the science and user communities have to
the goal of an operational Landsat system?
Is a National Strategy for Earth Monitoring Across Relevant Agencies
Needed?
<bullet> NASA has the largest program in the U.S. Government
for observing the Earth and supporting research to understand
the Earth system. Other agencies such as NOAA and the
Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also
monitor the Earth system and fund Earth science research. How
does NASA coordinate with NOAA, USGS, and other federal
agencies on Earth observations? Has coordination among NASA,
NOAA, and USGS been successful, and if not, why not? Should the
U.S. consider a ``National Earth-Information Initiative,'' as
proposed by former Presidential Science Advisor, Neal Lane, and
others ``to reevaluate the national process of collecting and
using civil Earth information, including the effectiveness of
governmental organizations, the relationship between government
functions and private sector activities, and the ability to
effectively connect scientific developments to societal uses''?
The authors recommend that a blue ribbon panel be created to
consider improvements to the Nation's process of collecting and
using Earth information. What are the pros and cons of such as
proposal? What approach have other nations and regions, such as
Europe, Japan, and China taken to exploit Earth information?
How important is a potential Earth information strategy to U.S.
national competitiveness?
BACKGROUND
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
The President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request includes $1.497
billion for NASA's Earth science and applications programs, an increase
of two percent over the Fiscal Year 2007 budget request. In the FY 2008
request, increases over the President's FY 2007 budget estimate for FY
2008 were required on several missions as a result of schedule delays
and cost overruns. Those missions include the Global Precipitation
Measurement (GPM), Glory, Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM),
NPOESS Preparatory Mission (NPP), and Aquarius mission. In addition,
NASA canceled the Hydros mission, which was designed to measure soil
moisture, due to the agency's lack of funding to support it. Attachment
4 provides details on the FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Earth
sciences and applications programs.
NASA Earth Science Program Elements
<bullet> The Earth Science Research Program provides grant
support for research and analysis activities (e.g., basic
research, modeling, and technology development); research on
interdisciplinary science from the Earth observing system;
suborbital projects (aircraft and uncrewed aircraft); the use
of supercomputers for the development of Earth science models;
and access to supercomputers for users from other agencies.
<bullet> The Earth sciences applications program supports
competitively selected grants to apply results from NASA Earth
science research to societal benefit areas. Specific areas of
applications include agricultural efficiency, air quality,
aviation, carbon management, coastal management, disaster
management, ecological forecasting, energy management, homeland
security, invasive species, public health, and water
management. The applications program involves two components:
National Applications matches decision support
systems in Federal agencies with information from NASA
Earth science research that can benefit from the
additional NASA information.
Crosscutting Solutions supports the National
Applications decision support projects by providing
systems integration, engineering, and the development
of prototypes.
<bullet> Earth Science Multi-Mission Operations is dedicated
to archiving, preserving, and disseminating Earth science data.
The primary data management system for Earth science data is
the Earth Observing System Data and Information System
(EOSDIS). EOSDIS handles four terabytes of incoming data from
the Earth observing system (the Aqua, Terra, and Aura
satellites) per day and consists of eight Distributed Active
Archive Centers (DAACs). The DAACs are located at universities
and research facilities across the country and distribute the
data to users.
<bullet> Earth Systematic Missions include over a dozen Earth
science satellites that are collecting data about the Earth and
its atmosphere and other missions that are in development. Many
of the Earth Systematic Missions enable researchers to study
Earth's changes in and effort to improve predictions of
climate, weather, and natural hazards. Key missions include:
The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM). GPM is a
joint U.S.-Japanese mission to measure precipitation at
a frequent rate across the globe and enable correlation
of precipitation measurements. GPM, which consists of
two spacecraft, is expected to help improve the
prediction of flood hazards and measurements of fresh
water resources. GPM spacecraft are planned for launch
in 2013 and 2014.
The Glory mission will study the properties and
chemical composition of aerosols and clouds. Data
collected from the Glory spacecraft will provide
insights into the natural and anthropogenic
contributions to climate change. Glory is planned for
launch in 2008.
The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) is the
follow-on mission to the Landsat 7 satellite. The
objective of LDCM is to continue the thirty-year data
record of moderate resolution, multi-spectral land
observations, which are used by U.S. Government,
scientific, State and local governments, and other
communities to study land use and change. LDCM is
slated for launch in 2011.
The NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) will continue
measurements of atmospheric and sea surface
temperatures; humidity sounding; land and ocean
biological productivity; cloud and aerosol properties
that are being collected on NASA Earth observing
missions (Terra, Aqua, Aura). NPP is also intended to
reduce the risk of sensors being planned for the
operational NPOESS system. NPP, which is a joint
program with NOAA and the DOD, is slated to launch in
2009. Technical issues related to NPP are:
<bullet> The Visible/Infrared Radiometer Suite
(VIIRS) instrument has encountered technical
problems that will affect ocean color and
aerosol studies. According to a recent Space
News article on VIIRS, the contractor and
NPOESS program officials are evaluating
possible solutions to the problem. A science
team is analyzing what level of capability is
needed from VIIRs to obtain science-quality
measurements and whether such a capability can
be met.
<bullet> A flight model of the Cross-track
Infrared Sounder (CrIS) experienced a failure
during a vibration test. The instrument will
undergo additional tests.
<bullet> The Ozone Mapping and Profiling Suite
(OMPS) Limb sensor was removed from the NPOESS
program during Nunn-McCurdy. NASA and NOAA have
decided to add the OMPS Limb sensor to NPP and
to split the costs.
The Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) is a satellite
launched in 1999 to measure wind speed and direction,
factors that hurricane forecasters have come to rely on
to ``measure the size of a developing storm's wind
field, and in some cases to locate its center of
circulation,'' according to a Space News article on
``Scientists Exploring Options for QuikScat
Successor.'' QuikSCAT measurements contribute to
climate change research, for instance, through the
study of the movements and changes of sea ice and
Arctic and Antarctic ice packs. The data are also used
to investigate changes in rain forest vegetation.
Issues with QuikSCAT are:
<bullet> The lack of a back-up satellite or
planned back-up, should QuikSCAT fail.
<bullet> The implications of losing QuikSCAT
on the accuracy of hurricane monitoring.
<bullet> The Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program
solicits proposals for scientists to propose small to medium-
sized missions that can involve studies of the atmosphere,
oceans, land surface, polar ice regions, and solid Earth. Upon
selection, scientists are granted the funds to serve as
principal investigator of the mission and are responsible for
the scientific and technical success of the mission. ESSP
missions complement larger missions, but are conducted on
shorter timescales.
The next solicitation for ESSP proposals is expected
in late FY 2008. This represents a gap of approximately
seven years since the last ESSP solicitation in 2001.
<bullet> The Education and Outreach program provides support
for fellowships and new investigators, as well as K-16
education. The FY 2008 program will focus on the activities of
the International Polar Year.
<bullet> The Earth Science Technology program includes
development of new instruments and measurement techniques,
information technologies, and technologies for the Earth
science program. NASA's Langley Research Center and Goddard
Space Flight Center are focusing on laser development
technologies that can be applied to future Earth science
missions.
Global Earth Observation System of Systems
NASA is a member of the group overseeing the U.S. contribution to a
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). GEOSS is an
international effort to share the Earth observation data collected from
space, ground, and air observatories by individual nations. By creating
a common format for the data and providing a means for integrating and
sharing the data, GEOSS will allow for a richer set of data by which to
address national and international societal needs and to support
scientific research of the Earth system. The U.S. and international
members that are working toward GEOSS are focusing on key societal
issues that can benefit from the shared and integrated data enabled by
GEOSS. Focus areas include improved observations for disaster
reduction, a National Integrated Drought Information System; and Air
Quality Assessment and Forecast. NASA's Earth science applications
program is involved in providing the U.S. contribution to the GEOSS
societal benefit areas.
Summary of February 13, 2007 Hearing of the Committee on Science and
Technology on National Imperatives for Earth and
Climate Science Research and Applications
Investments Over the Next Decade
The Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives held a hearing on February 13, 2007 to review the
results of the National Academies report, Earth Science and
Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
Beyond.
<bullet> Dr. Richard Anthes, President, University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research and Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications From Space, National Research Council,
National Academies testified that ``at a time when the need has
never been greater, we are faced with an Earth observation
program that will dramatically diminish in capability over the
next five to ten years.'' The resulting impacts are likely to
include less accurate weather forecasts, uncertainty about the
rate of rising sea levels and uncertainty about the intensity
of hurricanes, for example. It is critical to measure the
imbalance between the radiation the Sun is putting out and what
is going out from the Earth and back into space, a factor that
is contributing to global warming. Dr. Anthes noted that
implementing the missions recommended in the Earth science
decadal survey is not just important for reducing the risks of
natural hazards, it is important for managing our natural
resources, including water, energy, fisheries, and ecosystems
more efficiently.
<bullet> Dr. Berrien Moore, III, University Distinguished
Professor, Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,
and Space, University of New Hampshire; Co-Chair, Committee on
Earth Science and Applications from Space, National Research
Council, The National Academies testified that NASA's Earth
science budget has decreased by 33 percent in real terms since
2000. Any budget increases that NOAA enjoyed during the same
period were diverted to NPOESS, which suffered from technical
and managerial problems. The decadal survey ``set forth a
strategy for a strong, balanced national program in Earth
science to reverse this trend.'' He noted that by using small
missions rather than large missions with multiple instruments,
the decadal strategy could be implemented for a reasonable
investment, in particular, the budget levels provided for Earth
science in the year 2000. Dr. Moore testified that the Fiscal
Year 2008 budget is not sufficient to enable the implementation
of the decadal survey. While it does provide resources to move
forward with high priority missions already underway, the FY
2008 budget, ``will leave NASA's Earth science with nearly 50
percent less buying power in comparison to the year 2000 and. .
.by 2012 will put us at a 20-year low in real terms for Earth
science.''
<bullet> NOAA's budget is insufficient to address the growth
in cost of the NPOESS and GOES-R missions or to restore the
losses of climate measurements that were removed from the
NPOESS program. He noted that a small investment, $70M, in
early technology development for the recommended missions would
be a good first step in implementation. Dr. Moore testified
that finding the additional funds to move forward should focus
on the benefits of Earth observations including increased
reliability in infectious disease forecasts, monitoring of
crustal movements and identifying active faults, and improved
precipitation and drought forecasts, among other benefits.
<bullet> Honorable James Geringer, Director of Policy and
Public Sector Strategy, Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI) testified that drought can be longer-term and
more widespread than tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and
earthquakes. He noted that 19 western governors convened to
support the use of satellite data to reduce the impact of
droughts on the region, and requested funds for the National
Integrated Drought Information System. He noted that the
decadal survey explored issues including the benefits of Earth
science data. Mr. Geringer also discussed the frustration that
users experience by the lack of access to and the relevance of
remote sensing data to their needs. Mr. Geringer recommended,
based on the decadal survey, that the people should have the
best possible information to respond to their changing
environments, and to protect their lives, livelihood, and
property. He also recommended that an Integrated Earth
Observation System be provided to ensure U.S. competitiveness.
He referred to the activities of the private sector, including
Google Earth, Microsoft Virtual Earth, and other tools that use
remote sensing imagery and the data provided by commercial
space remote sensing companies. He noted that users ``want
objective, timely, and accurate information.'' He discussed the
need for a system that integrates space, ground, airborne, and
ocean-based sensors as well as a web-based network that
integrates the information.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairman Udall. To all who have joined us here for this
very important hearing, I would like to make a short statement
and I will turn to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Feeney, for
his statement, and we will begin the hearing.
Today's hearing builds on the Science and Technology
Committee's February 13 hearing at which we examined the
findings and recommendations of the National Academy's Earth
Science and Applications ``Decadal Survey.''
The Decadal Survey represented a consensus of the Earth
sciences and applications community on what the Earth Science
research priorities should be for the coming decade and
identified a prioritized set of missions. It is an impressive
report and it provides a very useful set of benchmarks for
Congress as we attempt to evaluate NASA's current and planned
activities in Earth science and applications.
Today we want to examine how well NASA's plans and programs
compare to the priorities of the Decadal Survey and the extent
to which NASA intends to support those priorities in the fiscal
year 2008 budget and beyond. As numerous witnesses before this
Committee have testified, the situation facing NASA's Earth
Science program is not good.
To quote the Decadal Survey, it first noted that the
Decadal Survey's interim report had cautioned that the Nation's
system of environmental satellites was ``at risk of collapse.''
It then went on to state that: ``In the short period since the
publication of the interim report, budgetary constraints and
programmatic difficulties at NASA have greatly exacerbated this
concern. At a time of unprecedented need, the Nation's Earth
observation satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are
in disarray.''
Those are troubling words because NASA has a major role to
play in the Nation's and indeed the world's climate research
efforts. If NASA doesn't step up to that role, the negative
consequences of that failure of leadership will be long-
lasting.
I look forward to hearing from our NASA witness, Dr.
Freilich, about what NASA is going to do to turn this worrisome
situation around and I hope that he will be able to provide
some specifics on how NASA intends to implement the Decadal
Survey's recommendations.
In that regard, I am also concerned about the fate of the
climate instruments from NPOESS, and the need to ensure that we
don't needlessly disrupt the instrument development activities
while the Administration is determining what will be done about
them.
I hope that the good doctor will be able to shed some light
today on what interim arrangements are being put in place to
preserve those instrument teams and development efforts.
Finally, I think many of us in Congress are interested in
ensuring that the Earth observations data being collected by
NASA is applied wherever appropriate to societal needs. That is
why I introduced the Remote Sensing Applications Act, which
became Sections 313 and 314 of the NASA Authorization Act of
2005.
It is not clear that NASA's efforts to date have been fully
responsive to the intent of that legislation and I look forward
to working with the agency to make sure that the goals of the
provisions can be realized.
Well, we have a lot of issues to address today, I again
want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mark Udall
Good morning. I'd like to welcome our witnesses to today's
hearing--we appreciate your participation.
Today's hearing builds on the Science and Technology Committee's
February 13th hearing at which we examined the findings and
recommendations of the National Academies' Earth Science and
Applications ``Decadal Survey.''
The Decadal Survey represented a consensus of the Earth sciences
and applications community on what the Earth Science research
priorities should be for the coming decade, and it identified a
prioritized set of missions. It is an impressive report, and it
provides a very useful set of benchmarks for Congress as we attempt to
evaluate NASA's current and planned activities in Earth science and
applications.
Today, we want to examine how well NASA's plans and programs
compare to the priorities of the Decadal Survey, and the extent to
which NASA intends to support those priorities in the FY08 budget and
beyond. As numerous witnesses before this committee have testified, the
situation facing NASA's Earth Science program is not good.
To quote the Decadal Survey, it first noted that the Decadal
Survey's interim report had cautioned that the Nation's system of
environmental satellites was ``at risk of collapse.'' It then went on
to state that: ``In the short period since the publication of the
interim report, budgetary constraints and programmatic difficulties at
NASA have greatly exacerbated this concern. At a time of unprecedented
need, the Nation's Earth observation satellite programs, once the envy
of the world, are in disarray.''
Those are troubling words, because NASA has a major role to play in
the Nation's--and indeed the world's--climate research efforts. If NASA
doesn't step up to that role, the negative consequences of that failure
of leadership will be long-lasting.
I look forward to hearing from our NASA witness, Dr. Freilich,
about what NASA is going to do to turn this worrisome situation around.
And I hope that he will be able to provide some specifics on how NASA
intends to implement the Decadal Survey's recommendations.
In that regard, I am also concerned about the fate of the climate
instruments from NPOESS, and the need to ensure that we don't
needlessly disrupt the instrument development activities while the
Administration is determining what will be done about them.
I hope that Dr. Freilich will be able to shed some light today on
what interim arrangements are being put in place to preserve those
instrument teams and development efforts.
Finally, I think many of us in Congress are interested in ensuring
that the Earth observations data being collected by NASA is applied,
whenever appropriate, to address societal needs. That is why I
introduced the Remote Sensing Applications Act, which became Sections
313 and 314 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
It is not clear that NASA's efforts to date have been fully
responsive to the intent of that legislation, and I look forward to
working with the agency to make sure that the goals of the provisions
can be realized.
Well, we have a lot of issues to address today. I again want to
welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Udall. At this time it is my privilege to
recognize Mr. Feeney for whatever statement he may have.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you, Chairman Udall.
This morning's hearing on NASA's Earth Sciences and
Applications programs is the first held by our subcommittee on
this important topic, and I would like to begin by thanking our
witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules to join us
today. I realize a tremendous amount of time, effort and
preparation goes into appearances before Congressional
committees, and I want all of our witnesses to know that this
Committee greatly appreciates your efforts and values your
wisdom.
Today's hearing on NASA's Earth Sciences and Applications
programs and the fiscal year 2008 budget request gives our
Committee an opportunity to review NASA's management of and
rationale for its current array of Earth observing missions and
an opportunity to understand how the agency will incorporate
the recommendations of the Earth Sciences Decadal Survey in its
future plans. NASA'S Earth Sciences program is one of that
agency's unsung achievements. When discussing NASA, our
nation's collective attention is often focused on human space
flight or stunning images returned from distant planets and
orbiting observatories. But rarely does the national press
carry front-page stories or images from NASA's Earth-observing
satellites except perhaps during hurricane season.
Having said that, most of the weather and climate-
prediction tools used daily by forecasters is often a direct
product of NASA-sponsored research. A good portion of climate
change research is also made possible by data taken from NASA-
developed sensors, satellites and sophisticated research
analysis products. Will this record of accomplishment in Earth
science missions continue? Yes. Will it happen fast enough to
satisfy many of us and the research community? Probably not.
Are NASA's plans for future Earth science research missions any
indication of the agency's reduced commitment towards a robust
program? Emphatically, no.
NASA's other science programs, astrophysics, planetary and
heliophysics, share the same challenges as Earth science. The
related Decadal Surveys prioritize researcher wishes and offer
strategic guidance on the types and sequence of missions needed
to answer leading questions. NASA has neither the resources nor
oftentimes the necessary technologies to fill all of its
desires but NASA does try to fulfill the highest priorities
established by the research community. Requests for expanded
efforts in all NASA's fields of endeavors simply confirm this
agency's reputation as a place where the most challenging tasks
get done.
Having said that, I hope we don't drift into an earlier era
where NASA was tasked with doing too much with too little in
the way of resources. We know where that path led, so I hope
all NASA supporters, myself included, temper our enthusiastic
desires with a realistic assessment of what is possible. NASA's
Earth Science program has produced stunning scientific results
often demonstrating for the first time measurements and
capabilities that have never before been accomplished. I want
that record of achievement to continue. It is also my desire
that we build upon this program's success to enable the goals
established in the Decadal Survey.
Again, thank you, Chairman Udall, and thanks again to the
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feeney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Tom Feeney
Mr. Chairman, this morning's hearing on NASA's Earth Science and
Applications Programs is the first held by our subcommittee on this
important topic, and I'd like to begin by thanking our witnesses for
taking time from their busy schedules to join us today. I realize a
tremendous amount of time, effort and preparation goes into appearances
before Congressional committees, and I want all of our witnesses to
know that this committee greatly appreciates your efforts, and values
your wisdom.
Today's hearing on NASA's Earth Sciences and Applications programs,
and the FY08 budget request, gives our committee an opportunity to
review NASA's management of--and rationale for--its current array of
Earth-observing missions, and an opportunity to understand how the
agency will incorporate the recommendations of the Earth Sciences
Decadal Survey into its future plans.
NASA's Earth Sciences program is one of that agency's unsung
achievements. When discussing NASA, our nation's collective attention
is often focused on human space flight, or stunning images returned
from distant planets and orbiting observatories. But rarely does the
national press carry front-page stories or images taken from NASA's
Earth-observing satellites, except perhaps, during hurricane season.
Having said that, most of the weather and climate prediction tools used
daily by forecasters is often a direct product of NASA-sponsored
research. And a good portion of climate change research is also made
possible by data taken from NASA-developed sensors, satellites, and
sophisticated research and analysis products.
Will this record of accomplishment in Earth Science missions
continue? Yes. Will it happen fast enough to satisfy the research
community? Probably not. Are NASA's plans for future Earth Science
research missions any indication of the agency's reduced commitment
toward a robust program? Emphatically no.
NASA's other science programs--astrophysics, planetary, and
heliophysics--share the same challenges as Earth Science. Their related
decadal surveys prioritize researcher wishes and offer strategic
guidance on the types and sequence of missions needed to answer leading
questions. NASA has neither the resources nor, oftentimes, the
necessary technologies to fulfill all desires. But NASA does strive to
fulfill the highest priorities established by that research community.
Requests for expanded efforts in all of NASA's fields of endeavor
simply confirm this agency's reputation as a place where the most
challenging of tasks get done. Having said that, I hope we don't drift
into an earlier era where NASA was tasked with doing too much with too
little. We know where that path led. So I hope all NASA supporters--
myself included--temper our enthusiastic desires with a realistic
assessment of what is possible.
NASA's Earth Sciences program has produced stunning scientific
results, often demonstrating, for the first time, measurements and
capabilities that have never before been accomplished. I want that
record of achievement to continue, and it's also my desire that we
build upon the program's success to enable the goals established in the
Decadal Survey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks again to our witnesses.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
At this point, if there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
At this time I would like to recognize Ms. Hooley, who is
going to introduce the first witness, Dr. Freilich.
Congresswoman Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to thank
not only you but our Ranking Member Feeney for allowing me to
participate today and the opportunity to introduce Dr. Michael
Freilich. Dr. Freilich is the Director of the Earth Science
Division in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA
Headquarters. Prior to coming east to work for NASA, he was a
Professor and Associate Dean in the College of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, which is in my
district. I am sure that he is just as proud as I that the
Oregon State University's baseball team just won its second
national championship in as many years.
Dr. Freilich's research focuses on the determination,
validation and geophysical analysis of ocean surface wind
velocity measured by satellite-borne microwave radar and
radiometer instruments. He has developed scatterometer and
altimeter wind model functions as well as innovated validation
techniques for accurately quantifying the accuracy of space-
borne environmental measurements. Thank you, Dr. Freilich, for
agreeing to testify before this committee. I am sure the
Committee will benefit from your insights, and I would like to
state that I have a markup in another committee going on at the
same time so I will have to leave, but we are so glad you are
here. Thank you for coming.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentlelady for that
introduction and I would like to at this time introduce the
rest of the panelists. I will start with Dr. Richard Anthes,
who is appearing before this committee for the second time
after testifying on the National Academy's Earth Science
Decadal Survey back in February. We appreciate his willingness
to participate in today's hearing. You all should know he is
President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research, and I am biased. It is also great to have another
Coloradoan here in the Nation's capital, so Doctor, thank you
for making the trip here.
Next to Dr. Anthes is Dr. Eric Barron, who is the Dean of
the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas,
Austin, and he was the Chair of Climate Variability and Change
Panel of the Decadal Survey Committee, and this is not his
first appearance before this committee. Dr. Barron, thank you
for being here today.
And finally, we have Dr. Timothy Foresman, who is the
President for the International Center for Remote Sensing
Education and has long been involved in activities related to
promoting the application of Earth science data that meets
societal needs. Again, welcome.
I think all of you know, you are pros, you have been here
before but we ask you to limit your spoken testimony to five
minutes and then after which we will have a interchange in
which Members of the Subcommittee will have five minutes each
to ask questions.
Dr. Freilich, we will start with you. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. FREILICH, DIRECTOR, EARTH SCIENCE
DIVISION, SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Dr. Freilich. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and
Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for NASA's
Earth Science program. NASA is committed to Earth science, as
am I. The budget request includes nearly $1.5 billion for Earth
science, an increase of about $32 million over the fiscal year
2007 request. Our balanced program includes flight missions,
research investigations, applied science, technology investment
and outreach programs. I will focus my remaining oral comments
on your specific questions.
First, our top Earth science objectives and plans. Our
primary objective is to advance Earth systems science and to
use this understanding sufficiently to address societal issues.
To reach this goal, we will in priority order first
reinvigorate the flight portfolio by building and launching
seven missions now under development and initiating new
missions as recommended by the Decadal Survey. Second, we are
working with NOAA and other agencies to hasten transition
processes so that measurements pioneered and proved by NASA
will be acquired by operational satellite systems over multi-
decadal periods. And third, we will preserve and expand through
competitive solicitations the preeminent research and analysis,
applied sciences, technology development and educational
programs that distinguish the NASA Earth science endeavor. The
Decadal Survey provides specific guidance in these areas and
the President's 2008 budget request advances us towards these
objectives.
You asked about balance in the Earth Sciences program. The
program is nicely balanced between flight and research science
activities with almost half the total allocated to our 14
operating missions and the seven missions in development and
the other half to research applied sciences, data systems,
technology development and education program. The Earth Science
Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council annually examines the
split of activities and assesses our scientific performance.
Regarding mission size, all of the missions now in development
and those recommended by the Decadal Survey are focused
missions. We are not planning large future observatories such
as the presently orbiting Terra Aqua and Aura platforms.
Our plan and timetable for implementing the Decadal Survey:
our selection of Earth observing missions to be flown in the
next 10 to 15 years is guided by the Decadal Survey's science
priorities. We take the Decadal Survey's recommendations
seriously. Indeed, the 2008 budget request addresses the flight
recommendation of the NRC's 2005 interim report by including
funding for the key precursor missions highlighted in that
report. Now, the final Decadal Survey arrived too late to
influence the fiscal year 2008 budget but its recommendations
are being used in development of the fiscal year 2009 budget
request.
Since the survey came out in early 2007, we have been
vigorously pursuing activities in four areas. First, we have
undertaken studies of each of the recommended missions to
understand in detail the technical challenges and full costs
including the science so that we can assemble and implement a
realistic program. We are conducting community workshops to
understand the capabilities of the missions as recommended, to
optimize the intended scientific return and to define the other
measurements that must be acquired in order for the scientific
goals to be achieved. The first of these workshops, which is
focused on ICESat--II, is actually happening this week as we
speak near BWI. We have engaged our international partners. In
the past two months alone, I have had eight productive multi-
day discussions with partner space agencies in order to
identify common interests and complementary expertise so that
we can implement the Decadal Survey in a coordinated way. We
are establishing joint working groups for future mission
collaboration studies with the French, Japanese, German,
Canadian and European space agencies, in all cases building on
successful existing and past collaboration.
NASA is also playing a leading role in supporting the
international Committee on Earth Observing Satellites, CEOS,
which coordinates satellite systems for the international Group
on Earth Observations, GEO. Finally, as planned, we are
revising the Earth Science Division chapter in the SMD Science
Plan to reflect the missions and the scientific priorities
identified in the Decadal Survey. This revision will be
reviewed by the NRC and the Advisory Council in the early fall
timeframe.
Finally, research to operations transitions and
applications. NASA is working closely with other federal
agencies, in particular NOAA and USGS, to transition research
capabilities to long-term operations as the technologies are
demonstrated. We have prepared the first NASA-NOAA report
highlighting our fiscal year 2008 joint activity plan as
required by the 2005 NASA Authorization Act. NASA and NOAA
working with OSTP are conducting joint studies of the impacts
and mitigation strategy in response to the Nunn-McCurdy
refocusing of the NPOESS program. The Applied Sciences program
accelerates the broader use of NASA Earth science research
results by partnering with other organizations in pilot
projects to demonstrate how NASA results can improve decision-
making and resource management. In many cases, the demonstrated
improvements continue to be used by our partners even after the
NASA Applied Sciences project ends, and we can talk about
specific examples of that. We have identified an Applied
Sciences representative for each Earth Science mission in
operation and in development in order to assure rapid and
efficient identification of applications potential.
So in summary, it will require several budget cycles to
implement a program derived from the Decadal Survey's
thoughtful and comprehensive recommendations. I would like to
end by deeply thanking the Decadal Survey committee members.
NASA's commitment to Earth science research is commensurate
with theirs. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Freilich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael H. Freilich
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's FY 2008 budget
request for NASA's Earth Science program. You have previously heard
from the new Associate Administrator for the Science Mission
Directorate (SMD), Alan Stern, on his general plans for the entire
Directorate, in particular in the area of Space Science, and I welcome
this opportunity to discuss specifically the important area of Earth
Science, especially in light of the recently released National Research
Council's (NRC's) Earth Science Decadal Survey.
In your letter of invitation, you asked that I address my
priorities for the Earth science program in the coming years, as well
as the plan for meeting these objectives. My primary objective for the
Earth Science Division is to expand the leading role of NASA
measurements and NASA-supported analyses in advancing Earth System
science--improving our quantitative understanding of the Earth as an
integrated system. To reach this goal, we will reinvigorate the flight
portfolio by soliciting, implementing, launching, and operating new
cutting-edge flight missions; we will work with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other national and
international operational agencies to hasten transition processes so
that measurements pioneered and proved by NASA will be subsequently
acquired by operational satellite systems over the multi-decadal
periods required to detect climate signals; and we will preserve and
expand the preeminent research and analysis, applied sciences,
technology development, and educational programs that distinguish the
NASA Earth Science endeavor. The recently released NRC's Earth Science
Decadal Survey provides specific guidance in these areas, and the FY
2008 budget request along with planned interagency and international
working group activities will allow us to advance toward these
objectives.
NASA's FY 2008 budget request includes $1.5 billion for the study
of planet Earth from space. This represents an increase of $32.8
million over the FY 2007 budget request (adjusted for full-cost
simplification and the new theme structure of the budget). The FY 2008
request will fund a wide-ranging and balanced program of activities,
including:
<bullet> Developing, launching, and operating Earth-observing
space missions;
<bullet> Competitively selecting and pursuing research and
analysis science investigations conducted by NASA and non-NASA
researchers;
<bullet> Conducting Applied Science projects that help other
federal and regional agencies and organizations to efficiently
use products from NASA Earth research to advance their
missions;
<bullet> Soliciting and advancing technology development
efforts to enable the missions of the future; and,
<bullet> Providing education and public outreach programs to
make our knowledge of the Earth accessible to the world.
NASA's budget request supports a balanced program, allocating over
30 percent of NASA's request for the Science Mission Directorate and,
within the Science Mission Directorate, allocating 27 percent of
funding for Earth Science.
Much of the science community's present state of knowledge about
global change--including many of the measurements and a significant
fraction of the analyses which serve as the foundation for the recent
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--is
derived from NASA's Earth Science program. For example, using data from
Earth observing satellites NASA-supported researchers are: monitoring
ice cover and ice sheet motions in the Arctic and the Antarctic;
quantifying the short-term and long-term changes to the Earth's
protective shield of stratospheric ozone, including the positive
impacts of the Montreal protocols; discovering robust relationships
between increasing upper ocean temperature and decreasing primary
production from the phytoplankton that form the base of the oceans'
food chain; and, using a fleet of satellites flying in formation (the
``A-Train''), making unique, global, near-simultaneous measurements of
aerosols, clouds, temperature and relative humidity profiles, and
radiative fluxes.
Our improved understanding of Earth System processes leads to
improvements in sophisticated weather and climate models, which, in
turn--when initialized using the satellite data--can be used to predict
natural and human-caused changes in the Earth's environment over time
scales of hours to years.
Importantly, near-real-time measurements from NASA research
missions (including the Tropical Rainfall Mapping Mission (TRMM), the
Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT), the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder
instrument on the Aqua mission, and others) are used routinely by NOAA
and other U.S. and international agencies to improve weather
forecasting. Similarly, high quality measurements obtained by NOAA's
operational weather satellites provide essential context for the
scientific analyses of the NASA research mission data. There is thus a
strong synergy between our nation's research satellites and our
operational space-borne systems. NASA works closely with the other
Federal agencies--specifically NOAA--responsible for forecasting to
transition these research capabilities to long-term operations as the
technologies are demonstrated and matured. As we speak, NASA is
operating 14 Earth observing missions. Five more missions are quite far
advanced in their development, and will be launched in 2008 and 2009.
Of these, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) and the Ocean
Surface Topography Mission (OSTM) will continue critical Earth System
and climate measurements that were initiated by the Earth Observing
System (for NPP) and the TOPEX/Poseidon and JASON-1 missions (for
OSTM). The Glory mission will fly an instrument to extend our
measurements of total solar irradiance, as well as an instrument that
will provide unique, first-ever measurements of properties of
atmospheric aerosols. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) and the
Aquarius mission will make new, first-of-a-kind global measurements of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and ocean surface salinity--
both parameters of known importance to the study of climate change.
The FY 2008 budget request also funds the reconstituted Landsat
Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) for launch in 2011. I am pleased to
report that the procurement activities for the LDCM are on track. We
recently announced the selection of four contractors to study how their
spacecraft could accommodate the LDCM Operational Land Imager
instrument. Final results are expected this fall. The FY 2008 budget
funds the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM) for launch of
its Core spacecraft not later than 2013, followed a year later by
launch of the NASA GPM Constellation spacecraft. Extending the
pioneering rain measurements initiated with the joint U.S./Japanese
TRMM and providing a calibration standard for several other rain-
measuring instruments orbited by others, the GPM mission will provide
us with accurate, global rain measurements every three hours--much more
frequently than is currently possible. Knowledge of accurate rainfall
rates and atmospheric water quantities is essential for the study of
the Earth's hydrologic cycle and its sensitivity to climate change. In
addition, the GPM measurements will be used by operational weather
prediction agencies around the globe to improve weather forecasts and
severe storm predictions.
As a complement to the research and analysis activities which
improve our understanding of the Earth system, the Applied Sciences
Program evaluates NASA Earth science data, results, and technology for
their potential to serve society beyond their original scientific
purpose. Where appropriate, the program accelerates the broader use of
these Earth science research results by partnering with federal
agencies and other organizations to test whether NASA results can
improve decision-making and resource management. In many cases, the
demonstrated improvements continue to be used by our partners in their
operational decision support systems, after the NASA Applied Sciences
project ends.
We have had many recent successes across a broad range of societal
benefit areas. I will touch here on examples in the areas of air
transportation, regional environmental management, and natural
disasters. NASA is working in partnership with the Federal Aviation
Administration, NOAA's National Weather Service, and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research to ensure safe and efficient air travel
for the American public through enhancements to aviation weather
forecasting. Weather is a contributing factor in approximately 30
percent of all aviation accidents and accounts for over 60 percent of
all delays experienced in the air transportation system. Weather delays
in air travel cost the American public over $4 billion per year. By
incorporating new, NASA-developed algorithms, observations, and
predictive capabilities into aviation weather forecasts, more accurate,
dependable, and useful forecasts of threats to aviation including
icing, turbulence, convection, and volcanic ash can be made. For
example, NASA recently released results that suggest the incorporation
of improved satellite observations and new algorithms into a decision
support tool for thunderstorm initiation often enhance performance by
providing a detailed analysis of the locations and early growth of non-
precipitating convective clouds. One newly developed parameter showed
an 84 percent probability of detection of convective initiation over a
thirty minute window.
In terms of improving regional environmental management with
techniques deployable both in the United States and abroad, NASA is
partnering with U.S. Agency for International Development and other
U.S. and Latin American government agencies and nongovernmental
organizations to develop, operate, and refine an environmental
monitoring and visualization system for the entire isthmus of Central
America. Known as SERVIR, this system is web-based and provides
satellite- and ground-based geospatial data for management and decision
support. In addition to a data archive, Internet mapping tools, and
visualization software, SERVIR offers a number of decision support
products including those for fires, floods, harmful red tide events,
developing climate scenarios, and weather forecasting. Examples of
recent activities are the use of SERVIR imagery by fire fighters in
northern Guatemala to battle fires and national park managers in Belize
employing SERVIR fire alerts to detect unauthorized incursions and
clearing of tropical forest within the Chiquibul National Park. The
SERVIR web location is http://servir.net/.
Another recent NASA Applied Science program contribution was our
real-time support to state emergency responders in the Esperanza fires
last October in California. A data integration tool developed under
Applied Science's Wildfire Research and Applications Partnership or
WRAP (NASA, USFS and the National Interagency Fire Center), together
with a 16-hour emergency flight of a NASA Ames UAS (Unmanned Aerial
System), provided invaluable real-time information about fire location,
intensity, and extent that was used to guide the California Governor's
Office of Emergency Services and the Esperanza Fire Incident Command
Center as they battled the fire. The WRAP integration tool incorporates
data and technology from an array of sources, both public and private,
and displays the data on a Google Earth software base. In collaboration
with the U.S. Forest Service, the WRAP project continues to be
supported by the Earth Science Division's Research and Analysis and
Technology Programs to further test the integrated UAS system during
actual wildfire events this coming fire season in California.
In March, 2007, the NASA Administrator submitted to Congress the
report on the Applied Sciences Program's planning, selection, and
review processes in Accordance with Section 307 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-155) (``the Act''). In this year's Research Opportunities in Space
and Earth Sciences (ROSES) research announcement, we explicitly
incorporated the requirements of Section 313 of the Act, which
identifies the need to address State, local, regional and tribal agency
needs and to utilize both NASA and commercial sector capabilities.
Specifically, the Applied Sciences Program requires grantees to utilize
commercially available products whenever it is appropriate and
available, consistent with NASA Earth science policy. The Applied
Sciences Program, under new leadership, is planning a comprehensive
review of the program to ensure that it is aligned with the NAS Decadal
Survey recommendations and is working with NASA leadership to establish
an appropriate advisory structure, in accordance with Section 314 of
the Act.
Even as we are acquiring and analyzing measurements today, we are
planning the satellites, field experiments, scientific investigations,
and Earth System models of the future. The recently released Earth
Science Decadal Survey provides, for the first time, a scientifically
based, community consensus statement of the top priority future Earth
System Science problems to be addressed, and it suggests a sequence of
notional missions whose measurements could contribute to advancing our
understanding of the Earth and its environment.
We welcome the Decadal Survey--indeed, we asked for it. NASA, along
with NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), requested and funded
the NRC to conduct this first Decadal Survey in Earth science. We
formally made the request in the fall of 2003 and the study began in
earnest in 2004. The massive undertaking was only completed this
January. We are grateful for all of the efforts of the Co-Chairs and
NRC staff, the members of the decadal survey Executive Committee, and
the literally hundreds of Earth Science researchers who volunteered
their time and their ideas. Their success in creating a broad consensus
is a substantial achievement.
The science priorities identified by the Decadal Survey will be our
primary guide as we design and select Earth observing missions to be
flown in the next 10-15 years. In the space sciences, NASA has a long
history of guidance by NRC decadal surveys. Indeed, even in the Earth
sciences, where this is the first Decadal Survey, the President's FY
2008 budget request for NASA was guided by recommendations included in
the interim report issued by the Decadal Survey committee in 2005. The
FY 2008 budget request includes funding and predictable launch dates
for the LDCM, the Glory aerosol and solar irradiance mission, NPP, and
GPM, all of which figured strongly in the interim report.
Unfortunately, the full Decadal Survey arrived too late for its
specific recommendations to influence the FY 2008 budget process, but
its scientific priorities will be used in development of the FY 2009
and subsequent budget requests. NASA's FY 2008 budget request also
includes funding for an additional, competed flight mission, which will
launch sometime around 2014. We will be guided by the Decadal Survey as
we choose the scientific focus and instrument complement for this
mission, starting with a competitive solicitation in late 2008.
In addition to its science priorities and the notional mission set,
the Decadal Survey provides several recommendations relevant to the
design and implementation of the Earth Science flight program. Survey
recommendations in the areas of international collaboration and
technology investment deserve particular consideration.
We all recognize that a constellation of missions and many
simultaneous measurements--such as those obtained by the A-train
spacecraft described above--are needed to understand the interactions
between Earth system processes. No agency or nation can afford to
develop and fly all necessary missions single handedly.
The Decadal Survey emphatically recommends international
collaboration, to maximize humankind's benefits from our net investment
in Earth science, and to avoid unnecessary duplication. To this end, we
have already begun discussions with our closest international space
agency partners: the Canadian, European, French, Japanese, and German
space agencies. Throughout the spring and early summer, we held eight
substantive bilateral meetings with international space agency partners
to identify and refine areas of common interest and complementary
expertise. We are also actively engaged--indeed NASA and the United
States are leaders--in international coordination bodies such as the
Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the international
Group on Earth Observations (GEO). As with our present OSTM, Aquarius,
and GPM missions, we anticipate substantial joint projects with
international partners as we construct missions to address the Decadal
Survey's science questions. As a result of this Spring's activities, we
are establishing several bilateral, focused, technical-level working
groups to refine science investigations, measurement techniques, and
programmatic collaboration approaches for some early- and mid-term
Decadal Survey missions where clear partner interest and expertise
exists.
NASA works closely with other federal agencies to support an
integrated federal program of climate research. As noted above, the
Decadal Survey was jointly requested by NASA, NOAA and the USGS and
assigns some priority missions to NASA, and some to NOAA for execution.
NASA's contribution to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
is unchanged from the FY 2007 to FY 2008 budget request, and remains
the largest single contribution to the Program. Consistent with the
Space Act and the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, NASA's role within the
broader federal program is guided by the U.S. National Space Policy,
authorized by the President in August, 2006. In particular, NASA works
closely with NOAA to transition mature and proven measurement
capabilities to long-term operations.
Science-driven technology investment is one of the keys to the
design and implementation of any future mission set. It is essential to
have the technology developed and tested in a relevant environment
prior to the approval of any mission. This helps to avoid cost overruns
that occur when problems arise with a new technology late in the
mission development cycle. To foster advanced technologies for Earth
science, NASA's strategy is two pronged, as recommended by the Decadal
Survey, with both focused technology and core technology elements.
Where we know the missions we want to implement and what new
technologies are required on a certain schedule, we make focused
investments to assure technologies are available when we issue
competitive solicitations for mission formulation and development. This
is done through the highly successful Instrument Incubator Program,
funded under the Earth Science Technology Office, which matures
instrument technologies for future measurements.
The second prong addresses the seed corn or ``core technologies,''
for advanced Earth observing missions of the future. Where we know that
certain classes of technologies are needed for the types of
measurements we would like to make in the future, or are simply
convinced that investment in certain sensor or detector technology
areas will yield fruit, we will issue open, competitive solicitations
for the best ideas. Examples include advanced component development
(which allows scientists and technologists to take an idea from the
concept to the bench top demonstration stage), laser risk reduction
(which has developed fundamental lidar technologies applicable to
multiple NASA missions), and advanced information systems technology
development (which provides advanced operations technologies which aid
in reducing future mission costs).
The Decadal Survey, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and
NASA's own planning in Earth science all assume the presence of an
operational system of environmental monitoring satellites that can make
climate-quality measurements. The Nation needs such a system. That is
why NASA, along with NOAA and the Air Force, is a member of the NPOESS
governing body, and why NASA entered into a partnership with the NPOESS
Integrated Program Office to develop NPP. NPP is designed both to
continue essential measurements from NASA's Earth Observing System
satellites as well as provide a demonstration of instruments to be
flown on NPOESS.
The Nunn-McCurdy certified NPOESS program, as you are aware,
focuses NPOESS on its weather mission and deletes many of the
capabilities previously planned for climate science. As the Decadal
Survey committee was finalizing its notional mission set and sequence,
the full impact of the removal of the climate sensors from the NPOESS
program was just coming to light. Since last summer, we in NASA have
been working closely with NOAA, OSTP, and the scientific research
community to understand and rank the impacts of these programmatic
perturbations, and to develop realistic mitigation scenarios for the
most important measurements. This is being done on an accelerated
schedule to inform the development of the FY 2009 budget request. In
addition to our agency-based technical evaluations and preliminary
mitigation strategy designs, NASA and NOAA commissioned, supported, and
participated in an NRC workshop which was held last week after several
weeks of community planning (including members of the original Decadal
Survey committee). The workshop was chartered to examine the scientific
and research-focused impacts of the programmatic changes to NPOESS and
to consider various recovery scenarios. We are eagerly awaiting the
workshop report, expected later in the summer, again in time to provide
recommendations useful for helping to determine the FY 2009 budget.
I am pleased to report that, in an initial step, NASA and NOAA have
agreed to share equally the cost to restore the Ozone Mapping and
Profiler Suite (OMPS)-Limb to the NPP satellite set to launch in 2009.
The OMPS Limb will measure the vertical distribution of ozone and
complements existing NPOESS systems, in particular the OMPS-Nadir
instrument, which continues the long global time series of total column
ozone. The first-ever combination of total and vertically resolved
ozone measurements will provide scientists unique insight into the
dynamical and chemical processes which regulate atmospheric
composition.
Considering both the guidance from the Decadal Survey and the
realities of the recent programmatic changes to NPOESS, NASA is
proceeding with a mission planning activity to determine the focus and
content of our specific future Earth observing missions. The plan will
integrate the scientific recommendations and priority/sequence of the
Decadal Survey, the joint and ongoing NASA-NOAA and community
examinations of the NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy changes, and the contributions
of our international partners. Through a series of concept studies
conducted at NASA Centers, we are carefully examining the Decadal
Survey's notional missions. The studies are assessing the technological
readiness, system engineering challenges, and expected costs (including
support for scientific validation and analysis of the mission data) of
each notional mission. These concept studies are accessing the full
capability of the NASA mission design and costing apparatus, to
complement the estimates assigned by the NRC. We have organized and
broadly announced four community workshops, one for each of the four
early-term missions assigned to NASA in the NRC's Decadal Survey. The
two aims of each workshop are to define the full range of scientific
capabilities of each of the synthesized missions recommended by the
Decadal Survey, and to identify essential contextual measurements that
must also be present in order to advance the science priorities
identified in the Decadal Survey. The workshops should provide great
community insight into, and recommendations for, these early missions
and will aid the subsequent detailed mission design work. These first
four workshops will be held during late June and through July--indeed,
the workshop focused on the notional ``IceSat-II'' mission is being
held near Baltimore yesterday, today, and tomorrow. As our NASA
planning evolves, community involvement will be assured through many
more workshops, regular interactions with the Earth Science
Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council, as well as discipline- and
science-focus theme working groups which regularly inform our plans and
examine our progress within the NASA Earth Science Division.
The planning process also includes an update later this year to the
NASA Earth Science Plan. Indeed, when the Congress asked the Agency for
a Science Plan in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155),
you recognized that the Decadal Survey would not be available in time
to influence the Earth Science portion of that Plan. Therefore, NASA
was asked to describe how it might revise that Plan based on the Earth
Science Decadal Survey. Our planning activity and the Science Plan will
address that question. We have developed and are presently examining a
draft of the Science Plan changes, and expect to begin vetting a
refined version through the NRC and NASA Advisory Council committees by
the September time frame.
While the scope and specificity of the planning activity clearly
must exceed that of the Decadal Survey and must accommodate issues of
programmatic balance and national needs, it is definitively not our
intention to redo the Decadal Survey or to change the scientific
priorities that it identified.
As with decadal surveys in other parts of the Science Mission
Directorate portfolio, this Decadal Survey is only the starting point.
However, Earth Science planning is even more complex than in other
divisions, given the web of partnerships, the many and diverse users of
Earth science data, and its societal impact. Considering the long time
horizon in the NRC's report, it will require several budget cycles to
implement the program that we will derive from the Decadal Survey's
near- and mid-term recommended mission sets. Nevertheless, our planning
process starts with the consensus scientific priorities articulated for
us by the NRC. So I will close by reiterating my gratitude to the
Decadal Survey committee Co-Chairs and members for their excellent
work. NASA's commitment to Earth Science research is commensurate with
theirs.
I welcome your questions on NASA's Earth science program.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Michael H. Freilich
Michael H. Freilich is the Director of the Earth Science Division,
in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters. Prior to
coming to NASA, he was a Professor and Associate Dean in the College of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. He
received BS degrees in Physics (Honors) and Chemistry from Haverford
College in 1975 and a Ph.D. in Oceanography from Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (Univ. of California, San Diego) in 1982. From 1983-1991
he was a Member of the Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory.
Dr. Freilich's research focuses on the determination, validation,
and geophysical analysis of ocean surface wind velocity measured by
satellite-borne microwave radar and radiometer instruments. He has
developed scatterometer and altimeter wind model functions, as well as
innovative validation techniques for accurately quantifying the
accuracy of space-borne environmental measurements.
Dr. Freilich served as the NSCAT Project Scientist from 1983-1991
and as the Mission Principal Investigator for NSCAT from 1992-1997.
Until he relinquished his project posts to join NASA HQ, he was the
Mission PI for QuikSCAT (launched in June, 1999) and SeaWinds/ADEOS-2
(launched in December, 2002). He was the team leader of the NASA Ocean
Vector Winds Science Team and is a member of the QuikSCAT, SeaWinds,
and Terra/AMSR Validation Teams, as well as the NASDA (Japanese Space
Agency) ADEOS-2 Science Team.
Dr. Freilich has served on many NASA, National Research Council
(NRC), and research community advisory and steering groups, including
the WOCE Science Steering Committee, the NASA EOS Science Executive
Committee, the NRC Ocean Studies Board, and several NASA data system
review committees. He chaired the NRC Committee on Earth Studies, and
served on the NRC Space Studies Board and the Committee on NASA/NOAA
Transition from Research to Operations.
His honors include the JPL Director's Research Achievement Award
(1988), the NASA Public Service Medal (1999), and the American
Meteorological Society's Verner E. Suomi Award (2004), as well as
several NASA Group Achievement awards. Freilich was named a Fellow of
the American Meteorological Society in 2004.
Freilich's non-scientific passions include nature photography and
soccer refereeing at the youth, high school, and adult levels.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Freilich.
Dr. Anthes, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD A. ANTHES, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY
CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH; CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Anthes. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Minority Member and
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
today. As Mr. Udall said, I am President of UCAR, the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, and I have to
be careful because the gentleman to my left is going to be
probably the next Chairman of the UCAR board of trustees, so I
have to be nice to him and to the State of Texas.
Before I get into my prepared remarks, I would just like to
remind us that the news of the last few days about the terrible
fires in the Lake Tahoe area following the winter of only about
30 percent normal snowfall there, the droughts in the West, the
droughts in the Southeast where some places in Florida and
Georgia are 12 feet below normal in rainfall, is all consistent
with the kind of changes that we are worried about as the
climate warms in the United States and the rest of the world.
So the observations that we are talking about in the Decadal
Survey as we said are more important than ever. This is not the
time to be cutting back on observation of the Earth. It is time
to be augmenting them.
The NRC report recommends a path forward that establishes
U.S. leadership in Earth science and applications to avert the
potential collapse of the U.S. system of environmental
satellites. This can be accomplished in a fiscally responsible
manner. The cost is very small in comparison to the societal
needs and benefits.
Mr. Chairman, you asked me for my views on the top three
priorities for NASA's Earth Science program during the next
five years. The highest priority is that NASA commit to and
begin to implement its recommended decadal missions. Starts on
the initial seven missions should begin in 2008. The second
priority is that NASA increase its suborbital capabilities.
NASA'S airborne programs have suffered substantial diminution
and should be restored. Both conventional and unmanned aircraft
are needed for instrument development, technology advancement
and for their direct contribution to Earth observations. The
third priority is that NASA restore support of its research and
analysis programs and efforts in Earth system modeling.
Improved information about potential future changes in climate,
weather and other environmental conditions will come from
better observations but also more capable models of the Earth
system and a vigorous research program to use the observations
in models and interpret the results.
This committee's leadership on Earth sciences and the
recent actions in the House appropriations process with respect
to the fiscal year 2008 budget are encouraging and greatly
appreciated, but even with the increase in NASA's Earth Science
request for 2008, funding falls short of what is needed to get
a full start on the recommended program, as you can see by this
visual which shows the actual NASA budget starting in 1996
going through the actual budget in 2006 and 2007 and then
projected budget or requested budget in 2008 and to run out
beyond that. You can see that despite the encouraging upward
turn for 2008, the gap between what is needed to complete and
execute our Decadal Survey and what it is in the run-out from
the 2008 request increases every year. The other point to make
from this graph is that the funds to implement the Decadal
Survey are only restoring the NASA Earth Science budget and
real purchasing power to what it was in the last part of the
previous century and the early part of this one. So we did a
very strong prioritization to get a recommended set of missions
that we considered minimal to meet the needs and not one that
would bust the budget.
You also asked about international partnerships, and Dr.
Freilich made some very encouraging remarks in that direction a
few minutes ago. I would like to mention the collaborations
with other nations not only saves scarce resources for all
partners but promote scientific collaboration and sharing of
ideas among the many talented people of all nations. However,
they can come at a cost. The success of a partnership depends
on both partners meeting their commitments, and if one partner
runs into funding problems or technological difficulties, it
can threaten the whole mission.
I would like to close my testimony with a quote from Vice
Admiral Richard H. Truly, former NASA Administrator, Shuttle
astronaut and the first commander of the Naval Space Command in
a recent report, National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change. Describing his experience in space 25 years ago,
Admiral Truly said, ``I have imager burned in my mind that will
never go away, images of the Earth and its fragility. I was a
test pilot. I was an aviator. I was not an environmentalist.
When you look at the Earth's horizon, you see an incredibly
beautiful but very thin line. That thin line is our atmosphere,
and the real fragility of our atmosphere is that there is so
little of it. The stresses that climate change will put on our
national security will be different from any we have ever dealt
with in the past. For one thing, unlike the challenges we are
used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly,
but come they will and they will be grinding and inexorable.''
Admiral Truly said he was not convinced of the importance of
climate change by any person or interest group; he was
convinced by the data. We as a nation must continue to provide
the data on Earth for only the data can reveal the truth that
will affect us all.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anthes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard A. Anthes
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member Calvert, and Members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for inviting me to testify on this important
subject. My name is Richard Anthes, and I am the President of the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a consortium of
70 research universities that manages the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, on behalf of the National Science Foundation, and
additional scientific education, training and support programs. I am
also the current President of the American Meteorological Society. I
appear today in my capacity as Co-Chair of the National Research
Council (NRC)'s Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space:
A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future.
The National Research Council is the unit of the National Academies
that is responsible for organizing independent advisory studies for the
Federal Government on science and technology. In response to requests
from NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, the NRC has recently completed a
``decadal survey'' of Earth science and applications from space.
(``Decadal surveys'' are the 10-year prioritized roadmaps that the NRC
has done for 40 years for the astronomers; this is the first time it is
being done for Earth science and applications from space.) Among the
key tasks in the charge to the decadal survey committee were to:
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Develop a prioritized list of recommended space
programs, missions, and supporting activities to address these
questions.
The NRC survey committee has prepared an extensive report in
response to this charge. Over 100 leaders in the Earth science
community participated on the survey steering committee or its seven
study panels. It is noteworthy that this was the first Earth science
decadal survey, and the committee and panel members did an excellent
job in fulfilling the charge and establishing a consensus--a task many
previously considered impossible. A pre-publication version of the
report was published in January 2007 and is available at www.nap.edu/
catalog/11820.html; the final version will be published later this
year.
The committee's vision is encapsulated in the following
declaration, first stated in the committee's interim report, published
in 2005:
Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live,
how it supports life, and how human activities affect its
ability to do so in the future is one of the greatest
intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the
most important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve
prosperity, health, and sustainability.
As detailed in the committee's final report, and as we were
forcefully reminded by the latest set of reports from the International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world faces significant and
profound environmental challenges: shortages of clean and accessible
freshwater, degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems,
increases in soil erosion, changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere,
declines in fisheries, and above all the rapid pace of substantial
changes in climate. These changes are not isolated; they interact with
each other and with natural variability in complex ways that cascade
through the environment across local, regional, and global scales.
Addressing these societal challenges requires that we confront key
scientific questions related to ice sheets and sea level change, large-
scale and persistent shifts in precipitation and water availability,
transcontinental air pollution, shifts in ecosystem structure and
function, impacts of climate change on human health, and occurrence of
extreme events, such as hurricanes, floods and droughts, heat waves,
earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.
As a result, one way or the other, our international neighbors and
we will undoubtedly be taking steps in an effort to deal with the
climate changes we will confront. And as we do so, policy-makers and
others will want to know if such steps are actually making a difference
in addressing climate change. Yet at a time when the need for that kind
of information has never been greater, we are faced with an Earth
observation program that will dramatically diminish in capability over
the next 10-15 years.
Between 2006 and the end of the decade, the number of operating
missions will decrease dramatically and the number of operating sensors
and instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their
nominal lifetimes, will decrease by some 35 percent, with a 50 percent
reduction by 2015 (Fig. 1). Substantial loss of capability is likely
over the next several years due to a combination of decreased budgets
and aging satellites already well past their design lifetimes.
In its report, the committee sets forth a series of near-term and
longer-term recommendations in order to address these troubling trends.
It is important to note that this report does not ``shoot for the
Moon,'' and indeed the committee exercised considerable restraint in
its recommendations, which were carefully considered within the context
of challenging budget situations. Yet, while societal applications have
grown ever-more dependent upon our Earth observing fleet, the NASA
Earth science budget has declined some 30 percent in constant-year
dollars since 2000 (Fig. 2). This disparity between growing societal
needs and diminished resources must be corrected. This leads to the
report's overarching recommendation:
The U.S. Government, working in concert with the private
sector, academe, the public, and its international partners,
should renew its investment in Earth observing systems and
restore its leadership in Earth science and applications.
The report outlines near-term actions meant to stem the tide of
capability deterioration and continue critical data records, as well as
forward-looking recommendations to establish a balanced Earth
observation program designed to directly address the most urgent
societal challenges facing our nation and the world (see Fig. 3 for an
example of how nine of our recommended missions support in a
synergistic way one of the societal benefit areas--extreme event
warnings). It is important to recognize that these two sets of
recommendations are not an ``either/or'' set of priorities. Both near-
term actions and longer-term commitments are required to stem the tide
of capability deterioration, continue critical climate data records,
and establish a balanced Earth observation program designed to directly
address the most urgent societal challenges facing our nation and the
world. It is important to ``right the ship'' for Earth science, and we
simply cannot let the current challenges we face with NPOESS and other
troubled programs stop progress on all other fronts. Implementation of
the ``stop-gap'' recommendations concerning NPOESS, NPP, and GOES-R is
important--and the recommendations for establishing a healthy program
going forward are equally as important. Satisfying near-term
recommendations without placing due emphasis on the forward-looking
program is to ignore the largest fraction of work that has gone into
this report. Moreover, such a strategy would result in a further loss
of U.S. scientific and technical capacity, which could decrease the
competitiveness of the United States internationally for years to come.
Key elements of the recommended program include:
1. Restoration of certain measurement capabilities to the NPP,
NPOESS, and GOES-R spacecraft in order to ensure continuity of
critical data sets.
2. Completion of the existing planned program that was used as
a baseline assumption for this survey. This includes (but is
not limited to) launch of GPM in or before 2012, securing a
replacement to Landsat 7 data before 2012.
3. A prioritized set of 17 missions to be carried out by NOAA
and NASA over the next decade (see Tables 1 and 2 below). This
set of missions provides a sound foundation for Earth science
and its associated societal benefits well beyond 2020. The
committee believes strongly that these missions form a minimal,
yet robust, observational component of an Earth information
system that is capable of addressing a broad range of societal
needs.
4. A technology development program at NASA with funding
comparable to and in addition to its basic technology program
to make sure the necessary technologies are ready when needed
to support mission starts over the coming decade.
5. A new ``Venture'' class of low-cost research and
application missions that can establish entirely new research
avenues or demonstrate key application-oriented measurements,
helping with the development of innovative ideas and
technologies. Priority would be given to cost-effective,
innovative missions rather than ones with excessive scientific
and technological requirements.
6. A robust NASA Research and Analysis program, which is
necessary to maximize scientific return on NASA investments in
Earth science. Because the R&A programs are carried out largely
through the Nation's research universities, such programs are
also of great importance in supporting and training the next
generation of Earth science researchers.
7. Sub-orbital and land-based measurements and socio-
demographic studies in order to supplement and complement
satellite data.
8. A comprehensive information system to meet the challenge of
production, distribution, and stewardship of observational data
and climate records. To ensure the recommended observations
will benefit society, the mission program must be accompanied
by efforts to translate raw observational data into useful
information through modeling, data assimilation, and research
and analysis.
Further, the committee is particularly concerned with the lack of
clear agency responsibility for sustained research programs and the
transitioning of proof-of-concept measurements into sustained
measurement systems. To address societal and research needs, both the
quality and the continuity of the measurement record must be assured
through the transition of short-term, exploratory capabilities, into
sustained observing systems. The elimination of the requirements for
climate research-related measurements on NPOESS is the most recent
example of the failure to sustain critical measurements. Therefore, our
committee recommends that the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
in collaboration with the relevant agencies, and in consultation with
the scientific community, should develop and implement a plan for
achieving and sustaining global Earth observations. This plan should
recognize the complexity of differing agency roles, responsibilities,
and capabilities as well as the lessons from implementation of the
Landsat, EOS, and NPOESS programs.
In your invitation, Mr. Chairman, you asked me to explicitly
address a number of issues and I am pleased to do so:
1. What, in your perspective, should be the top three priorities for
the NASA Earth sciences program over the next five years, and what, if
any, are the most significant challenges in meeting those priorities?
This is a somewhat difficult question to answer. Five years from
now is well into the period covered by the Decadal Survey, and the
Survey has recommended a balanced set of 15 high priority missions for
NASA. This set of 15 missions was derived from over 100 proposed
missions, so a great deal of priority setting has already taken place
by the community. It is therefore important to make progress on all of
these missions during the next five years, with greater attention paid
to the recommended missions early in the queue (the 2010 to 2013
timeframe as described in the report). Thus my answer to this question
will focus on the highest priorities to begin in FY08 in order to lay
the foundation for implementing the full set of recommendations during
the next decade.
<bullet> First, NASA should commit to and begin to implement
its recommended Decadal Missions. Although, the NASA budget for
Earth Sciences is not now adequate to implement the survey
recommendations (see next question), a useful start can be made
with modest resources. The survey's initial seven missions
(2010-2013) should begin in 2008; the first four (CLARREO,
SMAP, ICESat-II, and DESDynI) should begin intensive Phase A
activities and the next three (for the time period 2013-2016--
HyspIRI, ASCENDS, and SWOT) should begin pre-Phase A studies.
Increment needed beyond President's Request in FY08: $90
million.
<bullet> Second, NASA should increase its sub-orbital
capabilities. NASA's airborne programs have suffered
substantial diminution and should be restored. In addition,
NASA should lead in exploiting unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV/
technology). Both conventional and UAV aircraft are needed for
instrument development, and hence risk reduction and technology
advancement, and for their direct contribution to Earth
observations. Increment needed beyond President's Request in
FY08: $10 million.
<bullet> And third, NASA should increase support of its
Research and Analysis (R&A) program and in Earth System
modeling. Improved information about potential future changes
in climate, weather, and other environmental conditions is
essential for the benefit and protection of society. This
improvement will come from: a) better observations (the
recommended missions and enhanced sub-orbital capabilities); b)
more capable models of the Earth System; and c) a vigorous
research program to use the observations in models and
interpret the results. The R&A program has suffered significant
cuts in recent years and these should be reversed. R&A
investments are among the most cost-effective as they directly
exploit on-going missions, advance knowledge to better define
what is needed in the future, and sustain and develop the
requisite scientific and engineering workforce. Increment
needed beyond President's Request in FY08: $20 million.
2. What are your perspectives on how well the FY 2008 budget request
and out year projections for NASA's Earth science program align with
the recommendations of the Earth science decadal survey?
The FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Earth science program is
inadequate to meet the recommendations of the decadal survey. Figure 2
compares the request and the requirements to carry out the
recommendations. Even with an encouraging increase in the NASA Earth
Science request for FY08, it still falls short of what is needed to get
a full start on the recommended program. Moreover, the out year
projections show a steady decrease when the requirements call for an
increase to a level of about $2.1 billion by 2010 with a level budget
(in real dollars) after that.
This committee's leadership on Earth sciences and the recent
actions in the House appropriations process with respect to FY08 are
encouraging and greatly appreciated. I am hopeful that the Congress and
the Administration will ultimately support the actions taken by this
Committee and the appropriators in the FY08 appropriations process and
continue to build on that momentum into the future.
3. Could you please describe your views on how NASA might begin to
implement the recommendations of the National Academies' Earth science
decadal survey?
It is a truism that to begin a long journey you have to take the
first step. NASA should first commit to implementing the
recommendations in a timely fashion, and then begin developing
implementation plans and schedules for the recommended missions and
supporting research and technology development. I am encouraged that
NASA is planning workshops to further analyze the decadal survey
recommended missions, but to develop the survey ideas further will
require substantial investments.
Implementing the survey results will require modest increments in
the NASA Earth Science budget, restoring the budget back to where it
was in real dollars in the early part of this decade. This will require
NASA to request the necessary resources and for Congress to provide
them. Alternatively, Congress could take the lead and require NASA to
implement the survey while providing the resources.
My recommended first specific steps for implementation are given in
my answer to the first question.
4. What are your perspectives, as an individual researcher, on
international collaborations in the Earth sciences, and what value
would international collaborations offer in advancing the recommended
missions in the decadal survey?
As the survey states, international partnerships can be very
important in implementing complex expensive space missions such as
recommended in the survey. Collaborations with other nations not only
save scarce resources for all the partners, they promote scientific
collaboration and sharing of ideas among talented people of all
nations. Most of the smart people in the world do not live in the
United States! International collaborations increase the brain pool to
carry out the challenging proposed missions and use the observations in
creative, innovative ways for the benefit of society.
However, international collaborations come at a cost. Any time
partners are involved, control must be shared and the success of the
mission depends critically on the performance of all the partners. If
one partner runs into difficulties (e.g., financial support is
withdrawn), the entire mission can be threatened. A successful
collaboration also requires assurance that data will be shared and that
U.S. scientists are full partners on teams that ensure adequate pre-
launch instrument characterization and post-launch instrument
calibration and validation. Other issues such as regulations governing
the sharing of technologies (e.g., International Traffic in Arms
Regulation--ITAR), governance and even language and cultural
differences can make international partnerships more difficult and
risky than ``going it alone.'' Nevertheless, the potential benefits
outweigh the downsides and NASA, NOAA and their U.S. partners in
academia and industry should seek opportunities for international
partnerships at every turn.
Mr. Chairman, the observing system we envision will help establish
a firm and sustainable foundation for Earth science and associated
societal benefits through the year 2020 and beyond. It can be achieved
through effective management of technology advances and international
partnerships, and broad use of satellite science data by the research
and decision-making communities. Our report recommends a path forward
that restores U.S. leadership in Earth science and applications and
averts the potential collapse of the system of environmental
satellites. As documented in our report, this can be accomplished in a
fiscally responsible manner, and I urge the Committee to see that it is
accomplished.
I close my testimony with a quote from Vice Admiral Richard H.
Truly, former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first
commander of the Naval Space Command in a recent report, National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change. Admiral Truly speaks as one
of 11 retired senior military officers who wrote this report that
describes the serious threat of climate change to the Nation's
security. Describing his experience in space 25 years ago, Admiral
Truly said:
I have images burned in my mind that will never go away--
images of the Earth and its fragility. I was a test pilot. I
was an aviator. I was not an environmentalist. But I do love
the natural environment, and seeing the Earth from space was
the experience that I return to when I think about what we know
now about climate. . .
When you look at the Earth's horizon, you see an incredibly
beautiful, but very thin line. That thin line is our
atmosphere. And the real fragility of our atmosphere is that
there's so little of it. . .
The stresses that climate change will put on our national
security will be different than any we've dealt with in the
past. For one thing, unlike the challenges we are used to
dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but
come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable. . .
Admiral Truly said he was not convinced of the importance of
climate change by any person or interest group--he was convinced by the
data. We as a nation must continue to provide the data on the Earth,
for only the data can reveal the truth that will affect us all.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
prepared to answer any questions that you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Richard A. Anthes
Richard Anthes is the President of the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR). He is a highly regarded atmospheric
scientist, author, educator and administrator who has contributed
considerable research in the atmospheric sciences. Dr. Anthes has
published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and books and participated on
or chaired over 40 different U.S. national committees. He has also
received numerous awards for his sustained contributions to the
atmospheric sciences. In October 2003 he was awarded the Friendship
Award by the Chinese government, the most prestigious award given to
foreigners, for his contributions over the years to atmospheric science
and weather forecasting in China. Most recently, Dr. Anthes was named
the President of the American Meteorological Society for 2007.
Dr. Anthes has made many research contributions in the areas of
tropical cyclones and mesoscale meteorology. He developed the first
successful three-dimensional model of the tropical cyclone and is the
father of one of the world's most widely used mesoscale models, the
Penn State-NCAR mesoscale model, now in its fifth generation (MM5). In
recent years he has become interested in the radio occultation
technique for sounding Earth's atmosphere and was a key player in the
highly successful proof-of-concept GPS/MET satellite experiment and the
present COSMIC (Constellation Observing System for Meteorology,
Ionosphere and Climate satellite mission.
He places a very high value on education at all levels. His
philosophy is that any significant, long-term progress in solving the
array of problems facing the world hinges on the education of young
people in all countries. This philosophy is reflected in multiple
education and outreach programs at UCAR. For example, in 1996 he
initiated the highly successful SOARS (Significant Opportunities in
Atmospheric Research and Science) program, which addresses the severe
under-representation of minority professionals in the atmospheric
sciences. This program received the Presidential Mentoring Award for
Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering in 2001.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Anthes.
Dr. Barron.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC J. BARRON, DEAN, JACKSON SCHOOL OF
GEOSCIENCES; JACKSON CHAIR IN EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY
OF TEXAS, AUSTIN
Dr. Barron. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for allowing me to testify today.
I believe we have one key goal and that is to
simultaneously protect life and property, promote economic
vitality and at the same time enable environmental stewardship.
Achieving that balance is quite a challenge, and at a minimum,
to be successful, we have to do two things. We have to know
what components of the Earth system are changing and how they
are changing and an ability to separate out the human activity
from the natural forces, and we need to be able to do a better
job of anticipating or predicting the future. It is our ability
to anticipate the future that makes knowledge about the Earth
so powerful.
Our scientific community is very appreciative of the
actions taken by Congress at the start of the fiscal year 2008
appropriations process as you and your colleagues make real
efforts to strengthen the NASA Earth Sciences program.
Unfortunately, the 2008 budget request and its out-year
projections are just not adequate. Under that current funding
and projections, the United States will have significant gaps
in long-term observations, making it much more difficult to
separate out natural and human contributions to climate change
and making it much more difficult to assess how the Earth is
changing. It is equivalent to knowing that we are having an
intense debate for policy-makers on the importance of solar
versus greenhouse gases and so now let us break this record so
that it becomes even more challenging, to answer that question.
Under current funding and projections, the key areas of
uncertainty in climate models, this ability to anticipate the
future so we can put knowledge to good use will likely continue
to languish.
I would also like to stress the fact that the Decadal
Survey seeks primarily to ensure a reasonable and robust set of
observations within a tractable budget where tractable is
defined as only restoring the budget to its 2001 level in terms
of real dollars while ensuring that the most critical
observations and certainly not all that are needed are
addressed. For climate studies, the list provided in the
Decadal Survey is truly a base set. Each element is critical
and the list is not sufficient to address all the major
uncertainties in forecasting the future. First, the Decadal
Survey seeks to sustain the multi-decadal global measurements
of key climate variabilities in order to understand how the
Earth is changing, to understand the roles of natural versus
human portion and to assess and improve climate models. The
list is really a list of fundamentals. The input of energy from
the sun, the Earth's energy budget, the atmosphere temperature
and water vapor, sea surface temperatures, sea surface height,
the distribution of snow and ice, ozone profiles, aerosols and
surface winds is truly a basic set of variables to try to
describe how our climate system is changing.
Second, the Decadal Survey seeks to tackle a key issue, the
mass balance and stability of the large icecaps. The Decadal
Survey places a high priority on determining the ice sheet
volume, sea ice thickness, ice sheet surface velocities and
improved estimates of the sensitivity of ice sheets to change.
This is an area of great sensitivity in the climate system and
a huge question we have in front of us is how stable are those
ice sheets.
Third, the Decadal Survey calls for a focus on the two
areas that are considered to be the most limiting in terms of
our ability to improve climate model predictions. The first
area is aerosol cloud forcing. It is one of the great remaining
uncertainties in climate models. The second area addresses key
uncertainties in the ocean circulation, ocean heat, storage and
uptake and ocean climate forcing.
If we fail to implement the Decadal Survey recommendations,
we will have an observing system and a NASA research program
that is much less capable than the one we had at the start of
this century. The impact on our knowledge base could also be
profound. It may be a much longer-term impact than we realize.
It is interesting to note that these climate issues are
becoming increasingly important to the public, and I believe
that the demand for information from the public will begin to
grow. This is occurring at a time where we have considerable
weakness in the observation program and the research and
analysis program and it is occurring at the same time in which
much of the NASA workforce is eligible to retire, and if you
don't have those opportunities, you are not going to entrain
the next generation workforce and so have the potential to be
doing very long-term damage to the Earth sciences by having
this delay.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Barron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric J. Barron
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member Calvert, and Members of the
Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony on
NASA's Earth Science and Applications Programs: Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request and Issues. My name is Eric Barron, and I am Dean of the
Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. I
was also the Chair of the Climate Variability and Change Panel, which
was one of the key components of the National Research Council (NRC)'s
Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community
Assessment and Strategy for the Future.
Our most basic objective is to simultaneously protect life and
property, promote economic vitality, and enable environmental
stewardship. Regardless of our views on climate change, we all
recognize that this objective is a balancing act. It is impossible to
have billions of people on a planet and not have an environmental
impact. Impact is also clearly associated with individual, regional and
national levels of consumption. We also know that nations that have the
strongest economies are the ones who are the most capable of adapting
to change or mitigating its adverse consequences. Finding the optimum
balance is enormously challenging and is in itself a subject of great
debate. However, it becomes impossible if we lack sufficient knowledge
of how the Earth operates. We need a commitment in two key areas if we
are to achieve this most basic objective. First, we need to know how
the components of the Earth are changing in response to human activity
and natural forces. Second, we need to continue to improve our ability
to ``anticipate'' or predict the future on a variety of time scales. If
current climate projections are correct, climate change over the next
ten to twenty years will have highly noticeable impacts on society and
the demand on climate scientists will begin to broaden substantially.
Impacts on agriculture, water resources, human health, and ecosystems
are likely to drive a public demand for climate knowledge that is both
sector (agriculture, health, water, etc.) and regionally dependent. It
will be our ability to anticipate or forecast all of these elements in
the future, and then to take appropriate action on these predictions
with full understanding of their uncertainties, that can enable us to
simultaneously protect life and property, promote economic vitality,
enable environmental stewardship, and help assess a broad range of
policy options for decision-makers.
This view yields six key tenets that should define the observation
systems of the future:
(1) Sustained multi-decadal, global measurements and data
management of quantities that are key to understanding the
state of the climate and the changes taking place are crucial.
(2) Climate change research, including the observational
system, will be increasingly tied directly toward understanding
the processes and interactions needed to improve our predictive
capabilities and resolve the probabilities associated with
different outcomes.
(3) Evaluation and assessment of model capability will
increasingly be the focus of future measurement activities.
Demonstrating model capability is likely to be a driver for
developing and evolving observation systems and field
campaigns.
(4) The link between climate research and societal benefit
will require a much greater emphasis on higher spatial
resolutions in climate predictions, observations, and
assessments.
(5) The ``family'' of climate observing and forecasting
products will continue to grow, involving innovative research
into societal connections with energy, agriculture, water,
human health, and a host of other areas, creating new public
and private partnerships.
(6) The demand to understand the connection between climate
and specific impacts on natural and human systems will require
a more comprehensive approach to environmental observation and
modeling in order to integrate the multiple stresses that
influence human and natural systems (i.e., climate, land use,
and other human stressors such as pollutants).
The importance of climate information is clear. As economic impact
from climate change grows there will likely be both a change in
research emphasis and a demand for much greater investment in climate
research. Yet, the NASA investment in climate research and observation
is in serious decline. We will enter the next decade with an observing
system that is substantially less capable than we had at the start of
the 21st century.
The specific questions provided by the Subcommittee help elucidate
this issue and I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability.
(1) What is NASA's contribution to the U.S. Climate Science Research
Program in terms of percentage of overall expenditures and percentage
of sensors dedicated to studying Earth's Climate? What fraction of the
world's effort on climate change research does NASA's contribution
represent?
At the start of the U.S. Global Change Research Program,
considerable effort was invested in labeling the contributions of each
federal agency to the components of global change research including
climate. Further, this analysis identified contributions to the
observing and modeling components of the investment in climate
research. In 1992, NASA contributions were approximately 70 percent of
the total USGCRP budget, with more than a third of the total USGCRP
budget focused on climate and hydrology observations provided by NASA
(about $400 million of a total budget of $1,185 million). A decade
later, growth in NASA investments in USGCRP kept pace with the growth
in the total budget, and also kept pace in terms of the investment in
climate research. In the FY08 request, NASA's investment is about 60
percent of the total Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the
total CCSP budget request is about 6.5 percent above the 2002 USGCRP
budget (figures not adjusted for inflation). The full set of segmented
disciplinary topics within the USGCRP set of cross-cuts is combined
into one CCSP budget. More telling is an analysis of the out-year
budgets with their associated numbers of missions and instruments. Even
with the extension of some current missions beyond their nominal life
times, by 2010 the U.S. will have a 35 percent decrease in the number
of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft. By 2015, the
number will have decreased by more than 50 percent. In real dollars,
NASA Earth Sciences has declined by more than a half a billion dollars
since the 2002 USGCRP budget.
The total international investment in climate science is difficult
to confirm with certainty by the science community, but NASA has always
been the international leader in Earth observations. The decrease in
research, missions, and numbers of instruments is a real loss of
capability. The baton is not being passed to international partners, it
is simply being dropped.
(2) What are your perspectives on the FY 2008 budget request for
NASA's Earth Science Program and how well does it position NASA to
contribute to the U.S. priorities and plans for climate and related
research?
The modest increase in the FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Earth
Science Program is the first sign that the steady erosion of capability
and the lack of a credible program of observations beyond the end of
this decade is reversing. However, the FY 2008 budget and its out-year
projections are simply inadequate. Under current funding and
projections, the U.S. will have significant gaps in the long-term
observation record, making it more difficult to separate natural and
human contributions to climate change and making it more difficult to
assess how the Earth is changing. Debates on issues such as the
relative importance of solar versus greenhouse causes of warming will
continue rather than be solved definitively. Under current funding and
projections, the key areas of uncertainty in climate models will very
likely continue to languish. Most certainly, the areas of investigation
that couple climate change to societally-important areas such as water,
health, and food security will be delayed. Stated frankly, our
capabilities to address critical questions in climate change in service
to society will experience a dramatic decline if the NASA out-year
projections are realized.
(3) Which missions and observations recommended in the National
Academies Earth science decadal survey are most critical for advancing
our understanding of climate change and any mitigation and adaptation
strategies? What uncertainties in our understanding of change would the
observations from those missions help reduce?
In my opinion, a decadal survey in the Earth sciences produced a
decade ago would have focused on innovation built upon a robust global
observing system. Such a survey would likely have focused on new
technologies and new capabilities that would have extended our
abilities to address difficult variables, improve the quality of our
observations, and demonstrate an increase in forecasting capability.
Certainly, we would have debated how to balance the notion of
entraining new technologies while still preserving continuity of the
observations. Likely, we would have debated the best mechanisms to
bring the same ``discipline of forecasting'' that has resulted in
dramatic improvements in weather forecasting to a much broader family
of variables of interest to our society. In contrast, the Decadal
Survey rarely considered the frontiers that we know are in the realm of
the possible. This is not a critique of the Decadal Survey. It is a
fact that the NRC effort sought primarily to ensure a reasonable and
robust set of observations within a tractable budget, where
``tractable'' is defined as only restoring the budget to its level in
2001 in terms of real dollars, while ensuring that the most critical
needs were addressed.
For climate studies, the list provided in the National Academies
Earth Science Decadal Survey is a base set. It is prioritized in time,
taking into account the existing instrumentation and international
partners, but each element is critical and the list is not sufficient
to solve all of the major uncertainties in forecasting the future. It
maintains the most basic needs and adds only those missions which are
clearly the most crucial priorities in a set of many critical
observations. The request for climate research reveals the level of
constraint applied within the Decadal Survey.
First, we must have a sufficient set of sustained multi-decadal,
global measurements of key variables in order to understand how the
Earth is changing, to understand the roles of various natural and human
forcing factors, and to assess climate models. Stripped to its
fundamentals, the climate is first affected by the long-term balance
between incoming and outgoing energy. Both the long-term records of
total solar input and the Earth's energy budget are in jeopardy. Other
variables that define the state of the atmosphere and ocean and provide
a foundation for both weather forecasting and climate are equally
critical. These include such fundamental observations as temperature
and water vapor soundings, the distribution of snow and ice, ozone
profiles, and surface winds. The de-scoping of NPOESS involved each of
these key climate variables. Without the Decadal Survey recommendations
we do not address these most basic needs of the climate sciences.
Second, current observations and models raise particular concerns
about the mass balance and even the stability of the large ice caps. In
terms of our capabilities to assess how the Earth system is changing,
the ice sheets represent one of the most significant areas of
uncertainty and one of the most significant areas in terms of potential
societal impact. The Decadal Survey places a high priority on
determining ice sheet volume, sea ice thickness, ice sheet surface
velocities, and improved estimates of the sensitivity of the ice sheets
to climate change.
Third, the Decadal Survey calls for a focus on the two areas that
are considered to be the most limiting in terms of our ability to
improve climate model predictions. The first area is aerosol-cloud
forcing. Aerosol climate forcing is similar in magnitude to carbon
dioxide forcing, but the uncertainty is estimated to be substantially
larger. The impact of aerosols on cloud formation amplifies their
importance to the climate system. The Decadal Survey also calls for a
focus on measuring ocean circulation, ocean heat storage and ocean
climate forcing. Again, the problems are fundamental, involving the
measurement of sea level, the importance of how rapidly heat is being
mixed into the oceans, and improvements in our ability to simulate the
ocean circulation.
We are more than capable of providing the observations needed to
address the specific topics above. Importantly, the climate chapter of
the Decadal Survey also calls for us to address much more challenging
problems by bringing innovative approaches to the fore and challenging
our ability to return to the cutting-edge of Earth observing. The
accurate measurement of the surface fluxes of energy, water and
momentum at the Earth's surface, and an improved ability to examine
atmospheric convection (which governs the transport of heat, water
vapor, trace gases, and aerosols and defines cloud formation) would
substantially advance our ability to predict the future and to
understand critical problems such as sea level variations and changes
in the distribution and character of precipitation. Missions dedicated
to these two important topics are not a part of the priority set from
the Decadal Survey.
(4) What role, if any, do NASA's Earth science research and related
programs play in validating the accuracy of climate measurements
collected from Earth observing satellites and in developing predictive
capabilities for climate change and its effects?
The decline in capability is not restricted to missions and
instruments. The decline in the observation budget is matched by a
significant decline in the Research and Analysis budget in the Earth
Sciences. Sub-orbital and land-based studies increase our ability to
assess and validate climate measurements. A comprehensive approach to
the analysis, distribution and stewardship of observations broadens the
base of applications and entrains a broader set of disciplines and a
higher level of expertise directed toward increasing our confidence in
Earth observations, expanding their value, and improving predictive
capabilities.
The loss of capability has the potential to be long-term and
particularly costly because of its timing. The lack of missions, the
reduced level of opportunities, the lack of innovation, and the
weakness in the Research and Analysis budgets are likely to result in a
reduction in student interest, and most clearly in the training of
graduate students and post-doctoral researchers. This loss of
opportunity, with it potential impact on attracting the next generation
of scientists and engineers who design sensor systems and analyze data,
matches a time in which a substantial fraction of the NASA Earth
sciences workforce is able to retire. The FY 2008 and out-year budgets
have the potential to create significant weakness in the capability of
the workforce at the same time that society is demanding an increased
emphasis on understanding climate and its impacts.
(5) What are your perspectives, as an individual researcher, on
international collaborations in the Earth sciences, and what value
would international collaborations offer in advancing the recommended
missions in the decadal survey?
In my opinion, the statements on international collaboration
provided in the Decadal Survey are sound. International collaborations
have a number of benefits including a reduction in cost and a potential
reduction in the likelihood of gaps in key data sets. In addition,
collaboration can increase the number of science users and bring a
broader array of technologies to bear on a specific problem. NASA has
demonstrated success in developing such partnerships, with TOPEX/
Poseidon and RADARSAT-1 as good examples. Moreover, it is now
relatively common for flight agencies to offer announcements of
opportunity to the international science community as the agencies
attempt to maximize the payoff of each flight project.
However, joint ventures must still be considered with care,
particularly for climate data sets. As noted in the Decadal Survey
climate chapter, instruments built by one partner may not be designed
to the exact requirements of another partner. Although two missions may
utilize the same type of instrument--for example an altimeter--and
therefore sound like they are duplicative, the differences in design
may allow one to resolve ocean eddies and improve our knowledge of the
ocean circulation while the other may not achieve this objective.
Technology transfer restrictions may also prevent the exchange of
important technical details about the instruments. Restrictions on
access to data and software vary from country to country, as do
approaches to calibration and validation. Joint ventures between
government flight agencies and commercial partners can result in
serious complications with data cost, availability, and distribution.
Missions can also be terminated or significantly altered by host
countries, resulting in a greater impact if the other partners had
counted on the international partner to provide a key observation or
synergistic measurement.
International partnerships should only be fostered where synergy
between instrument capabilities and the science requirements is strong,
where there is free and easy access to data, and where there is
transparency in the process of analyzing data such that analysis
algorithms are freely available.
The Decadal Survey includes many examples where priorities were
altered based on knowledge of missions proposed by international
partners. A case in point is the cloud-aerosol mission (ACE) proposed
by the Decadal Survey which, despite its importance in addressing areas
of uncertainty in climate models, was placed in phase 2 (2013-2016)
because of cloud and aerosol information that would become available
from international sources (GCOM-C and EarthCARE).
End Note
An improved ability to predict climate change will allow us to be
good stewards of this planet. But few seem to recognize that our
ability to better predict the future has benefit far beyond addressing
the consequences of increased levels of greenhouse gases. The potential
societal benefits are substantial. For example, even modest improvement
in seasonal to interannual predictions have the potential for
significant societal benefit in agriculture, energy, water, and
weather-related management. The Decadal Survey presents a vision that
recognizes that the demand for knowledge of climate change and
variability will increase. The risk in failing to provide this
information is high. However, our ability to serve society through
increased observing capability and improved model prediction is far
greater than a single issue, even though the issue of climate change is
of enormous significance. An improvement in our ability to anticipate
the future increases our capability to utilize this knowledge to both
limit adverse outcomes and maximize benefits to society.
Biography for Eric J. Barron
Date and Place of Birth:
26 October 1951, Lafayette, Indiana
Education:
1B.S., 1973, Florida State University (Geology)
M.S., 1976, University of Miami (Oceanography, Marine Geology and
Geophysics)
Ph.D., 1980, University of Miami (Oceanography, Marine Geology and
Geophysics)
Positions:
1980--Postdoctoral Research Fellow, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, Colorado
1981-1985--Scientist, Climate Section, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, Colorado
1985-1986--Associate Professor, University of Miami
1986- --Director, Earth System Science Center and Associate
Professor of Geosciences, the Pennsylvania State University
1989- --Professor of Geosciences, the Pennsylvania State University
1998-2003--Director, EMS Environment Institute
2002- --Dean, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
2002- --Trustee, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(currently Vice Chair)
2003- --Board of Governors, Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc.
(currently Vice Chair)
2006- --Dean, Jackson School of Geosciences
Professional Societies:
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Member, Geological Society of America
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Member, Phi Kappa Phi
Honors:
1969-1973--Honors Student, Florida State University
1975-1977--Texaco Fellow
1976--National Center for Atmospheric Research Supercomputing Fellow
1977-1978--Outstanding Student Award, Miami Geological Society
1979-1980--Koczy Fellowship (most outstanding student in last year of
study)
1980--Smith Prize (most creative dissertation)
1988--Excellence of Presentation Award, Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists
1989--Honorable Mention for Excellence of Presentation Award, Society
of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
1992--Wilson Research Award, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The
Pennsylvania State University
1992, 1993--Provost Award for Collaborative Instruction and Curricular
Innovations
1993--Excellence of Presentation Award, Society of Sedimentary Geology
(SEPM)
1993--American Geophysical Union Fellow
1993--Honorable Mention for Excellence of Presentation (Poster),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
1995--American Meteorological Society Fellow
1997--American Association of Petroleum Geologist's Distinguished
Lecturer
1999--Wilson Teaching Award, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, the
Pennsylvania State University
1999--NASA Outstanding Earth Science Education Product (``Discover
Earth: Earth-as-a-System'')
1999--Distinguished Professor of Geosciences
2001--NASA Group Achievement Award for ``Research Strategy for the
Earth Science Enterprise''
2002- --Fellow, the National Institute for Environmental eScience,
Cambridge University, United Kingdom
2002--Frontiers in Geophysics Lecture, American Geophysical Union
2003--NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal
2004--American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow
Related Experience:
Publications
1982-1989--Member, Editorial Board, Geology
1984-1985--Member, Editorial Board, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology
1985-1991--Editor-in-Chief, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology
1988-1996--Editor, Global and Planetary Change
1989-1995--Associate Editor, Journal of Climate
1991--Member, American Geophysical Union, Selection Committee
Paleoceanography Editor
1992- --Member, Editorial Board, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology
1994-1996--Member, Editorial Board, Geotimes
1994-2000--Member, Editorial Board, Consequences
1995, 1997--Chair, American Geophysical Union, Selection Committee,
Biogeochemical Cycles Editor
1995-1999--Editor-in-Chief, Earth Interactions (electronic journal of
AMS, AGU and AAG)
1998--Editorial Board, Oxford University Press, Global Change
Encyclopedia
Service to Societies
1986-1990--Member, American Meteorological Society Committee on Climate
Variations
1988-1991--Chair, American Meteorological Society Committee on Climate
Variations
1988-1990--Member, Global Sedimentary Geology Program Committee,
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
1991--Chair, Penrose Conference Committee, Geological Society of
America
1990-1991--Member, American Geophysical Union, Maurice Ewing Medal
Subcommittee
1991-1996--Chair, American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting
Program Committee for Global Change
1994--Member, American Geophysical Union, Small Science Panel
1995-2002--Member, American Geophysical Union Atmospheric Sciences
Executive Committee
1998--Citation Author-American Geophysical Union, Revelle Medal
1998- --Member, American Geophysical Union, Horton Award
Subcommittee
2003--Member, American Meteorological Society, Mid-term Strategic
Planning Assessment team
2005--Chair, American Geophysical Union, NASA Vision Panel
National Research Council
1987-1990--Member, Climate Research Committee
1990-1996--Chair, Climate Research Committee
1989--Member, Study Committee on Earth System History and Modeling,
Global Change Committee
1990-1994--Member, Board on Global Change Research
1992-1996--Member, Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change
1995-1997--Member, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
1997-1999--Co-Chair, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
1999-2003--Chair, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
1997-2002--Ex-officio, Committee on Global Change Research
1998-2000--Member, Panel on Grand Environmental Challenges
1999--Member, Panel on Assessment of NASA Post-2000 Plans
2002-2003--Member, Panel on Tracking and Predicting the Atmospheric
Dispersion of Material Releases: Implications for Homeland
Security
2003-2004--Chair, Committee on Metrics for Global Change Research
2004-2006--Member, Survey Steering Committee for Earth Science and
Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy
for the Future; Chair, Panel on Climate Change and Variability
2006- --Member, Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments
Service to the Federal Government
1988--Member, NSF Review Panel, Ocean Drilling Program Plan, FY 1988-
1990
1988-1990--Member, Ocean History Panel, NSF Ocean Drilling Program
1990-1994--Member, Science Executive Committee, NASA Earth Observing
System
1994-1997--Chair, Science Executive Committee, NASA Earth Observing
System
1990-1994--Chair, Climate and Hydrology Panel, NASA Earth Observing
System
1990-1993--National Center for Atmospheric Research Scientific
Computing Division Advisory Committee
1990-1993--Chair, NSF Advisory Committee, Marine Aspects of Earth
System History (MESH)
1989-1993--Climate Systems Modeling Project Advisory Board
1991-1993--Member, NSF Review Panel for Geological Record of Global
Change
1992-1993--Member, Earth Science and Applications Advisory Committee,
NASA
1993--Chair, Earth Science and Applications Advisory Committee, NASA
1994-1997--Member, Earth Science and Applications Advisory Committee,
NASA
1994-1995--National Center for Atmospheric Research Director's Advisory
Committee
1994--Chair, USGCRP Forum on Global Change Modeling
1994-1996--Chair, U.S. National Committee for PAGES and NSF Earth
System History Panel
1995-1996--Chair, Allocation Panel for Interagency Climate Simulation
Laboratory
1995--Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science,
NASA Budget
1997--Testimony, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Environment and Public
Works--Global Warming
1997-1999--Member, NSF Geosciences Advisory Committee
1997--Chair, NSF Committee of Visitors on Ocean Sciences Facilities
1997--Co-Chair, White House/USGCRP workshop on ``Impact on Climate
Variation in the Mid Atlantic States''
1997-2000--Member, USGCRP National Assessment of Climate Impacts
Synthesis Team
1998-2000--Member, NSF Geosciences Strategic Planning Committee GEO-
2000
1998- --Member, NOAA Panel on Long Term Climate Monitoring
1999- --Member, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Director's
Advisory Committee
2000- --Member, DOE BERAC Subcommittee on Global Change
2000--Chair, Screening Committee, Director of Earth Sciences, Goddard
Space Flight Center
2000--Member, EPA Review Panel, Integrated Assessment
2000--Member, DOE Review Panel, Climate Change Prediction
2001--U.S. Senate Testimony on Climate Change Science--Committee on the
Environment and Public Works
2001--Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science--
NOAA Budget
2001--Briefing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science--
Climate Change Science
2003- --Member, NSF Steering Committee for Cyberinfrastructure
Research and Development in the Atmospheric Sciences
2003-2005--Member, Earth Science and Applications Advisory Committee,
NASA
2005--Chair, NASA Senior Review for the Earth Sciences
2006--Chair, NSF Earth System History Review panel
International Service
1982-1987--Chair, International Geological Correlation Program (IGCP),
Project 191, ``Cretaceous Paleoclimatic Atlas Project''
1982-1986--Member, International Lithosphere Program (ILP), Working
Group 7 ``Paleoenvironmental Evolution of the Oceans and the
Atmosphere''; Participant, Conference on Scientific Ocean
Drilling (COSOD) Organizer, Penrose Conference on Cretaceous
Climates
1982-1986--Member, SCOR Working Group 79, ``Geological Variations in
Carbon Dioxide and the Carbon Cycle''
1986-1987--Member, Global Environmental Change Panel for Conference on
Scientific Ocean Drilling (COSOD II)
1988-1990--Organizer, Global Sedimentary Geology Working Group on
Paleogeography and Paleoclimatology
1995--International Review Member, Ocean Drilling Program
1996-1997--Member, Joint Steering Committee, World Climate Research
Program
Other
1980--Shipboard Scientist, RV Glomar Challenger Leg 75
1998--Chief Scientist, RV Oceanus
1998-2002--Elected, two terms, State College Area School Director
Chairman Udall. Thank you very much, Dr. Barron.
Dr. Foresman.
STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY W. FORESMAN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
CENTER FOR REMOTE SENSING EDUCATION
Dr. Foresman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and
Members of the Subcommittee.
I would like to focus this committee's attention on
applications to what I feel is the foremost critical arena for
carrying forth the NASA Earth Science Application program
mission for translation and engagement with the greater user
community in our society. I am specifically referring to a 1999
initiative that existed among 17 federal agencies called
Digital Earth, which was led by NASA Earth Sciences. These
agencies formed a common objective to apply Web-based
visualization technologies to enable data exchange among the
various government departments.
Inter-operability of our government's information resources
is a requisite step to addressing major decision support
challenges facing our nation at local and state levels across a
litany of compelling issues ranging from disaster warning and
response to climate change research. NASA was leading 17
federal agencies in 1999 to create virtual three-dimensional
Digital Earth geobrowsers, today's Google Earth. NASA was also
leading the design of the underlying architecture to operate
interconnecting systems with Earth observation science data and
application. The potential promise of these technologies to
display and share data and information was not lost upon our
federal colleagues. They fully recognized that these
astonishing Digital Earth capabilities would enable scientists
and managers within our government to take full command of
their own agency's information and resources and interlink with
all other information available throughout the Federal
Government.
Our industry and academic colleagues were quick to join
with this engaging and visually enabled captivating initiative
for Web-based collaboration, and indeed, many have continued to
pursue this Digital Earth vision long after NASA began to
decommission the interagency working group. This
decommissioning was unfortunate, in my opinion. The loss of
NASA's leadership, guidance and momentum for the Digital Earth
initiative has proven to be a tremendous setback for critical
areas in the Earth observation science program. The fact that
geobrowsers such as Google Earth and Microsoft's Virtual Earth
and many others can be directly linked to the Digital Earth
legacy is testimony to the paramount importance of these
technologies for their capacity to deliver science and
information directly to the user community, and this is only
the tip of the iceberg. Seven years later, NASA cannot deliver
a decisive decision support system or a citizen alert system
with anything resembling the ease of use and sophistication of
Google Earth.
While working for the United Nations environment program, I
launched Google Earth's first contract in 2001 when they were
known as Keyhole. Where was NASA leading us in 2001? What is
NASA's Earth Science Application program doing today to build
real-world partnerships that can quickly create visualization
solutions for complex problems? What is NASA doing to fully
engage with these geobrowser technology teams to rapidly move
forth on delivering Earth observation science and information
to citizens and decision-makers? Market forces and free
enterprise should not be allowed to replace NASA and its
mission during our current era of global change and climate
variability.
This is why I am most concerned that NASA's Earth Science
Application program seriously rethinks its current trajectory
and seriously engages with the creative forces of market and
academia and NGOs but most important, NASA should seriously
accept and assume the leadership role that it once held in this
most fecund and catalytic domain of science and technology and
apply this for the service of America and the world's citizens.
When NASA declined to lead the Digital Earth initiative, the
Chinese were happy to leap to the forefront during the last
seven years and launched a series of international symposia and
international journals and the International Society for
Digital Earth.
An incredible range of phenomenal and societal shifting
applications are currently underway applying Digital Earth
including monitoring of Darfur human rights violations and
conflicts, citizens' engagement with mountaintop removal issues
in Appalachia, Yukon indigenous tribes assuming governance
along the Yukon River Valley, grassroots women's groups
creating peace maps for their community, and disaster response
in Indonesia and Katrina. A small team at NASA Ames has
developed a world-class and free open source Digital Earth
geobrowser called World Wind. The World Wind team, about the
same size as Google Earth's staff was back in 2001, has been
struggling for funding and needs support. Private discussions
ongoing between Google executives and Director Griffin
regarding strategic goals and objectives of the Google-NASA
Enterprise partnership should immediately be reviewed and
considered by your Committee.
Rapid and collective action will be required to align
NASA's Earth Science Application program with the pace of
development and action occurring in today's technology, science
and social landscape. Google Earth is just two years old. My
team helped form and influence that trajectory with success six
years ago. What can we expect of NASA over this next year?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members and Members of the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Foresman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy W. Foresman
1. How can NASA's Earth Science Applications Program enable the
applied use of NASA Earth observation data for societal benefit?
NASA has a unique and valuable brand that facilitates connecting
segments of society, nationally and internationally, with the benefits
of Earth observation. This brand of credibility still retains a sense
of intellectual awe that breaks through many barriers that other
agencies or firms must overcome to convey similar communications and
engagement. Therefore the first challenge for enablement comes with the
brand.
Societal use is a broad term, well articulated in the National
Research Council's 2007 report, Earth Science and Applications from
Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. This
witness is in full accord with the recommendations of the reference
report and its recommendations, and will therefore attempt to elucidate
for highlight specific items, elements, or recommendations that are not
clearly defined in the report.
Society is facing an onslaught of changes that may responsibly be
labeled of ``biblical proportions.'' These actions are occurring at
such a pace and scale, that science teams are challenged to locate
their research plots and areas intact from one year to the next. Many
forests have disappeared, for example, while science teams were
debating the carbon budget and biomass contained within them. These
societal onslaughts include:
<bullet> Atmospheric build up of greenhouse gases higher than
experienced from 600,000 to one million years. Carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has passed the tipping point of 350 parts per
million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Author's analysis of trends for climate and environmental
trends since the 1960s has demonstrated a consistent pattern of
scientists missing tipping points until after the fact. In addition,
the consensus driven process for define projections also follows a
consistent pattern whereby the `radical' projections of 20-30 years
past reveal to be seen as conservative projections when realized.
Examples of the Club of Rome population projections are one case in
point.
<bullet> Humans are witnessing the sixth massive planetary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
epoch of species extinction recorded for the Earth.
<bullet> Approximately one billion people do not have access
to safe drinking water.
<bullet> The 2002 Global Environmental Report (GEO 3) of the
United Nations Environment Programme was not able to document
one positive trend in desertification, deforestation, over
fishing, arable land productivity, coral reef health,
biodiversity, protection of migratory species, human security,
disease vectors, or environmental sustainable practices.
<bullet> Climate change appears to be gaining momentum while
coping strategies for the most vulnerable society members have
not been put into place or are unknown.
NASA's Earth Science Applications Program (ESAP) has the potential
to provide profound amounts of useful data and information across the
litany of sectors that divide the human community operations. Forestry,
fisheries, farming, education, health care, disaster response,
community development, and governance all fulfill separate and
compartmentalized domains of local and regional operations. NASA ESAP
has developed a reasonably literate understanding of how information
can flow from sensor collection to decision-making in the field.
However, they lack the financial resources, the personnel with
experience and expertise, and the requisite infrastructure to implement
the process control and operations. They are limited by NASA's mandate
for research, which is consistently used to set limits on the success
of programs within NASA ESAP. Therefore, major shifts in the follow
arenas are recommend to be placed on the table if NASA ESAP plans to
``enable the applied use of NASA Earth observation data of societal
benefit.''
<bullet> Define the research continuum for NASA ESAP in
harmony with the Department of Defense categories (e.g., 6.1 to
6.6 defines six levels of research and development, while NASA
has no differentiation).
<bullet> Create multi-agency working groups with concrete
deliverable for products, selectively rotating chair positions
on an annual basis, and create funding mechanisms for shared
contracting (e.g., with membership in the State Department's
Humanitarian Information Unit).
<bullet> Break all grants and awards 50-50 percent into two
sectors: (1) major institutions, and (2) small business and
NGOs. Currently the vast major of funds go to Congressional
earmarks or distributed to larger organizations and
universities with a track record of receiving funds.
<bullet> Require all research results to be immediately
converted into no-cost, web-based Earth science curriculum for
K-12 and collegiate levels.
<bullet> Provide for NASA science scholars program in
partnership with major national coalitions, such as through the
National Council for Science and the Environment's
approximately 160 university affiliates.
NASA's participation in annual conferences for major users of Earth
observation data provides perhaps the most concentrated and effective
opportunities for NASA ESAP to enhance enablement of data for societal
needs. Annually, over 13,000 active users of satellite and spatial
data, from all walks of society, attend the ESRI (Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Redlands, CA) annual user conference in San Diego.
The American Society of Photogrammetry and Remotes Sensing (ASPRS)
annually host over 2,000 active scientists, industry and government
workers who apply Earth observations data on a daily basis in their
vocations. The International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing brings multinational attention to NASA's goals with global
congress ever four years along with annual special focus meetings. NASA
should recognize an implement an improved strategy for engaging with
these communities as they represent the cadre of activist promoting and
building upon the use of Earth observation data.
Recommendation: NASA ESAP create a comprehensive and strategic campaign
to participate more fully and support the aforementioned conferences,
along with a least a dozen more, for the purpose of 1) gathering
intelligence on applications and user requirements for NASA Earth
observation data and information, 2) foster the creation of
partnerships with increased members of these communities as societal
representatives, 3) identify critical and effective educational
opportunities, and 4) implement a stronger brand marketing program.
2. What is involved in translating NASA's Earth observation data into
information for decision-makers in Federal and State and local
governments, commercial enterprises, and non-governmental institutions?
A fundamental understanding is needed as to the issue of what is
referred to as ``pin the tail'' on the decision-makers. Decisions that
affect society are mostly local and made daily by the citizens of the
planet. These decisions range from carrying umbrellas to applying sun
screen, to where to vacation, to what type of automobile to purchase,
and hopefully to what type of proposition or political candidate to
vote for in an election. This subject was investigated thoroughly by a
team from GRID Arendal, Norway under the leadership of Lars
Kristoferson, where a diffuse and complex reality was identified
regarding the pathways environmental and spatial data and information
enter the decision-making processes of society, Figure 1. A key finding
was that visualization of science data had the most direct impact on
societies and decision-making. An example was given of using Landsat
data for the 200-year land use change study for the Baltimore-
Washington region.\2\ This science study (a collaboration of NASA, U.S.
Census, USGS, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County)
provided then Governor Parris Glendening of Maryland with the
visualization video that propelled the Smart Growth legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Foresman, T.''The Baltimore-Washington Regional Collaboratory
Land Use History Research Program,'' in Sisk, T.D., ed. Perspectives on
Land Use History of North America: A Context for Understanding Our
Changing Environment. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BDR/BSR-1998-0003, pp. 33-42.
1998.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Figure 1--Decision-making Chain for Earth Observation Data and
Information
Of the five steps define in Figure 1, NASA ESAP has been mostly
attuned to Step 1, producing information. The litany of programs and
data clearinghouses that have been designed, built, and attempted is
beyond the scope of this document. Fundamentally, NASA ESAP has been
underwhelming in its success to getting these information repositories
and enterprises to push the data and information into Steps 2-5.
A compelling element of translating data and information for
decision-makers is in having a deep and experiential level of
understanding regarding how decisions are made in various agencies, at
various levels, and among industry and NGOs. This witness has a rare
background that includes managing the spatial data and information
enterprises or departments at the county level, at the city level, for
various NGOs, for businesses, for federal agencies (DOD, EPA, NASA),
for various country ministries, and for the United Nations. This
experience has taught the witness that translation by federal employees
is simply not an easy task and must be learned as an art form, not an
engineered or scientific script. Therefore, the most efficacious
approach is to incorporate into the NASA ESAP culture and operations
various veteran visiting experts from different walks of society, both
nationally and international, on a frequent and consistent basis.
Veteran experts can be partnered with NASA ESAP staff to work on
translation issues, pilots, and other exploratory techniques. Such
``interns' or visiting staff will provide for a much more cost
effective approach in opposition to the numerous and costly regional
workshops and seminars that have been pressed into service in the past.
Fact finding workshops do not translate nearly as well as having
veteran experts resident at NASA, for six months or longer, in defining
and testing improved translating schemas. These expert exchange type
experiences provide many additional residual benefits by broadening the
NASA experience base.
NGO groups are especially poised to advance the societal benefits
from NASA ESAP data and information. A flush of successes were recently
highlighted at the 5th International Symposium on Digital Earth held in
Berkeley, California (www.isde5.org) held 5-9 June 2007. General Pete
Worden, Director NASA Ames, was a keynote presenter at this conference,
which documented Earth observation data being used for:
<bullet> communities working to ameliorate the negative
impacts of mountain removal in the Appalachian mountains,
<bullet> monitoring human rights in Darfur,
<bullet> disaster response in Indonesia and New Orleans,
<bullet> disease vector monitoring and management,
<bullet> glacier monitoring and mapping,
<bullet> biodiversity assessments,
<bullet> land cover change dynamics in South America,
<bullet> forest protection through science visualization and
community engagement,
<bullet> community peace mapping and conflict mitigation, and
<bullet> marine species tracking and monitoring.
The vast majority of these examples were led by NGOs. Typically,
NGOs, including those of recognized stature (e.g., Conservation
International, Green Belt Movement, Heinz Center, Nature Conservancy,
World Wildlife Fund) do not possess large technical staffs and rely
instead on one or two geographic information system (GIS) technicians
who usually import Earth observation data from various sources for
their project assessments. By focusing on the functional methods to
facilitate ready and free access of timely and time-series Earth
observation data for locations around the planet, NASA ESAP could
revolutionize its impact on society.
Success has been witnessed in a semi-random fashion regarding the
educational initiatives of NASA ESAP. Many fine examples exist,
including the Remote Sensing Core Curriculum (RSCC) and Conferences on
Remote Sensing Education (CORSE) that were initiated in the early 1990s
with seed funding from NASA ESAP. These programs were successful in
part because they were based on small core groups of collaborating
experts as opposed to large institutions with unwieldy bureaucracies.
In addition, the education programs worked closely with other
successful initiatives such as the NASA/NOAA Globe program.
3. What gaps, if any, exist between the goals of NASA's Earth Science
Applications Program and the tools and processes needed to translate
Earth observation data into useful applications? What, if any,
improvements to NASA's Applications Program would you recommend?
NASA ESAP was once the world leader in an initiative called Digital
Earth beginning in 1998. This initiative involved 17 federal agencies
agreeing to cooperate, with no funds exchanged and led by NASA, on
defining and creating the tools and process needed to translate Earth
observation data into useful applications. The Digital Earth initiative
was heralded around the country and the world, with the Chinese Academy
of Sciences embedding the program immediately into their structure and
out-year planning processes. The Chinese founded the International
Society for Digital Earth May of 2006 and are responsible for helping
initiate the new International Journal for Digital Earth (Taylor and
Francis Publishers). This sequence of international successes has been
accomplished without NASA ESAP participation since 2001, due to
political decisions made under the current administration. The
reasoning behind NASA ESAP's decision to kill the Digital Earth
initiative that NASA had created and nurtured, was due to the
association of former Vice President Al Gore's name regarding a speech
where he mentions the Digital Earth vision. Had the current
administration followed the same logic with the Internet, Congress
would be using alternative means of communications. This gap in NASA's
judgment has had profound impacts on its ability to work with and lead
in delivering the tools and processes necessary to translate Earth
observation data.
Further testimony on this subject is provided from the witness's
direct relationship with the Digital Earth community after leaving NASA
Headquarters in 2000 for the position as Director of Early Warning and
Assessment at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). While at
UNEP, the witness provided the first contract with the founders of
Google Earth (then operating as Keyhole Inc. with four programmers).
These types of entrepreneurial opportunities for more effective tools
and processes for translating and delivering Earth observation data
were therefore squandered by NASA ESAP and have not been recaptured.
Currently, as witnessed at the 5th International Symposium on Digital
Earth, a suite of organizations is refining and operating Digital Earth
geobrowsers (e.g., NASA's World Wind, Geofusion's GeoMatrix, ESRI's
ArcGIS Explorer, Microsoft's Virtual Earth, Google Earth, Skyline's
Globe) that can and will be the primary tools for delivering data and
information to decision-makers and citizens throughout the planet. NASA
ESAP is not engaged in these works, albeit conversations with Google
executives and Dr. Griffin (NASA Administrator) have been on going. The
flaw in these discussions is that NASA ESAP is not engaged with the
community, but rather has limited strategic dialogues with only one of
the industry leaders and therefore is not demonstrating comprehensive
attention regarding the requirement to engage with the community of
developers as a whole, including its own NASA World Wind. NASA's World
Wind geobrowser (an open source software platform), while
internationally recognized for its technical prowess and performance,
receives short thrift in financial and staffing support from NASA's
administration.
The number one recommendation for NASA ESAP is to terminate the
failed policy of linking Mr. Gore with Digital Earth (there is no
factual link, only an historic footnote) and revisit the potential
leadership role for the Digital Earth technical and user community both
national and internationally. This recommendation will require
immediate attention due to the ongoing dialogue with Eric Schmidt
(Google executive) and Brigadier General Pete Worden and other NASA
executives for a specialized center to be created with Google funds at
the NASA Ames Research facility in Moffett Field, California. A NASA
Digital Earth facility with full and open access by NGOs, academia,
industry, government agencies and international groups should be
seriously considered to address this question (#3).
The second recommendation is for NASA ESAP to join in supporting
the Digital Earth Exchange (DEX) being piloted by the San Diego State
University Visualization Center. The SDSU Visualization Center, under
the leadership of Dr. Eric Frost and senior scientist John Graham, has
been hosting the Strong Angel Series to demonstrate and further develop
the effectiveness for open-source, and inter-operability standards in
emergencies and disaster response to use multi-source satellite imagery
and field data for operational use. This facility has advanced the
understanding of real-time data exchange and decision support among a
collection of leading federal, State, industry, NGO, and academic
participants (including DOD and FEMA representatives). This facility
and the coalition of supercomputer nodes working in alliance with SDSU,
represents the epitome of cost-effective, cutting edge technologic
application of Earth observation data for web-delivery of societal
priority decision support needs. This entrepreneurial enterprise is
filling in the major gaps that exist in NASA's ESAP technology
translation and applications.
4. What changes, if any, in NASA's Earth Science Applications Program
are needed to implement the recommendations of the Earth science
decadal survey on applications and the transition of research into
operations?
With respect to the 17 missions defined in the Earth Science
decadal survey, NASA ESAP is currently below capacity with the
expertise for the science missions and for the defining the translation
issues and capacity to provide adequate support. The current staff is
required to perform heroic efforts in hours and stress to keep up with
the demands while attempting to cope with the decreasing scope and
quantity of sensors and missions. Land cover continuity has become a
Sisyphean task with civil servants constantly engaging with community
and industry experts to examine new alternatives, while the legacy of a
35-year Earth observation jewel for science is held hostage to
programmatic shifts, budgetary cuts, and inter-agency politics (DOD's
past role in Landsat is a prime example). Climate change and land cover
change scientists have demonstrated the unqualified success of having a
time-series record of our planet's land surface phenomena. There is no
method to recreate this legacy and soon it will be demonstrated for its
vulnerabilities under the present trajectory.
A prime example of the successful use of the Landsat time-series
has been the recent UNEP publication One Planet Many People: Atlas of
Our Changing Environment. This publication has sold more copies than
any other environmental publication in the history of the UN. It has
been translated for access on Google Earth and is changing the very way
people view our dynamic world. A point in fact is the limited role that
NASA played in this effort (exceptions noted for Dr. Martha Maiden, Dr.
David Herring, Mr. Woody Turner, and Dr. Rebecca Lindsey who consulted
on this project).
Recommendation: Institute major changes in NASA ESAP's plan of action
in 2008 to take leadership in the development of land cover change
products, atlases, and web-based information for every nation on the
planet. This must be carefully coordinated with leading land cover
change researchers and programs, such as those of Conservation
International, Nature Conservancy, IGBP, UNEP, FAO, and Planet Action.
The litany of science missions define in the decadal survey
portrays a serious lack of instrumentation for column measurements of
greenhouse gases. Instruments have recently be identified, with solid
understanding of the physics, by Dr. Robert Corell (The H. John Heinz
III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment) and colleagues
that would attend to the measurements and monitoring of column CO<INF>2</INF>
and other greenhouse gases. These measurements are proving critical as
the science of natural and anthropogenic gas emissions and fluxes
advances. NASA's cutbacks in sensor development and missions has
curtailed, if not sequestered, the introduction of new and economically
feasible greenhouse gases monitoring missions and programs.
Recommendation: NASA ESAP conduct a rapid review workshop with leading
geophysicists, atmospheric scientists, and instrumentation engineers to
ascertain the feasibility and scoping of new instruments and missions
for climate change research beyond those discussed in the decadal
survey.
5. Based on your experience as a ``user,'' and your experience in
working with users, what are the most important steps NASA should take
to expand the application of NASA's Earth observation data to meet
social needs?
NASA will require a reinvention, or reestablishment of its mission,
to include Earth as it primary planet of study and Earth sciences at
its core. This shift in mission will enable the staff and collaborating
agencies and entities a freer rein on educating, engaging, and enabling
the real-world user communities that can benefit from NASA data,
information, and services. Currently, the mission and philosophy of the
Agency, demonstrated by reductions in funding and other resources, is
crippling NASA's potential in these areas.
Morale of Earth science personnel has been witnessed to be
significantly degraded from that of the previous years in previous
administrations. It would be trivial for Congress to validate these
statements by inviting various witnesses from the Goddard Space Flight
Center and NASA Headquarters, or any number of other NASA facilities.
To propel NASA onto a positive stage for engaging with the user
community on both a widespread and deeply integrated fashion, the
following initiatives are recommended for consideration and further
engagement beginning no later than FY 2008. These initiatives are not
exhaustive of the opportunities available, but have been identified due
to the persistence and growth in sophisticated use of Earth observation
data by the user communities and for their highly visible and
marketable value.
<bullet> Green Belt Movement--Launched by Dr. Wangari Maathai,
Nobel Lauriat for Peace, to help upgrade the plight of women
and communities throughout Africa and the world. The Green Belt
Movement (GBM at www.greenbeltmovement.org) has initiated a
one-billion tree planting campaign that directly applies the
satellite technology to investigate the areas of deforestation
and land use degradation that require priority attention. GBM's
use of satellite data and information can be directly linked to
a litany of key application areas, including:
reforestation
water resources,
disease vector monitoring,
disaster mitigation and response,
food security,
women and girls education, and
biodiversity protection and management, as well as
the burgeoning enterprise of carbon for poverty
reduction (CPR).
The world stature of Dr. Maathai and the potential impact of
GBM is of such importance that NASA should consider this a
priority focus for engagement and support in 2008.
<bullet> Planet Action--Launched on the 5th of June by Spot
Image (see attached flier www.planet-action.org), this
initiative, to focus on climate change research, relies upon
application of multiple decades of time-series satellite data.
Projects and programs to be associated with Planet Action will
require a research component and connection with local
communities impacted by challenges of climate change. Results
from projects will be shared through an open, Digital Earth
Exchange platform. The focus areas include:
Vegetation, biodiversity & ecosystems
Oceans
Ice & snow cover
Drought, desertification & water resources
Human dimensions & habitation
Currently, this initiative is engaged in collaboration
dialogues with strategic partners, including the Environmental
Systems Research Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation
International, Digital Globe, GeoEye, Heinz Center, the
European Space Agency, and many others. Planet Action will be
operated by a separate non-profit entity beginning in 2008.
<bullet> Millennium Water Alliance--This alliance was formed
four years ago to enable collaborative actions for delivering
safe drinking water and sanitation to the two billion people
lacking access to both (www.mwawater.org). The leading water
NGOs are cooperating but lack the technical infrastructure to
enable field coordination and effective knowledge of geo-
hydrologic regimes around the planet. This alliance represents
a prime target for NASA to engage with and begin making real
progress in applying its data and information into the existing
global community.
It is sincerely hoped that through the Committee's oversight and
hearings that a significant shift in focus and effectiveness can be
brought to a previously renowned agency. Leadership and demonstrative
results, as well as strategic engagement with key enterprises around
the Nation and the world, are clearly needed in NASA. Making science
knowledge actionable should become the proud tradition of NASA and the
ESAP. Hopefully, the input provided by this witness may help contribute
to this goal.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Timothy W. Foresman
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Geography, 1987, University of California at Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, California
M.Sc., Environmental Engineering, 1981, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California
M.Sc., Ecology, 1978, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
B.Sc., Biology, 1974, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
FACULTY POSITIONS
1992-1998; Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of
Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland
1998-2000; Research Professor, Department of Engineering, University of
Maryland, Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland
2003-2005; International Visiting Scholar, Keio University, Faculty of
Policy Management, Center of Information Infrastructure, Shonan
Fujisawa Campus, Japan
2002-Present; Adjunct Professor, Department of Geography, University of
Maryland College Park, Greenbelt, Maryland
2006-Present; Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Qinqhai Academy of
Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1988-1990, Physical Geography (101), University of Nevada, Las Vegas
1996, Physical Geography (110), University of Maryland, Baltimore
County (UMBC)
1992 to 1999, Introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
(386), UMBC
1992 to 1999, Advanced Applications in GIS (486), UMBC
1995, Field Research in Geography (485), UMBC
1994, 1996, 1998, Digital Image Processing for Environ. Applications
(481), UMBC
2003, Earth Design (400), Keio University, Japan
CAREER POSITIONS
2006-present, President, Global Water, 1901 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite
405, Arlington, Virginia 22209
2006-present, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Qinqhai Academy of
Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine
1999-present, President (Founder), International Center for Remote
Sensing Education
2003-2005, International Visiting Scholar, Keio University, Faculty of
Policy Management, Center of Information Infrastructure, Shonan
Fujisawa Campus, Japan
2002-present, Adjunct Professor, Department of Geography, University of
Maryland College Park, Greenbelt, Maryland
2002-2003, Executive Science Advisor (Consultant Contract), United
Nations Environment Programme, 1707 H Street, N.W. , Suite 300,
Washington, D.C. 20006
2000-2002, Director, Division of Early Warning and Assessment, United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi,
Kenya
1999-2000, Visiting Scientist, Office of Earth Science, Code YO,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, 300
E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546
1998-2000, Research Professor, Department of Engineering, University of
Maryland, Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland
1992-1998, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of
Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland
1992-1999, Director, Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Department of
Geography, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore,
Maryland 21250
1991-1992, Executive Consultant, PlanGraphics, Inc., 202 W. Main
Street, Suite 200, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1501
1988-1991, Manager, Geographic Information Systems, Clark County, 225
Bridger Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89155
1987-1988, President, Envir. Consultant, P.O. Box 530, Lagunitas,
California 94938
1986-1987, Manager, Remote Sensing/Geographic Information Systems,
Systems Application, Inc., 101 Lucas Valley Road, San Rafael,
CA 94903
1984-1986, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,
NV 98114
1978-1984, Research Ecologist, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
1976-1978, Associate Director, Ecographics, P.O. Box 706, La Jolla, CA
93043
Discussion
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Foresman, and I thank the
panel for a very compelling and stimulating set of testimony.
We will now open our first round of questions. The Chair
will recognize himself for five minutes.
Balance in the Earth Science and Applications Program
I wanted to turn to Dr. Anthes and Dr. Barron initially.
Dr. Freilich's testimony asserts that NASA's budget request
supports a balanced program. Do you agree based on the
recommendations of the Decadal Survey, and if not, what aspects
of the program are out of balance?
Dr. Anthes, why don't we start with you?
Dr. Anthes. Yes. I would not say it is not balanced but it
is just not enough. You can see that the purchasing power, the
investments in Earth science at NASA has decreased by 30
percent since the 2001 levels, and that is not enough to do
even the minimal program that we are talking about. I think it
is more a question of too little rather than not a balance.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Barron.
Dr. Barron. I completely agree.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Freilich.
Dr. Freilich. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the
balance in the program. I point out that we operate 14
satellites now and we have seven more in development that will
launch off by 2013. The size of the Earth Science budget is
itself determined from a series of balance calculations across
the disciplines in NASA and between NASA and other agencies. It
is my job to get the best science, the best applications on the
resources that are made available.
Chairman Udall. I thank you for that succinct and to the
point set of answers. I think we may turn back to this at some
point later in the hearing.
Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Climate Sensors Removed
From NPOESS
I do want to turn to NPOESS, Dr. Freilich, and talk a bit
about the status of the strategies to mitigate the impact of
removing the climate sensors from NPOESS. Maybe I will leave
that as an open-ended question to you and ask you to respond.
Dr. Freilich. Okay. Thank you. As you know, it was just
about a year ago when because of a series of technical and
budgetary issues the NPOESS program was refocused on its core
weather forecasting objectives, and that resulted in the
demanifestation of several climate sensors and degradation of
some others which are important for the Nation's scientific and
applications programs. Almost immediately after that and before
I joined NASA at headquarters, NASA and NOAA working together
with the Office of Science and Technology Policy began an in-
depth study of the climate impact of those demanifestations and
degradations, and that was presented in early January, and we
ranked from that the top measurements that were required to be
remanifested based on science issues, and you are well aware of
that, and we are moving forwards to that. Subsequently, we have
been working with NOAA and OSTP in order to develop mitigation
scenarios and associated costs, and this is a work in progress
still in order to get those capabilities back in a realistic
schedule, a realistic budgetary environment and addressing the
science and the applications. In April, NASA and NOAA got
together and jointly funded the remanifestation of the Ozone
Limb system on the NPOESS Preparatory Project. So to sum up, we
are working very, very closely and very intensely with NOAA
under OSTP guidance to understand the impacts of the Nunn-
McCurdy refocusing and to develop scenarios to regain those
capabilities.
Maintaining Climate Instrument Teams
Chairman Udall. Could I ask more specifically, what are
your plans for maintaining the teams developing the climate
instruments such as the TSIS as you do the work to find
mitigation strategies and the way forward?
Dr. Freilich. In the area of--for instance, in the area of
total solar irradiance measurements, the Glory mission, which
will be launching late in 2008 or early 2009, is primarily an
aerosol mission but it also includes a total solar irradiance
monitor, which will continue that time series which is critical
to have on-orbit overlap. So in many instances, some of the
measurements and missions that we have under development now
will continue and extend those time series and those teams are
in part participating in the development of those missions.
Chairman Udall. Thank you. My time is expired. I am now
pleased to recognize Mr. Feeney for five minutes.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NASA's Plans With Respect to Resources
Dr. Anthes, Barron and Foresman, you have heard Dr.
Freilich's testimony about NASA's approach going forward. Given
the fact that we have some limited resources and there are
constraints that all three of you are concerned about, given
that reality, do you think that programmatically NASA is taking
the appropriate steps and do you have any guidance for NASA,
again given the reality of the limited resources that you
pointed out?
Dr. Anthes, why don't you start?
Dr. Anthes. I think we have given NASA about all the
guidance that they need at the moment through the Decadal
Survey. That was a two and one-half year study by over 100
people. But again, I get back to the point that NASA is doing a
good job with what they have but they just don't have enough,
and for--you know, we are talking about just going back to the
2001-2002 level, that is $2 per person per year in the United
States. That is the price of a bad cup of coffee. And so I
think this is affordable. I mean, this is not an unreasonable
request to ask for--to NASA to ask the Administration or the
Administration to ask Congress or Congress to supply the
resources needed to do our minimal recommended program.
Continuity of Climate Observations, Data Gaps, and Sensor
CalibrationXXXXXX
Dr. Barron. I would like to just add to that that I think
we have to find a way to fix this issue of climate continuity
of these observations so that every time it is not a stopgap
effort. There were a large number of reports and a large amount
of effort that suggested that NPOESS was going to present
problems for climate quality observations and it is as if each
time your worse nightmare arrives one more time and you go
through--you go through this and even in writing the Decadal
Survey, it was like a moving target to watch things dropping
off and questioning what was going to happen and how it was
going to be done and now we are going to add studies. We are
going to take a solar measurement that gets us part of it but
not everything. Each one of these components in terms of this
record will be examined but nowhere in there I think is the
sense that we are actually going to fix this so that we can
actually sit here and argue about how we are going to make
improvements and advances, how we might be able to save money
through efficiencies, how we might be able to do a better job
of designing an observing system because instead the most basic
and fundamental set of observations for the climate system are
in jeopardy one more time, and so I think that a lot of
analysis on how to maintain parts of that is not the issue. We
have a bigger issue to fix.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Foresman, you have to push----
Dr. Foresman. Thank you. I certainly agree with their
comments. I would relate mine to the other 95 percent of the
community outside the scientific domain in terms of I feel that
NASA could do much better in terms of being able to connect and
outreach with innovation, industry partnerships, academic
partnerships and NGO partnerships that heretofore have not been
made available, but again, as I emphasized, the technologies
that are now changing the landscape are but two years old, and
if NASA is not prepared within their staff and experience at
the current time to address how that strategically impacts what
they should be doing to deliver to every district in this
nation and citizens that lie within there.
Mr. Feeney. Dr. Freilich, given Dr. Barron's point about
the continuity of some of the programs, there is a risk that
some of our current satellites that are operating well past
their design life may expire before replacements are launched.
How serious would the consequences of a data gap for a year or
two be in terms of our mission and talk about the risks of
calibrating new sensors in terms of that continuity that Dr.
Barron was concerned about.
Dr. Freilich. I could deliver a lengthy treatise as my
academic background is asking me to do but I will refrain from
that for your benefit. The need for continuity and the
approaches to calibration and validation either on orbit
overlap or vicarious calibration differ from quantity to
quantity and measurement to measurement. Let me focus for an
illustrative example on total solar irradiance. We have a 23-
year-plus time series of measurements of the sun's broadband
output. We can make very, very stable and very sensitive
instruments but we can't absolutely calibrate them on the
ground. Therefore, it is essential for that measurement that we
have on-orbit overlap of six to 12 months so that the time
series can be made consistent and we can understand whether
changes are owing to the changes in the sun or changes in the
instrument when we weren't measuring and therefore, for
instance, that is why we have put a total solar irradiance
monitor on the Glory mission, which is due to launch in late
2008 or early 2009 to assure overlap with our existing
instruments, for instance, SORCE. Consistency and continuity,
where our understanding and our predictions are sensitive to
it, is number one on our list because it is essential for us to
redeem the Nation's previous investment in these time series by
continuing them where necessary. In some areas we could survive
with a gap or a degradation and do calibrations using transfer
standards.
Mr. Feeney. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired but if the
chairman would agree, I would just like to get Dr. Barron to
respond to that because it is a concern that you raised and you
think that this is--what do you think of Dr. Freilich's
response?
Dr. Barron. He has provided a good answer and it is true
that different rules and needs apply for different sensors but
if you can imagine for me a minute having a system in which we
say oh, we are about to lose this because it didn't work here,
let us go do something over here, or if something fails and
then make a decision that you are going to do something, that
is not a very robust system, and we have been arguing about how
robust the system is and what needs to be done to make it more
robust for at least 20 years, it seems to me, and it strikes me
that we are in worse shape, not in better shape, in terms of
designing that as a system. So I agree that what he said is
correct but I do not think that embodies a strategy of how to
put this problem aside so that you are not continually
addressing what you need to do and what you need to add because
you have lost something here.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Barron and Dr. Freilich.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Lampson, for five minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I share some of the frustrations that all of our
colleagues are starting to express more and more, and Dr.
Anthes, I think I would have probably not said nearly as nicely
as what you did about resources. We keep hearing time and time
again the comments that NASA and other agencies as well make
the best efforts possible with the resources available. I think
that is a huge cop-out and there are budgetary issues but we
are teaching this nation to not understand about science. We
are teaching this nation that we are not going to get a return
if we invest in something that will tell us something about our
future, and the return is huge, and I was sitting here thinking
that this little statement behind me, how indeed true that it
is, that if we don't step up to the plate and exhibit the
political will and quit copping out to those who are leading us
without that vision--we can talk words but we have to implement
it, act on it, and I think there is an interest on the part of
our Congress to do that. We need guidance from the science
community, we need guidance from this public, and the public
itself needs to be taught, I believe, how to respond to us so
that we can become the followers of them and hopefully put the
resources where we need them. I am going to try to ask a whole
bunch of questions in a very short period of time so short
answers, please, gentlemen.
Transitioning Research Satellites and Measurements into
Operational Systems
Dr. Freilich, the Earth Sciences Decadal Survey discusses
the need for transitioning research satellites and measurements
into operational systems. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005
calls for NASA and NOAA coordination on research to operation.
How often has NASA-NOAA joint working group met and when was
the most recent meeting?
Dr. Freilich. The joint working group, which is one of many
specific groups, met twice during 2006, and I believe that the
most recent meeting was in April of 2006. It was a multi-day
workshop. However, there are many other meetings periodically
that we have and regularly. There is a tri-agency altimeter
working group, and as I pointed out, NASA and NOAA have gotten
together and remanifested the OMPS-Limb sensor on----
Mr. Lampson. This committee met a year and a half ago
almost. What specific issues has it addressed?
Dr. Freilich. The joint working group has five specific
issues that it addresses and it focuses on transition of
measurements, transition of missions that are on orbit and
issues associated with data set, stewardship and climate
records.
Mr. Lampson. Is the joint working group with NOAA able to
effectively plan for transitions from research to operations?
Dr. Freilich. We face a real challenge as a country in
doing that transition and there are very few successful and
rapid transitions. However, with guidance from the National
Research Council--and Dr. Anthes in fact authored the CONNTRO
report to the Committee on NASA-NOAA from research to
operations. People at NASA and at NOAA are very sensitive to
this issue. The National Research Council has set out a path
forward and the joint working group and the other working
groups are leading us along that path. We are making progress.
Mr. Lampson. Would any of the other witnesses care to
comment on any of those questions?
Dr. Anthes. It is a very good question. It is a very tough
problem, this transition from research to operations. I hate to
keep whining about not enough resources but, you know, it takes
resources to transition these new technologies into NOAA
operations, and NOAA's budget has been relatively flat, even
declining, and they simply don't have the resources to
transition even the simplest, even some of the cheapest new
technologies into operations. So this is a really big issue, as
Dr. Freilich says, and we just have to come to grips with there
is no plan, there is no national plan, it is not going well.
Partly it is due to the fact that NOAA doesn't have the
resources to take on these huge responsibilities and so it is
not just simply one agency problem. It is a two-agency problem.
Mr. Lampson. The yellow light is on. If I start into this,
it is going to take me a few more minutes, so I will yield back
my time now and----
Mr. Feeney. If there is no objection. Go ahead.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Lampson, why don't you take a couple
more minutes?
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much.
Follow-on to NASA's QuikSCAT Satellite
For Dr. Anthes and Dr. Barron, according to a recent
article, scientists exploring options for QuikSCAT success in
Space News, the new director of the National Hurricane Center
has emphasized the need to plan for a replacement to NASA's
QuikSCAT satellite should it fail. The Decadal Survey proposes
a follow-on to QuikSCAT but not until 2013 at the earliest.
What is the reason for the timing of the Extended Ocean Vector
Winds Mission, XOVWM, and how urgent do you believe the
situation with QuikSCAT is?
Dr. Barron. I think you see that what the Decadal Survey
did was put a whole group of very important missions on the
table and at the same time we tried to live within a very
specific budget constraint which wasn't give us more, give us
more, give us more, it was get us back to where we were in 2001
and 2002. Now, you only have one choice there. You have put a
list there and you have to put them in time, in some sequence
and so you will see that one particular mission that focuses on
one critical topic is delayed to a later date because of hope
that something will continue or because something else in
another part of the world is going to contribute some
information, but there really was within that envelope no
choice and I think what you see too is, there is nothing added
to that in terms of true innovations on that list. It is just
basically to fit things in as best we could that were critical.
At least that is my view.
Dr. Anthes. I can only add a little bit to that. There is a
European scatterometer in place called ASCAT, which although
not providing the level of accuracy that some people would wish
at least is an interim scatterometer that will provide some of
the information needed for the ocean vector winds that are
important for hurricane forecasting.
Mr. Lampson. And we are also going to rely on the Russians
for moving our men and women to and from the International
Space Station, and who else are we going to be relying on into
the future? What advances would the XOVWM mission offer over
QuikSCAT? And I am going to ask----
Dr. Anthes. This is his--he is an expert in scatterometry
so he should----
Dr. Freilich. I am very proud of QuikSCAT. I was the
mission principal investigator for it so allow me. The XOVWM
mission that was recommended by the Decadal Survey primarily
has higher resolution in space so it measures more fine short-
scale variations in the wind field and it will have the ability
to make measurements that are accurate under raining and severe
conditions which present systems cannot do. So we will be able
to get closer to the coast. We will be able to measure smaller-
scale wind variations when the NOAA XOVWM mission flies, and we
will be able to make measurements that are accurate under
extreme conditions and rain.
Mr. Lampson. My last thing, and it is short and I
appreciate the indulgence of the Chairman and Ranking Member, I
sent a letter regarding the NASA-NOAA research to operations
working group report asking for that. It was supposed to have
been here on February 15. NASA sent it for clearance, I think,
earlier this month. Do you have any idea when I might be able
to expect delivery of that?
Dr. Freilich. I am relatively new to the Federal Government
and I am learning a lot. I can tell you that substantive work
on the text of that report ended many, many weeks ago and it is
working its way through the agency and interagency review
process. I will take an action to get back to you. I think that
it is imminent but I can't say with certainty. I am sorry.
Mr. Lampson. My fear is that we have become such a--almost
a bloated bureaucracy that we can't move and somehow, I think
as some of you have stated, Dr. Foresman and others, we have
got to find a way around that. We have got too much at stake
for our future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Lampson. That was a very
important line of questioning, and Dr. Freilich, I hope that
you will respond to Dr. Lampson--or Mr. Lampson as soon as
possible. There is a Dr. Lampson. It turns out it is Nick's
brother.
Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS)--Maintaining the Team and
Potential Inclusion on Landsat Data Continuity Mission
If I could, Dr. Freilich, I want to go back to the
discussion of climate instrument teams. It is my understanding
that the Glory instrument contracts are winding down, as
important as that project, set of projects is. What
specifically will NASA be doing to maintain the TSIS team for
the remainder of 2007--fiscal year 2007 and through 2008 while
OSTP is deciding what to do?
Dr. Freilich. I can't give you any specifics, sir, beyond
the fact that although the contracts--although the work, the
development work on those instruments--that instrument is in
fact winding down, because the instrument is being built and
successfully delivered and integrated, there still remains a
lot of work for integration tests and maintenance of that
followed by of course after launch validation and calibration
and characterization of the instrument. I don't have the
specific information that I can give you on TSIS. Again, we can
find----
Chairman Udall. Do you have an idea when you might have
that specific information?
Dr. Freilich. As soon as I can get back and within a couple
of days I will make inquiries. I am sorry.
Chairman Udall. That is terrific. Thank you.
Let me continue on the TSIS line of questioning in the
context of some broader concerns. NASA officials have indicated
that the Landsat Data Continuity Mission is being considered as
a potential platform for TSIS, and how about a sense of when a
decision might be made on that option and how would adding the
TSIS affect the LDCM schedule and the duration of any potential
gaps in the land cover data record?
Dr. Freilich. You have hit the high points, Mr. Chairman.
You are well informed. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission is
designed principally to extend the 30-year-plus record that we
have of moderate-resolution radiometry over and imagery of land
surfaces. It has been an incredibly valuable data set. At
present we have two spacecraft both flying well beyond their
baseline lifetime. LDCM is scheduled for launch at present in
mid-2011, designed specifically to minimize the gap, and I am
afraid that we will have a six to 12-month gap in that long
time series. We are looking at using that platform potentially
as you said to extend some other critical time series such as
TSIS. The number one issue that is guiding us there is in fact
the schedule and the risk for minimizing the gap on the time
series of the land imagery. We are looking at lots of options
and again that work is deeply underway and has been for several
months. We are letting four contracts for LDCM and they are in
the process of being advertised right now and the interaction
between them and the technical addition of TSIS will govern our
schedules and our decisions.
Climate Measurements and `Decadal Survey' Missions
Chairman Udall. Let me follow on here. What role, if any,
will the Decadal Survey missions have in addressing any
potential gaps in climate and environment measurements as a
result of the Nunn-McCurdy restructuring at NPOESS?
Dr. Freilich. If I understand your question, it is can
Decadal Survey missions fill in for potential NPOESS
demanifestations. Do I have that correct?
Chairman Udall. That is fair enough.
Dr. Freilich. Okay. The Decadal Survey actually was, as Dr.
Anthes and Dr. Barron said, was very careful in not overlapping
capabilities for the Nation so in fact the problem turns out to
be almost an opposite one, that is, the NPOESS refocusing
happened late in the Decadal Survey process and many of the
Decadal Survey missions actually rely on measurements that were
to be taken by NPOESS as opposed to duplicate measurements that
would be taken by NPOESS and one of the goals of our workshops
is to actually understand what contextual measurements that
would have been made by NPOESS are necessary for the Decadal
Survey science so that we will advance the science.
Chairman Udall. Perhaps I could just take another minute
and ask Dr. Anthes or Dr. Barron if they care to comment on the
last question.
Dr. Anthes. Well, there were two recommendations for NOAA
in the very early time frame, the 2010 to 2013, that have great
bearing on climate. One is the CLARREO mission, which is to do
benchmark climate radiation observations. The climate
fundamentally is warming because there is an imbalance between
what radiation we are receiving from the sun and what is being
either reflected back or emitted back and so we need a set of
benchmark radiation observations that will measure not only
what the sun is putting in but what is being reflected back and
what is being emitted back from the Earth. The other instrument
that is recommended in this very early time frame is the GPS
radio occultation measurements, which make very accurate and
precise measurements of the temperature and water vapor
structure of the atmosphere. Again, these would be benchmark
climate observations that will tell us how fast the atmosphere
is warming up, where it is warming up the fastest and how the
water vapor is increasing regionally and globally. So these are
two relatively inexpensive missions that can be launched by
2010 and will contribute to the very essential climate
observations.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Barron, anything else to add?
Dr. Barron. Yes, those--I completely agree with Dr. Anthes.
Those are extremely important. And I would also, you know, like
to confirm what Dr. Freilich said. As Chair of the climate
panel, we sat there with an assumption that we had a basic set
of observations long planned through NPOESS that would continue
and that our objective was to build upon that. Where are the
great uncertainties in climate models? How can we make
observations to make improvements? And in particular in the
latter half of the Decadal Survey, every meeting of my panel it
seemed we had to reassess what was the base that we were
building upon because we were moving from a situation of
instead of proposing innovative ideas to tackle important
problems, we were trying to make sure we were going to not lose
what we have had for decades.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, and Mr. Feeney is recognized.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
International Cooperation, Including Challenges of ITAR
Congressman Lampson raised the international reliance and
cooperation issue. Dr. Freilich, obviously there are some
advantages including avoiding duplication of services and
reducing costs with cooperation. Your statement suggests that
there are some bilateral discussions underway with several
partner agencies. Is the concept to have other countries assume
full responsibility for designing, building and operating
individual missions and then sharing the data or to have one or
several partners participate in individual missions or is it a
combination? I guess it would be helpful to, you know, see
where we are going with the bilateral agreements.
Dr. Freilich. Excellent point. The answer is, it is a
combination. First let me say that the Decadal Survey very
specifically points out the need to leverage our capabilities
with those of our international partners. It points out that
the scope of the problem and the scope of the solution is far
greater than what any single agency or any single country can
do. It turns out that our Decadal Survey scientists are
completely in line and leading in fact the global climate
science and Earth systems science community so our aims in NASA
are well aligned with the aims of our partner agencies in other
countries. Having said that, in many of our discussions we are
talking about contributions from an instrument standpoint from
multiple countries to a particular mission but we are also
spending extra amounts of time to talk about trading missions.
If a mission can be flown from a particular country and the
data are freely available and well characterized, then it aids
everybody in our analyses and therefore we don't have to
duplicate those measurements simply to say that we were making
them as well. The resources are limited, the problem scope is
large and we really have to have unique application of our
resources, not duplicative. Having said that, we are trying all
possible permutations.
Mr. Feeney. And as you enter and participate in these
negotiations, how will ITAR regulations hinder or impede your
efforts?
Dr. Freilich. ITAR presents challenges. We conform with the
ITAR regulations and I am intimately familiar with several
international collaborations. Like I said, ITAR presents
challenges but we can surmount them. We are going to be flying,
for instance--we have altimeter missions joint with the French
agency CNES that have been very successful and we will be
launching OSTM in June of 2008. We will be flying the first
ever sea surface salinity measurement mission with our
Argentine colleagues' space agency CONAE, and that will be
launching in the 2009 time frame as presently listed. So ITAR
is challenging but it can be surmounted and we do obey the ITAR
regulations.
Mr. Feeney. And finally, Dr. Anthes, you have mentioned
some of the international cooperation components to
accomplishing the overall goals. What do you think about ITAR
and the potential hindrance it poses?
Dr. Anthes. As Dr. Freilich said, they can be significant,
and then some kinds of technologies they can actually prevent
international collaboration. International collaboration, as I
said, is--we have to consider that carefully but at some point,
I think as Mr. Lampson implied, the United States can't rely
entirely on other nations to make these critical observations.
It would be a little bit like having a military that relied on
international partnerships. We certainly need to do some
partnerships but I think that some of these key observations we
cannot assume that these partnerships will be there or will be
successful.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you. I appreciate everybody's testimony
and I yield back my time.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Lampson.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We also have to be real cautious, I believe, with our
international partners when we enter into arrangements. There
seems to more and more opportunity for us to find some way to
renege in some of those. One I have in mind that doesn't impact
any of you, the AMS Project, which is a $1.2 billion project
that has been 95 percent paid for by international partners,
and our promise was to put it on the space station, and at this
point it is no longer on the manifest to be able to go to the
space station. Those folks are not happy campers. And so if we
expect to be able to enter into these arrangements, which I
think are critically important, I don't see how there is any
better way for us to build friendships than by working on
things that benefit the people of both or more countries. We
just have to be able to be cautious with what we do, what our
plans are.
I don't have a question in any of that. I think I started a
rant a little while ago. I love NASA. I love the science
agencies that we have in this nation and I want to do things
that can bring attention to the magnificent accomplishments
that they make and people that have the bright minds that are
making those and to continue to be able to support them in a
bigger and better way. I think it is important for us to point
out that right now NASA has a budget that is six-tenths of a
percent of the Nation's budget, and in the 1960s when we were
having magnificent achievement in education and in
technological advances, the budget for NASA was six percent of
our nation's budget, a significant difference in commitment,
and that is something that I hope and pray that we can get back
to as a Congress, as a nation and as a scientific community,
and with that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Lampson, I might ask you to yield. We
could use a little bit of your time. I know we have had
conversations about the AMS Project and the important work that
would be done in this very fascinating area of antimatter and I
think we have some opportunities in July to question NASA about
their plans in this regard. Gentlemen, I look forward to
working with you to further understand why we can't see that
this important project be undertaken. I think you and I have
some additional plans to pursue this.
Mr. Lampson. Indeed, and I appreciate your interest in it
but I tried to mention that only to let it be a part of this
big picture of what we are not doing right now. There are too
many times when we take and make the excuse of we can't get the
resources to do something. If it is important for us as a
Nation, as a people, we ought to find the resources. We did
once before and we got an unbelievable return for it, and that
is what I am looking for. That is what I want to see my
government doing for this nation. It is within us. We have got
to have the leadership to make it happen.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me
and I would yield back to him if he----
Mr. Lampson. And I will yield my time back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will
recognize himself for five minutes.
Plans for Future Observations Systems to Address Societal Needs
I did want to return to Dr. Freilich but also give Dr.
Foresman a heads-up that we haven't been ignoring him and I
wanted to give him an opportunity to comment on the question I
am going to ask Dr. Freilich. What I want to focus on was the
Academy's survey, the Decadal Survey stressed the need for
observation systems to look at both scientific and societal
needs, and I want to just give you a chance to talk about
NASA's planning process for future observation systems takes
into account this important area of societal needs. When you
are finished, I would like to give Dr. Foresman an opportunity
to comment as well.
Dr. Freilich. Our missions are the basis--they provide the
hard measurements and the information. The research and
analysis program develops scientific-based understanding of the
Earth as a system using modeling as well as those measurements.
Our Applied Sciences program serves as what I call a flexible
bridge between the knowledge that we gain in the research and
analysis program and the need for focused information to
address societal benefit areas and very specifically, our
Applied Sciences program is designed to further that
communication between the science understanding that is driven
by the missions and the need for services and information by
others who are dealing specifically with societal benefit
areas. The focus of the Applied Sciences program is becoming
aligned with US GEO, the Group on Earth Observations, and their
nine societal benefit areas. In each one of those areas, we
have pilot projects in which we demonstrate the utility of the
NASA measurements and understanding to further other agency and
other organizations' goals in their--for their objectives. So
very specifically, the Applied Sciences program forms that
connection between the science and the societal benefit areas.
We are aligned with US GEO, and as I pointed out, we are
playing a very key role in the international Committee on Earth
Observing Satellites which is the coordinating arm for the
global GEO.
Chairman Udall. Thank you. And I want to turn Dr. Foresman
and I think particularly ask Dr. Foresman to outline some
examples of how this very powerful technology can be used. I
had obtained recently, Dr. Foresman, a radio story about Darfur
and how actually satellite imagery could help us understand on
a real-time basis what was happening there and would help us
expand our efforts to prevent what is clearly genocide and a
very tragic situation from further developing, and I know you
had some other examples in your testimony. So the floor is
yours.
Dr. Foresman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This also tends to
reach into issues of international cooperation as well, so it
is not just restricted to the United States. We are sitting at
a profound point in history where we can view these various
radical, if you will, changes in terms of land use or
humanitarian issues around the planet with regular citizens
being able to engage. This is something that the Applied
Science program, again with due respect, having been in that
program and I know they did a lot of very good things but the
bureaucratic realities tend to basically dilute the ability to
provide rapid response, and rapid response is occurring in a
variety of sectors at a rate which we talked about into the
hundreds of thousands of projects that are showing up around
the planet that unfortunately is beyond the scope of NASA
headquarters to address. However, by restructuring, it could
have the potential to address this in some very significant
ways. You know, we are looking at deforestation issues. While
searching for better algorithms for carbon, sometimes the
academics spend time sequestering their information to be
published while the forest has been removed and so they come
back and they find out that it is a moot point, and this
happens continuously. Reporting on how many trees are there is
a phenomenal area that we are still abjectly behind the ball.
Recently one of the applications was done in Santa Cruz, not
known as a developing nation but Santa Cruz, California, where
they were able to save 1,000 redwood trees in the backyard
simply by providing through these various visualization tools
that I am speaking of that NASA was the leader in showing the
community what was going on with 1,000 trees that had been
promulgated through the official channels as but a clear--a
logging exercise by the watershed district. Well, it was a
clear-cutting exercise to gain monetary benefit to a watershed
district. This is a phenomenal thing, 1,000 acres of redwood
trees right in the backyards of some of the most literate and
intelligent people on the planet. So these kinds of examples
are showing up and we captured many of those in Berkeley with
General Pete Worden, who was there in Berkeley just two weeks
ago with me highlighting many of these examples, and it was
interesting because the Google executives admitted--and it
wasn't just Google, you know, I don't have stock in that
company--admitted that they can't even contain what is going
on. This is an uncontrolled experiment. Well, it is an
experiment that NASA should be controlling as best they can
because it is the absolute soft spot. It is where the rubber
meets the road in terms of how to transfer our science and
knowledge into the backyards of citizens. And so we have a
choice. There is two paths. We can sit back and say well, it
will happen and let us watch what happens, or we can say, no,
this is the time for leadership and to really gain the upper
hand in these application areas because they are so profound in
terms of mountaintop removal, for our energy resources in our
country in terms of the governance by indigenous people that
are taking over water quality monitoring and sampling from the
USGS and EPA in a very profound way and a great example of the
communities taking on the responsibility for stewardship in the
backyards, and the tools are there now that we only dreamed of
seven or eight years ago. They are here now and they are not
part of the plan. Thank you.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Barron, would you like to comment as
well?
Dr. Barron. I would. I think it is an extremely important
question, and to be perfectly blunt, I view the applications
program side of NASA a decade ago as throwing data over the
transom and finding out who might grab it. I view the current
program as one which is directly throwing data over the transom
where you are sitting there looking at a particular application
use and making sure that the data is available. But I think we
forget the fact that there is actually a science that needs to
be accomplished to make the societal connections. You are
sitting right now in a world in which climate variability is
having a big influence in something like West Nile virus
delivered by a mosquito yet you are sitting there analyzing
where and how to respond in hindsight by collecting numbers of
dead birds and testing them when we have the capability to
actually couple the science and human health sciences together
so that you actually start to forecast the outcomes for
something like a Dengue fever or a West Nile virus. We have
that capability in the short-term and the long-term if we can
put the communities together and to begin to set up the types
of observations and modeling that you need to do it. And by
collecting observations and sitting there thinking just as a
climate scientist, you are not going to make that
accomplishment. You actually have to bring these societal
connections to the forefront and not one which is a handoff of
data but one that actually promotes scientific discovery and
brings that same discipline of forecasting that we apply to
weather forecasting to something like human health forecasting.
Chairman Udall. The two other Committee Members that are
here inform me they have no additional questions. I did have
one additional line of questioning I wanted to direct to the
panel, then we will draw the hearing to a conclusion. I will
turn back to Dr. Freilich but I would like everybody else on
the panel to feel free to comment.
NASA's Future Earth Observation Missions and Integrating
Decadal Survey Recommendations, NPOESS Changes, and
International Cooperation
Your testimony indicates that NASA's plan for future Earth
observing missions will integrate the scientific
recommendations of the Decadal Survey, the ongoing NPOESS Nunn-
McCurdy changes and the contributions of our international
partners. That is no small task. Could you explain in specific
terms how you plan to actually make that integrated approach a
reality, and then if I could thrown an additional two questions
at you: What is the timeline for that integrated plan and how
does that timeline address any potential data gaps as a result
of the restructuring, the Nunn-McCurdy restructuring of NPOESS?
If you want to provide some of this for the record, we would be
happy to indulge you in that way well, but if you want to take
a shot right now, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Freilich. Okay. I will take a shot at that. Before I
start that, may I have your lead to address the timeliness of
some of our Applied Sciences projects or----
Chairman Udall. Sure. Please.
Dr. Freilich. Dr. Foresman made a very good point about the
need to be timely in order to actually have real benefit, and
Dr. Barron talked about throwing directed or undirected data
over the transom. We have some real shining stars of projects
in the Applied Sciences program and I would just like to talk
about two or maybe one to start with, the SERVIR node, which is
a data environmental monitoring synthesizing and distribution
center that we in Applied Sciences have set up in Central
America to bring in not only NASA data but also models from
other agencies and to provide the information that is necessary
for decision-makers in the Meso American area to actually
manage the environment and to understand. Just last month, I
think it was around the 18th of May, we were contacted by the
environment ministry of Honduras where there was a degradation
in air quality and it was unclear whether this was being caused
by Saharan dust--they knew that there was Saharan dust in the
area--or whether it was being caused by smoke, and the response
in Honduras and Nicaragua and Costa Rica would be quite
different. In just a matter of four days, SERVIR took data from
our flying satellites, including the relatively recently
launched CALIPSO satellite which measures aerosols and clouds
as well as data from MODIS, combined that information with
models, models of smoke distribution, fire distribution, et
cetera, many of which were generated in the United States, and
provided a clear description to the affected areas that in fact
there was dust but it was located well to the east in the
Caribbean and the degradation of air quality that they were
seeing was resulting from fires which were relatively local, at
least to Central America. The point being that in that very
short amount of time, that NASA-sponsored project could provide
the specific information that was flexibly needed by that
ministry.
Okay. Now let me answer your questions. Sorry about that.
It is a big task to pull together the international
collaborations, the NPOESS response and our increased
understanding of the technical and cost challenges of the
missions. We are working on a time scale that is focused
informing the fiscal year 2009 process because the
Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget process is the first
one that is going to be fully looking at the detailed
recommendations of the Decadal Survey. I have been on the road
almost constantly for the last couple of months speaking with
our international partners and bringing together some of those
joint science working groups. We actually even started some of
the concept studies to look at technical challenges and costs a
little bit before the Decadal Survey came out. They have all
reported to us once and we are in the final stages of
rationalizing those inputs and it is our hope--and you know
what is happening with the NPOESS-OSTP-NASA-NOAA joint
deliberations. They are all focused on coming up with at least
the outlines of a plan and the associated resources in order to
inform the Administration's development of the fiscal year 2009
budget process. So we are moving towards a fall--we are moving
towards a fall coalescence or synthesis for the integrated.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Anthes or Dr. Barron, did you have any
interest in adding additional commentary to that?
Dr. Anthes. Well, I think it is good that they are
seriously considering the Decadal Survey but it is going to
take more than rebalancing, more than considering, more than a
few workshops. Mr. Lampson is right on. This country can't
afford not to do it. There is a cost for doing nothing. We are
talking about, I mean, some lag--to stabilize greenhouse
emissions in the United States might cost $30 billion. That is
just annually. Is that going to work? How do we know that is
happening? Are we going to invest $30 billion in something that
won't work or we can't observe or can't verify? What about
China? China is the greatest greenhouse gas emissions country
right now. How do we know what they are doing and whether what
we will do will make any difference compared to what they do?
So the cost of doing nothing is huge. The cost of getting on
with observing this planet is very, very small. We just have to
do it.
Chairman Udall. Thank you very much.
Dr. Barron, do you want to have the last word or should we
leave Rick with it?
Well, thank you all today for taking your valuable time to
appear before the Subcommittee. We look forward to future
visits on the part of all of you.
At this point I want to announce if there is no objection,
the record will remain open for additional statements from
Members and for answers to any follow-up questions the
Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses. Without objection, so
ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Michael H. Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division,
Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Is there a consensus (among federal agencies, academia, and other
users) on a set of climate and environmental measurements to which the
nation should commit for sustained observations? If so, what is the
set? If not, should there be such a set of consensus measurements and
what would be involved in reaching consensus?
A1. There is a National consensus on the set of climate variables
documented in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program CCSP Strategic
Plan, which are similar to the internationally agreed-upon set of
Essential Climate Variables of the Global Climate Observing System
(GCOS) of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP). The set is made up
of approximately 40 different climate variables covering oceans,
atmospheres, the cryosphere, the biosphere, and chemistry.
Overall, the science community has defined a relatively complete
set of variables and associated observation accuracy for each variable.
Several reports have also considered and documented the required
accuracy, stability, and overlap of observations of these variables
required to observe climate forcing, responses, and feedback (e.g., the
U.S. multi-agency report from NASA, NOAA, EPA, and NPOESS Ohring et
al., BAMS September 2005; and, the international GCOS Satellite
Calibration Requirements Report). While the current observing systems
are not fully capable of meeting these requirements, the recent
National Research Council (NRC) Decadal Survey recommended specific
mission priorities to address this lack of full capability. In
addition, efforts are underway in NASA's research program to develop
new methods to prioritize climate observations using Observing System
Simulation Experiments (OSSEs), a concept analogous to weather
prediction OSSEs, but based on climate model physics and the ability to
use climate observations to determine uncertainties in climate model
predictions.
Q2. The value of Earth observing satellites lies in the data and
measurements they collect. Will implementing the Decadal Survey's
recommended missions require changes to NASA's data management systems?
If so, what are your plans for making such changes?
A2. NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) has developed an extensive data
system architecture capable of handling data ingest, processing,
quality control, validation, archive, and distribution. The system is
distributed across major data centers as well as smaller data systems.
The size of the systems is determined by data volume, processing
complexity, and user community needs. This distributed system has been
found to be the most robust and efficient method, and keeps data
processing as close as possible to the scientific expertise needed in
its creation, validation, and quality control.
The missions recommended by the NRC Decadal Survey for Earth
Science have similar overall data requirements, compared with NASA's
current EOS and Earth System Science Pathfinder missions, so they would
be handled in a similar architecture to the current NASA satellites.
Many of the NRC-recommended satellites do have large data rates and
processing requirements, so they will represent significant extension
of capability at current data centers and, in a few cases, may lead to
new data centers. Data system approaches would be selected to most
efficiently and robustly accomplish the NRC Decadal Study missions. For
example, the portion of the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity
Observatory (CLARREO) mission to extend the Earth radiation budget
satellite data would extend the capabilities of the EOS-developed
Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) radiation budget
data system at the NASA Langley Atmospheric Sciences Data Center. Such
an approach takes full advantage of the previous NASA hardware and
software development efforts, and ensures a low risk approach to
achieving the NRC recommended data sets.
Q3. The decadal survey urges the continuation of the currently
operating Terra, Aqua, Aura, and SORCE Earth observation satellites for
as long as possible to help minimize data gaps resulting from the loss
of NPOESS climate sensors. What is the current plan for continuing
these missions and how long are they expected to provide data?
A3. As recommended by the NASA Earth Science Senior Review conducted in
April 2007, the Aqua, Terra, and SORCE missions have been approved and
budgeted for operation through 2011. The Aura mission is still in its
primary mission phase, which will end in 2010. All four of these
missions will be examined for further extension in the next Earth
Science Senior Review, to be conducted during 2009.
The Earth Science Division within the Science Mission Directorate
reviews the status and performance of all of NASA's Earth observing
missions operating beyond their primary mission every two years as part
of our Senior Review process. The review process considers the
satellite performance and instrument health, the value of the
observations to NASA research objectives, as well as to all National
operational agencies such as NOAA, the Department of Defense and the
U.S. Geological Survey, among others. Terra, Aqua and SORCE were
included in the most recent review, completed in April 2007. Aura was
not included in the 2007 review because that mission is still in its
primary mission phase, which will end in 2010. Aura will be included in
the next review, to be held in 2009. The Senior Review found that the
satellites and their payloads were operating well with no life-limiting
factors expected to become important through 2011. The measurements
from all four missions were found to have continuing value both for
NASA science and for interagency and national objectives.
In general, mission and instrument lifetimes depend on many
factors, from individual instrument performance to spacecraft
performance. Records show that not many NASA satellites built to
typical mission standards operate longer than 10 years in orbit.
However, these four satellites have operated in-orbit for less than 10
years, the oldest being Terra at 8 years in orbit. The primary life-
limiting factor for these satellites is the available fuel for orbit
adjustment maneuvers, and there is sufficient fuel for Terra, Aqua,
Aura, and SORCE to support lifetimes to at least 2011.
Q4. According to a report of the MODIS Science Team,'' as documented
in the The Earth Observer publication, ``The use of MODIS data for land
studies has exceeded even our most optimistic expectations and has been
an unprecedented success for NASA's terrestrial program.'' Will follow-
on sensors to MODIS have the capability to support the growing number
of applications derived from MODIS data?
A4. The planned follow-on sensors to MODIS are the Visible-Infrared
Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instruments on the NPOESS platforms.
The VIIRS instruments should have the capability to support most of the
land applications pioneered by the MODIS data. The one exception to
this is in the area of active fires. VIIRS has some active fire
capability, but the current design of VIIRS instrument precludes
getting active fire data of MODIS quality.
Q5. In order to understand the science of global climate change, it is
necessary to constrain the uncertainty in changes in the temperature of
the sun. Unfortunately, the historical record of measurements of total
solar irradiance has several unexplained offsets between data sets from
different satellites, which are thought to be due to inconsistent
sensor calibration (see, for example, http://www.ngdc.noaaa.gov/stp/
SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html).
Q5a. Does NASA agree that sensor calibration is the culprit in these
offsets? If so, why did NASA not consistently calibrate sensors on
previous solar-monitoring missions? If not, what does NASA identify as
the cause of these offsets?
A5a. Sensor calibration is the only possible cause of these offsets;
these instruments are monitoring the same Sun at the same time, so
should provide the same measurement result. No facility has ever
existed to calibrate these total solar irradiance sensors to the
desired accuracy levels, although NASA's Glory program is currently
funding the establishment of such a facility. Fortunately, measurement
continuity combined with instrument stability has allowed tracking of
solar variability over this 30-year climate data record despite these
offsets, the magnitude of which is time-independent, even in the
presence of shorter-term variability in the sun's output.
Q5b. How will NASA ensure that the solar irradiance sensors to be
flown on Glory and any future missions will be accurately calibrated
and will stay calibrated, so that the data they collect on total solar
irradiance will be scientifically useful for climate change analysis?
A5b. Despite the instrument offsets, the existing total solar
irradiance (TSI) record is already scientifically useful for climate
change analysis because of data continuity and good instrument
stability. The Glory mission and future missions are intended to
maintain such data continuity with on-orbit tracking of instrument
stability. The Glory mission and future missions will also improve
instrument accuracy via improved sensor calibrations and end-to-end
testing by the new TSI Radiometer Facility planned as part of the Glory
program.
Q5c. What is the current technical uncertainty on long-term changes in
total solar irradiation? How will Glory and other future solar-
monitoring missions change this uncertainty?
A5c. The current technical uncertainty on long-term changes in solar
radiation is limited by instability of some of the early instruments.
These limit the current technical uncertainty to about 0.004 percent
per year from the data record going back to 1978. Since the early
1990s, instruments are more stable, with on-orbit tracking providing
0.001 percent per year uncertainty.
The Glory mission and other future solar-monitoring missions, as
well as some currently operating missions such as SORCE, improve this
uncertainty with better instrument stability. Improved accuracy on
Glory and the new calibration facility, which will provide a baseline
against which future instruments should be compared, will maintain a
connection to the existing irradiance record across potential data
gaps. Improved absolute accuracy with Glory will also better allow
detection of solar changes over an extended time period by establishing
current-day benchmark irradiance measurements.
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. What specifically will NASA do to maintain the Total Solar
Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) instrument team for the remainder of Fiscal
Year 2007 and through 2008?
A1. The TSIS performs two basic measurements: total solar irradiance
using the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and solar spectral irradiance
using the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM). These measurements are
fundamental to discriminating and quantifying natural versus
anthropogenic contributions to climate change. In January 2007, NASA
and NOAA delivered a joint report to the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) addressing the impacts of the NPOESS Nunn-
McCurdy Certification on climate measurement goals. In this report,
NASA and NOAA determined that continuing the TSIS measurements had the
highest priority. The TSIS instrument is built by the Laboratory for
Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) of the University of Colorado in
Boulder, Colorado.
Continuous measurement of the total solar irradiance dates back to
the Earth Radiation Budget instrument launched on the NASA Nimbus-7
mission in 1978 and the measurement of the solar spectral irradiance
dates back to the SIM instrument on the NASA Solar Radiation and
Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission launched in 2003. The SORCE mission
presently provides both measurements. The measurement of the total
solar irradiance will be continued by the TIM on the NASA Glory mission
to be launched late in 2008.
NASA presently supports the TSIS instrument team through the SORCE
and Glory missions. These funds are as follows in millions of real-year
dollars.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Following the NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification decision in June
2006 that de-manifested the TSIS instrument, NASA and NOAA have worked
together to identify various options for retaining total and spectrally
resolved solar irradiance and other important measurement capabilities
de-manifested from NPOESS. Options are presently under consideration by
NASA and NOAA, through a process being led by the OSTP.
Q2. Your testimony notes that NASA's response to Sections 313 and 314
of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 has been to incorporate the
requirements of the Act into NASA's recent research grant solicitation.
Could you please describe how NASA's applications grants program, which
focuses on projects that are ``national in scope,'' responds to the
intent of the Act?
A2. NASA's applications grants program, known as the Earth Science
Division Applied Sciences Program, recognizes that environmental
decision-making, resource management, and disaster response most often
resides at the regional, State, local and tribal agency levels--it is
imperative that the program work at these levels if it is to have
impact. The need to work at all levels of government--and across a
broad range of application areas--presents a challenge to the Applied
Sciences Program, which is a small program that is managed out of NASA
Headquarters in Washington, DC. NASA is addressing this challenge in a
number of ways outlined below.
First, in order to maximize NASA's impact (and in keeping with our
federal role), the Agency supports projects that are national in scope;
that is to say, projects are required to be applicable beyond a one-
time application in a single locality. By doing this, NASA is serving a
state or locale through the development and demonstration of an Agency
capability and at the same time, NASA is laying the groundwork for
making that capability available at a national level. In addition, NASA
has many projects that only involve federal partners, but will have an
impact in all 50 states. For example, NASA is working with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to improve weather prediction for airplane
travel.
Second, since NASA does not have direct connections to decision-
makers and operational agencies at the State, local, and tribal levels,
the Agency uses all available avenues to reach them. Many of our
federal partners, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior (DOI),
provide direct access to their regional and state branches, who are
directly involved in decision-making at those levels. In addition, we
utilize both NASA centers and universities through our competitive
solicitations to make connections in their localities. NASA also makes
linkages through regional governmental organizations, such as the Gulf
of Mexico Alliance and the Western Governors Association--these provide
an excellent mechanism for reaching potential end-users and for
understanding the needs of a region.
Finally, NASA participates in national organizations of State
government officials, such as National States Geographic Information
Council (NSGIC), to facilitate matching their needs and federal
capabilities.
Q2a. How many remote sensing pilot projects that specifically address
State, local, regional, and tribal agency needs has NASA's grants
program supported?
A2a. The NASA Earth Science Division Applied Sciences Program currently
sponsors 83 competitively selected projects that are in various stages
of maturity, nearly all of which extend NASA research capabilities to
help decision-makers serve citizens at the local, State and regional
levels. Of these 83 active solicited projects, 27 are working directly
with local/State authorities in 25 different states to solve their
problems. This number is expected to increase with the projects that
will be selected under the ``Decisions 2007 under ROSES'' open
solicitation. A copy of this solicitation can be found at: (http://
nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/77336/
A.20%20Decision%20Support.pdf).
Specific language from Section 313 of the NASA Authorization Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-155) was used in the ROSES solicitation to guide the
investigators, partners, and peer reviewers on the priorities of the
program.
Q2b. Have any workshops presenting the results of pilot projects been
held?
A2b. All of Earth Science Division Applied Sciences Program's
competitively selected projects are required by contract to formally
report their results at the completion of their period of performance.
In addition, dissemination of both results and lessons learned through
workshops, professional meetings, and other venues is very important
for the success of our projects and our program. NASA has found that a
practical and effective way to disseminate information on results and
lessons learned is through topical workshops that are organized by the
Applied Science Program and where all of the appropriate Applied
Science projects meet with stakeholders and potential partners to both
assess their needs and to disseminate project results and lessons
learned. This past year we have conducted workshops on applications
topics including Air Quality, Fisheries, Public Health, Disaster
Management, and Ecosystems Management.
NASA requires that all Applied Science Program projects plan to
participate in workshops for this purpose. For example, NASA included
the following language in the 2007 Solicitation, ``Decision Support
through Earth Science Research Results'':
Workshop
The project should plan to travel and participate in a
Program-sponsored results conference to disseminate the lessons
learned from the project as widely as feasible. The Applied
Sciences Program will coordinate this activity with project
team during the course of the project; however, the project
should budget accordingly to attend this event.
In addition to conducting workshops at the project and program
levels, Applied Sciences program managers and grantees attend regional,
State, and professional society workshops and participate in
interagency working groups such as the Gulf of Mexico Alliance,
Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy Senior Management Oversight
Committee, and the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction.
Q2c. Has the specific advisory group called out in Sec. 314 been
established? If not, why not?
A2c. NASA is investigating establishment of an Advisory Group that will
report up through the NASA Earth Science Advisory Committee, which is
part of the formal NASA Advisory Committee (NAC). NASA expects that the
Applied Sciences advisory group, pursuant to Section 314, will be
established by the end of this calendar year.
In the meantime, NASA has been seeking external advice on the
program through National Academies of Science (NAS) Space Studies
Board. A review, entitled ``Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise
Applications Program Plan (2002),'' was completed in 2002. This was
followed by a second review, entitled ``Extending Observations and
Research Results to Practical Applications: A Review of NASA's
Approach, which has been underway since the fall of 2005.'' The NAS has
indicted that this report will be published before the end of September
2007.
Q3. Your testimony notes that NASA will ``preserve and expand the
preeminent research and analysis, applied sciences, technology
development and educational programs that distinguish the NASA Earth
Science endeavor.'' In specific terms, how do you plan to expand the
programs, given your five-year budget profile, and when?
A3. The recently released draft of the National Research Council's
Decadal Survey for Earth Science will become the basic guide to future
activities as described in the NASA testimony. NASA intends to follow
the recommendations of the Decadal Survey to the extent that the
available budget will permit. In this process, the Agency's primary
objective is to implement the most useful science that we can
accomplish within the framework of our existing programs. Expansion
will be pursued only where it is driven by the highest quality science
and consistent with the available budget.
Q4. You testified, ``the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA
Advisory Council annually examines the split of activities and assesses
our scientific performance.'' When was the last Earth Science
Subcommittee assessment of the Earth Science Division's performance and
could you, please provide a copy of that assessment for the record?
A4. The NASA Administrator established the Earth Science Subcommittee
in early 2006 with the following terms of reference: ``The Earth
Science Subcommittee (ESS) is a standing subcommittee of the NASA
Advisory Council (NAC); it also supports the advisory needs of the
Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The scope of the Subcommittee
includes the advancement of scientific knowledge of the Earth system
through space-based observation and the pioneering use of these
observations including process studies, data assimilation and modeling
to ultimately enable improved prediction of climate variability and
change, weather and natural hazards. In addition to scientific
research, the scope encompasses the development of enabling
technologies, systems, computing and information management
capabilities, including those with the potential to improve future
operational systems.''
The ESS has met five times since its establishment. The times and
main topics on the ESS discussion are summarized below. The agenda and
reports to the NAC from the June 2007 are provided for the record.
Records of previous subcommittee meetings, including summaries of
findings and minutes, are publicly available at: http://
science.hq.nasa.gov/strategy/NAC<INF>-</INF>sci<INF>-</INF>subcom/
index.html.
1. May 3-4, 2006--ESS discussion and recommendation on
allocation of resources within ESD and assessment of balance.
Also, ESS discussion on ESD roadmapping.
2. July 6-7, 2006--ESS review of SMD draft Science Plan.
3. September 27-28, 2006--ESS review of ESD Science Plan;
review of NPOESS restructuring efforts.
4. February 27-28, 2007--ESS review of ESD Decadal Survey
early assessment and ESD preparatory mission concept studies;
lunar science workshop participation.
5. June 12-13, 2007--ESS review of ESD planning for Community
workshops relating to the earliest group of the Decadal Survey
missions; review and assessment of selected Annual Performance
Goals (APG).
Regarding the APG review, the ESS was asked to support the NASA-
wide process of developing the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report to Congress. The ESS reviewed ESD material relevant to six APGs,
one of each science focus areas. The material reviewed constitutes
peer-reviewed results of ESD funded research activities. The considered
APGs are pertinent to the Research and Analysis Program. [See
Attachment A, Earth Science Subcommittee Report.]
Q5. What was the original objective of the Earth System Science
Pathfinder (ESSP) program, and how, if at all, has the objective for
the program changed?
A5. The ESSP program, within the NASA Earth Explorers Program, was
originally intended to provide frequent, flexible opportunities for
rapid-development flight missions focused on specific Earth science
investigations. ESSP missions were to be focused on:
<bullet> Acquiring key additional measurements in response to
new scientific understanding, including exploiting scientific
discoveries from facility-class missions;
<bullet> Proving the concept and scientific utility of new
data sets and measurement approaches; and/or,
<bullet> Ensuring the continuity of critical measurement time
series (i.e., ``gap filler'' missions for critical data sets).
The ESSP program was intended to:
<bullet> Provide frequent, predictable opportunities for
training new investigators and ensuring the continued broad
involvement of the scientific community in the overall
development of ESE satellite projects;
<bullet> Encourage direct involvement of university faculty
and students in all aspects of ESE flight mission planning and
implementation, and expand the base of academic institutions
that have the capability (through experienced faculty) to
manage satellite-related technical projects; and,
<bullet> Foster development of innovative teaming arrangements
that optimize the contributions and minimize the costs of
industry, university, and government partners. (from the NRC
PI-led mission report, ``Steps to Facilitate Principal-
Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions'' of which Dr. Michael
Freilich was an author)
ESSP missions are characterized by: Competitive selection; overall
mission life cycle cost constraints (generally small-to-medium missions
only); PI-led, focused science objectives defined and managed by the
Principal Investigator; and, relatively rapid development (although
this has not been achieved). The overall goals of the ESSP program have
not fundamentally changed.
Q5a. When was the last solicitation for an ESSP mission issued, and
what are the plans for the frequency of future solicitations?
A5a. The last NASA Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for ESSP missions
was the ESSP-3 AO, released in 2001 (earlier solicitations were
released in 1996 and 1998). The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (in
development to be launched in late 2008) and Aquarius (in development
to be launched in mid-2010 in collaboration with the SAC-D mission of
the Argentine Space Agency CONAE) missions were chosen from the ESSP-3
AO solicitation, with Hydros selected for initial development as a
backup should one of the two primary missions not be developed
successfully. The President's FY 2008 budget request includes funding
for a new ESSP mission to be solicited in late 2008, with launch no
earlier than 2014.
Q5b. The decadal survey recommends that ESSP missions be replaced with
low-cost research and applications missions that ``focus on fostering
revolutionary innovation and training future leaders of space-based
Earth science and applications.'' What is NASA's response to this
recommendation?
A5b. The recommendation to establish a ``Venture Class'' program to
solicit competitive, ultra-low-cost ( $100 to $200 million) missions or
instrument flight opportunities annually or bi-annually will be
considered along with the other recommendations of the Decadal Survey
for Earth Science as part of the NASA FY 2009 budget formulation
process. NASA will be guided by the community consensus, high-priority
science issues identified by the Decadal Survey, and will design the
most efficient program possible to advance the identified science
issues and maintain the balanced, broad program called for by the
Survey.
Q6. Your testimony indicates that NASA is ``planning a comprehensive
review of the [applied sciences] program to ensure that is aligned with
the NAS Decadal survey recommendations.'' What will that review entail,
who will conduct it, and what is the schedule?
A6. The Applied Sciences Program's new leadership is currently
conducting a multi-step review of the entire program, including program
structure and management, in light of the recommendations made in the
Decadal Survey with respect to applications, as well as the upcoming
National Academy of Sciences report that specifically addresses NASA's
approach to applications (see the answer to Question 2c). First, an
informal review is taking place through program reviews at NASA
Headquarters, visits to the NASA field centers (reviews have taken
place so far at Ames Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center,
Stennis Space Center, and Langley Research Center), and through
presentations of individual projects by investigators. Second, formal
peer reviews of selected projects will take place this fall. Third, a
formal programmatic review will take place upon formation of the new
Applications Advisory Group in early calendar 2008 (also discussed in
Question 2c). This formal review will include both the current program
and proposed future strategic direction that the program is
considering.
Q7. When will NASA deliver the NASA-NOAA Research to Operations Joint
Working Group report, as directed in Section 306 of the NASA
Authorization Act, to Congress?
A7. The report required pursuant to Section 306 of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) was delivered to the relevant
Committees on July 10, 2007.
Q8. You testified that NASA is ``letting four contracts for LDCM and
they are in the process of being advertised right now and the
interaction between them and the technical addition of TSIS will govern
our schedule and our decisions.''
Q8a. Does the original accommodation study awards issued to the four
contractors require them to address the potential accommodation of TSIS
and any other sensors (other than OLI)? If not, was a change to the
contract made to address those issues?
A8a. The original accommodation study awards issued to the four
spacecraft contractors within the Landsat Data Continuity Mission
(LDCM) project include options to study interfacing other sensors, in
addition to the Operational Land Imager (OLI), to the LDCM observatory.
These study options have been initiated and all four spacecraft
contractors are in the process of analyzing the manifest of the TSIS on
the LDCM.
Q9. What are the technical differences between the requirements issued
for the Operational Land Imager (OLI) instrument for the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission (LDCM) and the capabilities of the Enhanced Thematic
Mapper on the Landsat 7 spacecraft?
A9. The differences between capabilities of the Enhanced Thematic
Mapper (ETM) on the Landsat 7 and the requirements for the LDCM-OLI
include the following enhancements for OLI: an additional band for
coastal zone science; an additional band for cloud detection; and, an
enhancement to a band to make images clearer. Thermal imaging
capability is not part of the OLI baseline capability. Thermal
capability has been investigated as an optional separate instrument
that would operate concurrently with the OLI. Following extensive
analysis and assessment of alternatives for thermal image data
capability, NASA has determined that the current budget profile cannot
support the acquisition of the thermal capability for LDCM.
Q9a. Did the RFP for the OLI include the option of including thermal
imaging bands?
A9a. No. The thermal capability was scoped as a separate optional
instrument.
Q9b. Is NASA analyzing alternatives to LDCM for acquiring thermal
imaging data such as instrument flight on other platforms, data
purchases, or access to data obtained from any international satellites
that could provide comparable thermal imaging data?
A9b. The required performance for the Landsat thermal data is not
immediately available in proven form from any current source. NASA is
assessing international collaboration to potentially provide the
thermal capability.
Q10. What plans does NASA have to ensure that scientists would have
information on instrumentation details, engineering data, and the like
to ensure that data provided from international instruments are of
research quality?
A10. NASA has supported the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the
definition of a range of Landsat performance specifications that define
LDCM performance (spectral bands, radiometry, spatial resolution,
geographic registration, and geographic coverage) and a lower end
baseline specification. Data meeting the Baseline Specification would
replace (in quantity and quality) only a portion of the Landsat data
stream should Landsat fail, but such data may also be useful as an
ongoing augmentation of the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM),
currently projected to launch sometime in 2011. Acquired data must be
characterized and verified against these specifications to ensure data
quality and continuity. NASA will support USGS to ensure that acquired
data is characterized and verified.
NASA has a rich history of working with international partners on
joint mission development, and on instrument data exchange and
availability for U.S. scientists' research and educational use. NASA
makes such data products supplied from an international partner
available under terms and conditions required by the appropriate
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Where data are available through
NASA data systems, instrumentation details, engineering data, and
documentation on data accuracy are also available and supplied with the
data. NASA works through the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
(CEOS) to promote more generally agreement and implementation of
standards both for instrument data documentation availability, and for
instrument calibration and validation procedures. CEOS membership
encompasses the world's government agencies responsible for civil Earth
Observation (EO) satellite programs, along with agencies that receive
and process data acquired remotely from space. Within CEOS working
groups, international projects are voluntarily undertaken for
coordination of resources for data availability, and for inter-
calibration of like instruments using in situ instrumentation by the
appropriate space agencies.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. In his statement, Dr. Anthes asserted that ``we are faced with an
Earth observation program that will dramatically diminish in capability
over the next 10-15 years. . . Between now and the end of the decade,
the number of operating missions will decrease dramatically, and the
number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft. . .will
decrease by some 35 percent, with a 50 percent reduction by 2015.'' Do
you agree with this assessment?
A1. NASA is presently operating an impressive set of 14 Earth-observing
spacecraft carrying over 50 instruments. In addition, the President's
FY 2008 budget request includes funding for an additional seven
identified Earth observing missions to launch between 2008 and 2014,
and funding for a small to medium Earth System Science Pathfinder
(ESSP) mission, which will be solicited for competitive selection late
in FY 2008 with flight in the 2014-2015 timeframe. The National
Research Council (NRC) Earth Science Decadal Survey identifies 15 new
missions to address key Earth system science research issues over the
next 10 to 15 years.
While 11 of NASA's 14 currently operating missions are indeed
beyond their baseline lifetime, they continue to operate well and to
provide high quality measurements for the research and operational
communities. From February to April 2007, NASA's Earth Science Division
conducted the biennial ``Senior Review'' to examine Earth observing
missions operating beyond their baseline mission. After careful
technical analysis, both the operations and science panels in the
Senior Review concluded that all 11 of the operating missions were
returning valuable data and were not suffering from imminent mission-
threatening technical problems. Consequently, the Senior Review
recommended that NASA continue to fund operations and science analyses
for all of these missions for at least two more years.
The President's FY 2008 budget request contains funding for the
development and launch of seven new Earth observing missions between
2008 and 2014:
<bullet> OSTM (Ocean Surface Topography Mission; June 2008
launch) to continue the time series of precision global ocean
sea level measurements initiated by TOPEX/Poseidon in 1992 and
presently obtained by JASON-1;
<bullet> OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory; December 2008
launch) to initiate global measurements of atmospheric carbon
dioxide and to identify, for the first time, regional (1000 km
spatial scale) sources and sinks of CO<INF>2</INF>;
<bullet> Glory (December 2008 to March 2009 launch) to
continue the 26-year consistent time series of solar irradiance
measurements and to initiate global measurements of atmospheric
aerosol concentration and scattering properties;
<bullet> Aquarius (July 2009 launch) to make first-ever,
global measurements of ocean surface salinity;
<bullet> NPP (NPOESS Preparatory Program; September 2009
launch) to continue the time series of key EOS sensor
measurements, and to provide risk-reduction for the tri-agency
NPOESS operational satellite system;
<bullet> LDCM (Landsat Data Continuity Mission; July 2011
launch) to continue the 30-year long record of moderate-
resolution land imaging; and,
<bullet> GPM (Global Precipitation Measurement Mission; June
2013 and June 2014 launches) to extend to the entire globe the
present measurements of tropical precipitation from the
presently operating Tropical Rainfall Mapping Mission (TRMM),
allowing accurate, global rainfall measurements every three
hours.
In addition to these seven missions comprising eight launches
between 2008 and 2014, the FY 2008 budget request also includes funding
for a small to medium Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) mission,
which will be solicited for competitive selection late in FY 2008 with
flight in the 2014-2015 timeframe.
The NRC Earth Science Decadal Survey, which was released just three
weeks prior to the FY 2008 budget submission, identifies 15 additional
Earth observing missions for NASA in the 2010-2022 timeframe.
Q2. What are your views regarding the mission cost estimates included
in the Earth Sciences Decadal Survey? Are they credible?
A2. NASA's Earth Science Division conducted detailed Center-based
technical and cost ``concept studies'' for each of the missions
identified for NASA in the Decadal Survey. These studies identified
technical challenges and developed cost estimates which include
realistic launch service costs and the mission operations and science
analysis costs associated with each mission. The results of each of
these studies are being confirmed with independent cost estimates.
In cases where mission designs are well established, technological
risks are low, and significant previous NASA investment has been made
to understand the missions, mission cost estimates in the Decadal
Survey are relatively close to the cost estimates of ongoing NASA
mission concept studies. In other cases, the preliminary studies
suggest substantial differences between the detailed NASA studies and
the estimates developed by the NRC.
Q3. The Decadal Survey highlighted the importance of developing a
strategy to transition technologies from NASA to operational systems.
How is transition managed today? What steps can NASA take to improve
technology transition between researchers and the applications
community?
A3. Transition of satellite measurement capability from research to
operations has been, and remains, challenging. NASA developed and
demonstrated several of the instruments and measurement concepts that
form the foundation for the present National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and Department of Defense (DOD) operational
weather satellite systems, such as the Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I)
multi-channel microwave radiometer flown on the DOD Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program. Joint work between NASA and NOAA has
resulted in processes that allow near-real-time measurements from the
research missions to be merged with data from NOAA operational
satellites that result in enhanced operational weather predictions
(e.g., QuikSCAT; TRMM; AIRS; MODIS fire products; JASON-1). Other
instruments that have transitioned from research to operations include
the Solar X-Ray Imager which currently flies on NOAA Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellites. Work is ongoing to transition an
on-orbit lightning capability onto NOAA's next generation GOES-R
series.
Following recommendations from National Research Council reports
(e.g., the 2003 report of the Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from
Research to Operations) and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-155), a NASA-NOAA Joint Working group has been re-established and
has addressed a wide range of issues associated with research-to-
operations transitions. NOAA and NASA are also discussing approaches to
initiating joint NASA-NOAA program(s) focused on developing new
instruments for operational services. Other focused groups such as the
NOAA-NASA-DOD Altimeter Working Group meet bimonthly to coordinate
research, civil, and defense operational measurement systems to acquire
global sea-level height and wave condition measurements.
The NASA Applied Science Program is focused specifically on working
with applications mission agencies (such as the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Environmental
Protection Agency, etc.). In this way, the Applied Science Program
efficiently transitions the knowledge gained through NASA Earth science
missions and the research and analysis program, into information
directly useful to other mission agencies with national or super-
regional scope.
Q4. To what degree are the governments of large developing countries,
such as China and India, taking an interest in climate change research
and attempting to mitigate further damage to the environment? Do they
acknowledge that climate change may be, in part, a consequence of human
activity? Has a credible estimate been developed on the amounts of some
pollutants ' released into the atmosphere by these countries?
A4. Perhaps the best indicator of the interest taken by the governments
of large developing countries, such as China, India, and Brazil, in the
issue of climate change and associated research is the very active role
they play in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
leading international forum on this issue. Based on reported
discussions at recent IPCC meetings, it is clear that these nations
acknowledge a connection between human greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change. However, they also reportedly seek the acknowledgement
from developed nations that those nations that industrialized first
shoulder a greater responsibility for the current atmospheric
greenhouse gas levels than do nations which industrialized later. These
nations are also reportedly concerned about the cost of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to developing economies. Another indicator of
the interest taken by the Indian government in this area is the
bilateral Climate Change Partnership between the United States and
Indian governments. Formed in 2002, this partnership provides a forum
for both nations to engage in domestic and international efforts to
address the issue of Climate Change, including looking at new
technologies and policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
With regard to assessing the release of pollutants into the atmosphere,
NASA's Earth-observing missions and NASA-funded research studies are
providing unique, quantitative, global measurements of atmospheric
constituents which play key roles in determining air quality as well as
influencing climate change. While many space-based global measurement
sets have not, to date, provided the high-resolution and frequent
measurements required for determining the compositions and magnitudes
of sub-regional pollution sources, advanced analyses applied to recent
measurements from the NASA Aura mission have provided first-ever
quantitative data on pollutant levels at regional and national scales.
For example, sophisticated NASA-developed algorithms allow accurate
global measurements of column sulfur dioxide (a key industrial
pollutant generated from smelters and electrical generation plants and
the source of ``acid rain'') on scales of thousands of kilometers, from
the Ozone Measuring Instrument on the Aura mission. These measurements
show that in 2005, Chinese factories emitted 2.5 million tons of sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere, an increase of more than 27 percent over
the estimated Chinese emission levels in 2000. The Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, to be launched by NASA in late 2008, will provide first-
ever global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide sources and
sinks on scales as small as 1000 km (628 miles). NASA's role is to
advance Earth System science through Earth observing research satellite
missions, and vigorous analysis and modeling efforts to elucidate key
Earth system processes and the interactions between them. While these
measurements form the foundation for many scientific and policy
analyses, NASA itself does not conduct policy studies.
Attachment A:
Earth Science Subcommittee Report
June 12-13, 2007 Meeting
NASA Headquarters
From: The NASA Earth Science Subcommittee - Daniel J. Jacob (Chair,
djacob@fas.harvard.edu), Roni Avissar, John R. Christy, Lisa Curran,
Jonathan Foley, James Hansen, Gregory Jenkins, John Jensen, Patricia
Matrai, Julian McCreary, Jean-Bernard Minster, Michael Ramsey, Kamal
Sarabandi, Mark Simons, Konrad Steffen, Edward Zipser
To: Edward David, Jr. (Chair, NAC Science Committee)
Cc: Greg Williams (NAC Science Committee Executive Secretary), Michael
Freilich (ESD Director), Bryant Cramer (ESD Deputy Director), Jack Kaye
(ESD Associate Director for Research), Theodore Hammer (ESD Associate
Director for Flight Program), Teresa Fryberger (Associate Director for
Applied Sciences), Lucia Tsaoussi (ESS Executive Secretary)
Date: June 28, 2007
Dear Dr. David:
The Earth Science Subcommittee (ESS) met on June 12-13, 2007 at
NASA Headquarters. We received updates on ESD (Michael Freilich) and
NPOESS (Bryant Cramer), and briefings on (1) the sub-orbital program
(Andy Roberts), (2) the technology program (Amy Walton), and (3) the
upcoming community workshops aimed at defining the first wave of
satellite missions from the NRC Decadal Survey. We reviewed and graded
the FY 2007 Earth Science Performance and Accountability Report, and
discussed the Lunar Science Workshop Report as well as the response of
the NAC to our March 2007 recommendation for an Earth Science
Initiative.
The central recommendation from our March 2007 letter to the NAC
was for an Earth Science Initiative to enable ESD to implement the
program of missions designed by the NRC Decadal Survey (DS) and which
we fully endorsed. We pointed out that the bleak long-term outlook for
ESD funding does not allow for implementation of the DS and recommended
that resources for an Earth Science Initiative be found, either within
or outside NASA, in order to implement the DS--corresponding to a 30
percent increase of ESD budgets, i.e., a return to 2000 funding levels.
We were disappointed that the NAC decided not to forward the
recommendation to the Administrator, despite the support from the NAC
Science Committee, on the grounds that requesting new funding was
outside the charter of the NAC. But this apparent technicality leaves
unsolved the problem of how NASA is to respond to the DS. At a time of
great public concern over global change, NASA cannot just bury its head
in the sand.
The DS calls for 14 strategic missions (typically in the $500M
range) to be launched over the 2010-2020 period. It also calls for a
new class of Venture missions in the $100-200M range to foster the
development of new ideas. The ESD budget outlook going out to 2014
offers opportunities for just two strategic missions, and has no line
for Venture missions. ESS scrutinized the ESD budget and received
briefings on all its major components. We do not see how the current
budget could be reconfigured to enable more effective implementation of
the DS. The hard truth is that the 30 percent budget cut that ESD has
suffered since 2000 incapacitates it from developing new initiatives.
The DS indicates that its slate of 14 missions would be fully doable if
ESD funding were restored to 2000 levels. Implementation of the DS
requires new resources from an Earth Science Initiative to start in
FY09 at the latest.
We are concerned that NASA may feel that it has properly responded
to the DS if it launches say the first wave of four DS missions over
the next decade. In fact, the ensemble of 14 missions for the next
decade put forth by the DS represents a carefully crafted synergistic
ensemble, and the DS specifically warns against piecemeal selection of
missions. The DS Executive Summary states: ``In the event of budget
shortfalls, re-evaluate the entire set of missions given an assessment
of the current state of international global Earth observations, plans,
needs, and opportunities. Seek advice from the broad community of Earth
scientists and modify the long-term strategy rather than dealing with
one mission at a time.'' We will face this situation in FY09 unless an
Earth Science Initiative is implemented. We remain hopeful that
resources for such an Initiative will be found, either through the
Congressional allocation of FY08 or through the Administrator's request
in FY09.
We ask the NAC to advise the Administrator that in the absence of
an Earth Science Initiative in place by FY09 to implement the NRC
Decadal Survey, NASA will have defaulted on its implementation of the
DS and will need to re-think its whole Earth science strategy with
input from the broad scientific community. This would represent a major
failure and we remain hopeful that positive action will be taken over
the next year.
The current NPOESS debacle has further heightened the crisis for
Earth observation from space. The NPOESS climate sensors TSIS, APS,
OMPS-Limn, ERBS, and ALT were de-manifested as part of the recent Nunn-
McCurdy Certification. CMIS was partly maintained but with reduced
capability--if it loses its capability to measure microwave surface
temperatures (that was not clear to us), then it will be of little use
as a climate sensor. A positive development is that OSTP tasked NASA
and NOAA to examine options for recovering the ensemble of NPOESS
climate measurements through other means. As we have stated in previous
letters, long-term, continuous, well-calibrated measurements of key
climate variables from space are critical for monitoring climate
variability and change and for testing our understanding of the same.
ESD shared with us four options presently under consideration in their
joint discussions with NOAA. Options 1 and 4 involve restoration of the
climate sensors on later NPOESS satellites, while options 2 and 3
abandon the association with NPOESS and instead rely on ``climate free-
flier'' satellites to carry the climate sensors. Options 2 and 3 seem
to us the best choices cost-wise and to avoid being hostage to the
NPOESS program. We recommend that long-term monitoring of climate
variables from space be conducted from ``climate free-fliers'' (options
2 and 3 of the NASA/NOAA White Paper) for reasons of both reliability
and cost.
ESD will hold community workshops over the next month to better
define each of the four notional missions representing the first wave
(2010-2015) of DS missions (CLARREO, SMAP, ICESat-II, DESDynI). The
workshop chairs briefed us on their plans. We were impressed by their
dedication and by the dynamic that these workshops represent for
implementing the DS. We have two major comments for their
consideration.
(1) The CLARREO presentation implied that CLARREO should be
considered as a sustained measurement, but this would have cost
implications beyond those estimated by the DS. An important decision to
be made at the CLARREO workshop is whether or not the mission entails a
long-term commitment to spectrally resolved thermal IR measurements, as
this will greatly affect the cost of the mission. If long-term
commitment is required, there should be a strategy for transition from
research to operations that will enable projection of the long-term
impacts on ESD budgets.
(2) Consideration should be given to different configurations of
the DESDynI and ICESat-II sensors. The DS combined the surface
deformation InSAR and vegetation structure laser altimeter into one
notional mission (DESDynI), but called also for further analysis of
whether this combination was viable and whether a better combination
might be achieved with the ICESat-II laser altimeter. There will be
differences in the optimal orbits for each of these instruments, but is
it possible to settle for a less-than-optimal orbit in order to enable
joint launch at considerably lower cost? These issues should be
addressed at the DESDynI and ICE-Sat-II workshops. We recommend that
ESD keep an open perspective on the opportunities for different
configurations of the L-band InSAR, the vegetation laser altimeter, and
the ice surface altimeter onto common satellite platforms for purposes
of cost reductions. We encourage cross-participation in the ICESat-II
and DESDynI community workshops.
We reviewed the outcomes of the February Lunar Science Workshop and
in particular the recommendations for Earth Science. We were pleased to
see a strong statement in the workshop report that recommendations for
missions enabled by the lunar architecture must be vetted through a NRC
Decadal Survey or similar process. We were pleased to see a strong
affirmation of the value of Earth science observations from the Moon.
As noted in the report, the current proposed site for the polar base is
an issue because of its limited view of the Earth, and an outpost at
Mt. Malapert with much better Earth viewing capability would address
this issue. We wish to emphasize that satellites at the Earth-Moon L1
point supporting lunar operations would also represent ideal platforms
for observing the Earth.
We received a briefing on the ESD sub-orbital program from manager
Andy Roberts. We had expressed concern in the past that this important
program was lacking direction. We were pleased to see a strong
articulation of the main purposes of the sub-orbital program within
ESD: (1) satellite cal/val including science-directed, (2) new sensor
development, (3) process studies. We were pleased to see the value of
the UAS (Unmanned Airborne Systems) expressed in terms of their
scientific purpose (endurance, extended low-altitude flight) instead of
abstract and likely unaffordable technological goals. We were impressed
by the educational vision of the sub-orbital program, recognizing
aircraft missions as a unique means to provide students with hands-on
experience and train future leaders. We remain concerned that the core
aircraft (both manned and UAS) are under-utilized and that this
represents a substantial cost burden to the program. Hopes from cost-
sharing by non-NASA customers have not materialized. We recommend that
the sub-orbital program take a hard look at its needs for core aircraft
to determine whether significant cost savings could be achieved at
minimal loss for science by decommissioning one of the aircraft.
We were impressed by the briefing on the ESD technology program
from manager Amy Walton. The program has a clear focus and balance,
including in particular the development of cross-cutting and targeted
technologies aimed at implementing the DS. A concern expressed by
Walton was how to support the development of targeted technologies
(directed at one specific mission) without creating a non-competitive
pipeline for subsequent selection of the mission. We recommend that at
least two competing approaches or groups be supported in the
development of any targeted technology in order to maintain competition
at the subsequent level of mission selection.
We were asked to review and grade the ESD FY07 Performance and
Accountability Report, but we were not satisfied by the process under
which we were asked to carry out the review. The performance report
submitted to us was very uneven across areas. We would, for example,
have liked to see for each area i) the number of scientists actively
carrying out research, ii) a list of publications, iii) perhaps
abstracts of selected publications, and iv) some synthesis paragraphs
that provide an overview of activities, accomplishments, and
hindrances. We were not clearly told what readership was targeted by
the report. Our own charge was not clear--simply rate each outcome as
green, yellow or red? Provide critical comments on the supporting text?
We ask that the procedure for reviewing the ESD Performance Evaluation
and Accountability Report be improved next year, and that the material
submitted to ESS for review be more informative.
We include as Appendices for specific action by the NAC our
recommendations that (1) the Administrator be advised that NASA will
default on its response to the DS and have to rethink its Earth Science
Program if funding for an Earth Science Initiative does not materialize
by FY 2007; (2) climate free-flyer satellites be used in lieu of NPOESS
for long-term monitoring of key climate variables, (3) the Earth-Moon
L1 point be recognized as the optimum platform for observing the Earth
from the Moon as part of the Lunar Exploration Architecture. Our other
recommendations may be best considered at the level of the ESD
leadership.
Sincerely,
The Earth Science Subcommittee
APPENDIX 1:
Proposed Recommendation for the NAC Science Committee
Subcommittee Name: Earth Science
Chair: Daniel J. Jacob
Date of Public Deliberation: June 12-13, 2007
Date of Transmission: June 28, 2007
Short Title of Proposed Recommendation: Action on NASA Earth Science
Initiative Needed by FY09
Short Description of Proposed Recommendation:
We ask the NAC to advise the Administrator that in the absence of
an Earth Science Initiative in place by FY09 to implement the NRC
Decadal Survey, NASA will have defaulted on its implementation of the
DS and will need to re-think its whole Earth science strategy with
input from the broad scientific community. This would represent a major
failure and we remain hopeful that positive action will be taken over
the next year.
Outline of the Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation:
The central recommendation from our March 2007 letter to the NAC
was for an Earth Science Initiative to enable ESD to implement the
program of 14 missions for 2010-2020 designed by the NRC Decadal Survey
(DS) and which we fully endorsed. The NAC decided not to forward the
recommendation to the Administrator on the grounds that requesting new
funding was outside its charter. This technicality leaves unsolved the
problem of how NASA is to respond to the DS. At a time of unprecedented
public concern over global change, NASA cannot just bury its head in
the sand. As explained in our letter, the current ESD budget outlook
completely defaults on the DS. Piecemeal implementation of the DS is
not an option. Implementation of the DS requires new resources from an
Earth Science Initiative to start in FY09 at the latest. In the absence
of such an Initiative, NASA will need to totally re-think its long-term
strategy for Earth Science.
Outline of the Consequences of No Action on the Proposed
Recommendation:
This is best stated by the DS Executive Summary: ``In the event of
budget shortfalls, re-evaluate the entire set of missions given an
assessment of the current state of international global Earth
observations, plans, needs, and opportunities. Seek advice from the
broad community of Earth scientists and modify the long-term strategy
rather than dealing with one mission at a time.''
APPENDIX 2:
Proposed Recommendation for the NAC Science Committee
Subcommittee Name: Earth Science
Chair: Daniel J. Jacob
Date of Public Deliberation: June 12-13, 2007
Date of Transmission: June 28, 2007
Short Title of Proposed Recommendation: Free Flier Satellites for
Climate Monitoring
Short Description of Proposed Recommendation:
We recommend that long-term monitoring of climate variables from
space be conducted from ``climate free-flier'' satellites (options 2
and 3 of the NASA/NOAA NPOESS White Paper), rather than through the
NPOESS suite, for reasons of both reliability and cost.
Outline of the Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation:
The current NPOESS debacle has heightened the crisis for Earth
observation from space. The NPOESS climate sensors TSIS, APS, OMPS-
Limn, ERBS, and ALT were de-manifested as part of the recent Nunn-
McCurdy Certification. CMIS was partly maintained but with reduced
capability. OSTP tasked NASA and NOAA to examine options for recovering
the ensemble of NPOESS climate measurements through other means. ESD
shared with us four options presently under consideration in their
joint discussions with NOAA. Options 1 and 4 involve restoration of the
climate sensors on later NPOESS satellites, while options 2 and 3
abandon the association with NPOESS and instead rely on ``climate free-
flier'' satellites to carry the climate sensors. Options 2 and 3 are
the best choices for reasons of both cost and reliability.
Outline of the Consequences of No Action on the Proposed
Recommendation:
As we have stated in previous letters, long-term, continuous, well-
calibrated measurements of key climate variables from space are
critical for monitoring climate variability and change and for testing
our understanding of the same. NPOESS has demonstrated its failure in
commitment to climate monitoring. Long-term climate observations should
not be held hostage to NPOESS's other priorities. We stand at risk of
losing critical continuity in measurements of climate variables.
APPENDIX 3:
Proposed Recommendation for the NAC Science Committee
Subcommittee Name: Earth Science
Chair: Daniel J. Jacob
Date of Public Deliberation: June 12-13, 2007
Date of Transmission: June 28, 2007
Short Title of Proposed Recommendation: Earth Observation from the
Earth-Moon L1 point
Short Description of Proposed Recommendation:
We ask the Lunar Exploration Architecture to recognize that
satellites at the Earth-Moon L1 point supporting lunar operations would
also represent excellent platforms for observing the Earth.
Outline of the Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation:
The current proposed polar site for the lunar base is not adequate
for Earth observation because of its limited view of the Earth. An
outpost at Mt. Malapert with much better Earth viewing capability would
address this issue, but the best and most cost-effective viewing point
would be on lunar operations satellites at the Earth-Moon L1 point.
Outline of the Consequences of No Action on the Proposed
Recommendation:
A viewing site on the Earth-facing side of the surface of the Moon
would also be adequate for Earth Science but we are concerned about the
infrastructure and costs involved, particularly if such a site is not
associated with the main lunar base. The Earth Science community has a
lot to gain from viewing platforms associated with Lunar Exploration
and input from that community should continue to be sought.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Richard A. Anthes, President, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research; Co-Chair, Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space, National Research Council, The
National Academies
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. At the February 13, 2007 hearing of the Committee on Science and
Technology on the Earth science decadal survey, Dr. Moore testified
that ``through focusing on smaller missions and avoiding large, multi-
instrumented platforms, a robust strategy for the future of Earth
science can be achieved with reasonable investments.'' Could you please
elaborate on the potential for using small missions?
Q1a. What is the advantage of this approach over using large
satellites for multiple instruments?
A1a. There is no simple answer to this question; a mixture of a number
of small missions with one or just a few instruments (payloads) and a
few larger, multi-instrumented platforms is probably optimal. Small
missions are usually much simpler than the large missions and hence can
be carried out faster, at lower cost, and with less risk. Large
satellites carrying multiple payloads can also be efficient by sharing
satellite and launch costs. In addition, it is sometimes important to
have measurements of different variables made at the same time and
place, and this is more easily done with a single large platform
carrying multiple instruments.
Small, single instrument missions also require less management
oversight and coordination through the integration and test phase of
the mission. For multi-instrumented platforms, integrated schedule
requirements can become a key driver, where the slowest instrument
drives the schedule (and consequently budget). Smaller platforms with
fewer instruments, therefore, are less constrained and can maintain a
higher level of flexibility and often efficiency. The downside, of
course, is a higher relative cost of spacecraft and launch services
associated with each instrument needing its own mission.
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. The Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council's
Science Committee proposed a NASA Earth Science Initiative. That
proposal involves redirecting support for a planned FY08 solicitation
for an Earth System Science Pathfinder to a decadal survey mission.
What is your reaction to that proposal?
A1. Redirecting the planned FY08 ESSP solicitation to implement a
decadal survey mission is consistent with the Committee's
recommendations. The requirements for Earth science observations
greatly exceed the missions that can be supported with the present NASA
Earth science budget, which means there is insufficient funding to
support non-targeted proposal opportunities to the extent needed to
ensure a robust, innovative total space program. In order to balance
the need for new, creative approaches with known national observation
needs, the Decadal Survey's approach was to recommend a set of priority
science missions and concurrently sponsor ``Venture class'' mission
opportunities. As stated in the decadal survey, ``The Venture class of
missions, in particular, would replace, and be very different than the
current Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) mission line, which
increasingly has become a competitive means for implementing NASA
strategic missions.'' Venture class missions are intended to provide
more frequent funding opportunities for lower cost investigations and
are not limited to traditional instrument-on-spacecraft missions. As
the Decadal Survey suggests, Venture class missions could include
stand-alone missions, instruments of opportunity flown on partner
spacecraft, or sets of instruments flown on suborbital platforms.
The current Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program has not
provided timely, lower cost missions; moreover, it is difficult to
develop a focused technology development program if there is not a
clear set of defined missions at low, medium and higher cost levels.
Consequently, the Decadal Study recommended replacing the ESSP line
with Principal Investigator lead Venture class missions and, most
importantly, to establish a clear sequence of well defined missions. A
healthy national program requires both the named missions plus regular,
lower-cost, and competitively selected Venture class missions.
Q2. Your testimony refers to the importance of ensuring adequate
instrument characterization, calibration, and validation in
international collaborations on Earth observing missions. Could you
please explain why the characterization, calibration, and validation
are important and what type of information is required for those
processes?
A2. The characterization, calibration, and validation, sometimes called
``Cal/Val,'' of all observing systems are part of a quality assurance
process that must be an integral part of any Earth observing mission.
All raw observations (e.g., an observed value of radiation from a layer
in the atmosphere) have errors--bias and random errors. Converting the
raw observations into useful products (e.g., temperature) and/or using
them effectively in weather prediction models depend on the algorithms
used to do the conversion, or processing. The algorithms themselves may
also introduce errors. Without knowing all of these error properties or
their characteristics, the observations and derived products are at
best useless and at worst highly misleading, contributing
misinformation to users. Thus all new instruments or observing systems
must be calibrated using other independent observations with known
accuracies and error characteristics, to make sure the measurements are
accurate and unbiased. Most instruments in space need periodic re-
calibration as well, since they may ``drift'' away from the truth. In
addition, the process of obtaining the observations themselves and
generating the data products derived from them must be validated, so
that the quality and other characteristics of the observations and
products are known.
The calibration process requires comparison of the measurements at
different levels of processing (e.g., raw and fully processed data)
with a known standard, and then making adjustments to the instrument or
the processing algorithms as appropriate to reduce or eliminate any
biases or other errors. For example, a new weight scale may need
adjustments to read accurately; without this calibration, the scale
might read two or three pounds too high or too low, thereby providing
misleading information. In another example, a new thermometer must be
calibrated so the error and any required corrections are determined
(e.g., via calibration constants) so that the thermometer can be
adjusted to show the true temperature.
The overall Cal/Val process includes comparing the observations and
data products against other observations or analyses, to ensure that
they are accurate. Observations of the same variable, such as
temperature, from independent instruments and techniques are thus
valuable for understanding and documenting the errors associated with
the different measurements. Independent observations of the same
variable are also very useful in weather prediction models, because
they produce a more accurate forecast than a single type of observing
system does. The Decadal Survey report discussed the importance of Cal/
Val in a number of places.
Q3. What detailed information would scientists require to ensure the
data provided by international missions/instruments are of research
quality?
A3. Scientists require the raw data and all the information used to
process these data; they must know and understand the entire Cal/Val
process. Without full knowledge of the characteristics of the raw data
and processing techniques, scientists are unable to verify the accuracy
and other error properties of the observations and any products derived
from them. Deriving full benefit from the observations requires full
knowledge of the Cal/Val process. Scientists also need to know details
about the instrument and details of its pre-launch characterization to
understand instrument performance prior to launch.
Q4. Your testimony refers to the potential lost opportunities for
verifying the effectiveness of actions to stabilize greenhouse gases,
monitoring the efforts of other countries to reduce greenhouse gases,
and ensuring that investments the United States is expected to make in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions are working. Could you please
elaborate on how the U.S. Earth observing system might be used to
validate the effectiveness of U.S. policies, including carbon
sequestration, and actions to reduce and mitigate the effects of
climate change?
A4. Satellite observations have a great role to play in monitoring what
other countries are doing in a variety of environmental areas including
atmospheric and ocean pollution; deforestation; and other changes in
land characteristics, urbanization, and agricultural practices and
yields. In many cases it is impossible to obtain in situ observations
from other countries because of cost, security, and other issues.
Satellites provide the only practical means to observe all countries
and their activities including emission of greenhouse gases.
As described in the Decadal Survey report, the upcoming Orbiting
Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will be particularly valuable in
validating carbon policy effectiveness. After launch in 2008, the OCO
mission will collect precise global measurements of carbon dioxide
(CO<INF>2</INF>) in the Earth's atmosphere. The global coverage,
spatial resolution, and accuracy of OCO measurements will provide a
basis to characterize and monitor the geographic distribution of
CO<INF>2</INF> sources and sinks and quantify their variability. Based
on these measurements, scientists will map the natural and man-made
processes that regulate the exchange of CO<INF>2</INF> between the
Earth's surface and the atmosphere on both regional and continental
scales.
Understanding today's regional and temporal patterns of CO<INF>2</INF>
sources and sinks is necessary for reliable projections of future
atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF> concentrations. Direct oceanic and
terrestrial measurements of carbon and/or the flux of CO<INF>2</INF>
are important, but resource-intensive and hence the observations are
sparse and difficult to extrapolate in space and time. Space-based
measurements of primary production and biomass are valuable and needed
and, consequently, the Decadal Study recommended the DESDynI and
HyspIRI missions.
The current set of direct in situ atmospheric observations is far
too sparse for the determination of CO<INF>2</INF> sources and sinks;
however, long-term, accurate measurements from space of atmospheric
CO<INF>2</INF> column measurements with global coverage would allow the
determination and localization in time and space of CO<INF>2</INF>
fluxes both over the ocean and over terrestrial systems. What is needed
for space-borne measurements is a highly precise global data set for
atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF> column measurements without seasonal,
latitudinal, or diurnal bias. This is initially being addressed using
existing satellite-based measurements and with the first generation of
satellite instruments designed specifically for passive CO<INF>2</INF>
measurements, such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) and the
Japanese Greenhouse gas Observing Satellite (GOSAT). While these
instruments will make a major step forward in our understanding of
CO<INF>2</INF> distributions, it is internationally recognized that an
active CO<INF>2</INF> mission using a laser is the only way to achieve
observations at all seasons and all latitudes, day/night coverage, and
under both clear and broken cloud conditions. As a result, the Decadal
Study recommended the development of an active, laser-based CO<INF>2</INF>
mission, ASCENDS, as the important next step after OCO and GOSAT.
Q5. Is there a consensus (among federal agencies, academia, and other
users) on a set of climate and environmental measurements to which the
nation should commit for sustained observations? If so, what is the
set? If not, should there be such a set of consensus measurements and
what would be involved in reaching consensus?
A5. There have been a number of high-quality and intensive studies with
recommendations of important climate variables that should be monitored
on a continuous basis, but the lists of ``essential climate variables''
generated by these studies are rather long, sometimes including 20 or
more variables. These ``essential'' observations all contribute to an
understanding of the total Earth system, and I support them. My very
short list of absolutely essential observations to make on a continuous
global basis include solar and Earth radiation, atmospheric and ocean
temperature, atmospheric water vapor, ozone, carbon dioxide and sea
level height. The Decadal Survey report recommends several missions to
obtain these cornerstone climate observations: CLARREO, GPSRO, ASCENDS,
SWOT, ACE, and PATH. In addition to supporting climate monitoring and
research, several of these observations also make important
contributions to weather forecasting and warnings (e.g., atmospheric
and ocean temperature, atmospheric water vapor and sea level height).
A recent expert reference containing recommendations for important
climate variables may be found in: WMO, 2006: Systematic Observation
Requirements for Satellite-based Products for Climate. Global Climate
Observing System (GCOS)-107 (WMO/TD No. 1338).
Question submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. The Decadal Survey recommends that the Office of Science and
Technology Policy study and assign roles and responsibilities among
relevant federal agencies to establish a rational and enduring Earth
remote sensing program. Have you briefed OSTP on your report, and if
so, how did they react to your recommendation?
A1. Dr. Berrien Moore and I briefed OSTP on January 30, 2007, just
after the time of the release of the NRC report, ``Earth Science and
Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
Beyond.'' In addition to a discussion of specific observational needs
and missions, we discussed the recommendation specifically to OSTP:
``Recommendation: The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in
collaboration with the relevant agencies, and in consultation with the
scientific community, should develop and implement a plan for achieving
and sustaining global Earth observations. This plan should recognize
the complexity of differing agency roles, responsibilities, and
capabilities as well as the lessons from implementation of the Landsat,
EOS, and NPOESS programs.''
. . .as well as the more general recommendation:
``Recommendation: A formal interagency planning and review process
should be put into place that focuses on effectively implementing the
recommendations made in the present decadal survey report and
sustaining and building the knowledge and information system for the
next decade and beyond.''
In response to these recommendations and a perceived national need,
OSTP has initiated, under the auspices of the U.S. Group on Earth
Observations (USGEO) [an interagency subcommittee under the National
Science and Technology Council], a two-pronged strategy to address
national Earth observational needs across agencies.
First, USGEO is developing a national Earth observations policy
which builds upon the National Space Policy and other existing policies
to clarify roles and responsibilities of federal agencies in the
collection, distribution, and preservation of Earth observations data.
This policy will include guidance on research-to-operations transitions
and international coordination of Earth observations activities.
Second, USGEO is simultaneously pursuing an assessment and planning
effort to begin to establish a national framework that includes
existing Earth observation capabilities, national Earth observation
needs, and a gap analysis. USGEO does not intend to inventory or
catalog every observational capability in the country, but will focus
on prioritization of the major observational efforts required to
address the societal benefits outlined in both the USGEO Strategic Plan
and the NRC Decadal Survey report.
Because USGEO is a White House group that involves all the active
Federal agencies engaged in Earth observations, we are hopeful that
both the policy and the assessment/plan will address these important
national needs on an interagency basis.
Q2. To what degree are the governments of large developing countries,
such as China and India, taking an interest in climate change research
and attempting to mitigate further damage to the environment? Do they
acknowledge that climate change may be, in part, a consequence of human
activity? Has a credible estimate been developed on the amounts of some
pollutants released into the atmosphere by these countries?
A2. Yes, China and India have great interest in climate change, but it
is also fairly clear that they are not yet doing very much to mitigate
the environmental damage, arguing that they should not be asked to do
anything that might hurt their economy when developed nations like the
United States are doing so little. China and India both participated in
the latest IPCC report and agreed with its conclusions. They both
acknowledge that human activities are a significant part of the cause
of global warming and climate change (an IPCC conclusion). Yes,
credible estimates have been developed on the pollution emitted by
these countries, and satellites have played a role in these estimates
(for example, aerosols). China and India are both very large
contributors to carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions. In 2006
China moved ahead of the United States as the number one emitter of
carbon dioxide. It is clear that without significant actions on the
part of all nations, developing and developed, the emission of
greenhouse gases and the resultant rate of climate change will only
increase.
Q3. The Decadal Survey highlighted the importance of developing a
strategy to transition technologies from NASA to operational systems.
How is transition managed today? What steps can NASA take to improve
technology transition between researchers and the applications
community?
A3. Frankly speaking, very little of substance has been done to
facilitate the transition of research to operations since the 2003 NRC
report Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment-Accelerating
the Transition of Research to Operations. That report recommended the
formation of a joint NASA-NOAA Interagency Transition Office to develop
and implement a strategy to transition NASA research into NOAA
operations. As we said in the Decadal Survey, ``An efficient and
effective Earth observation system requires an ongoing interagency
evaluation of the capabilities and potential applications of numerous
current and planned missions for transition of fundamental science
missions into operational observation programs. The committee is
particularly concerned with the lack of clear agency responsibility for
sustained research programs and the transitioning of proof-of-concept
measurements into sustained measurement systems. To address societal
and research needs, both the quality and the continuity of the
measurement record must be assured through the transition of short-
term, exploratory capabilities, into sustained observing systems.
Transition failures have been exhaustively described in previous
reports and the committee endorses the recommendations in these
studies.''
In terms of concrete steps, the Decadal Survey (Chapter 5, Earth
Science Applications and Societal Benefits) in Part III discusses a
number of important aspects of the process of realizing societal
benefits from Earth observations through scientific research and
application development: ``These include: (1) establishing mechanisms
for including priorities of the applications community in space-based
missions, (2) considering studies of the value and benefits of Earth
observations published in the social sciences literature, (3) creating
closer institutional relationships between the science and applications
(user) communities, (4) having easy availability to observations and
products derived from observations by the broad user community, and (5)
educating and training new users of Earth data and information, as well
as facilitating the creation of a scientifically-informed and literate
citizenry. Meeting these objectives will require a greater involvement
of social scientists (e.g., development policy analysts, communication
researchers, anthropologists, environmental economists) throughout the
entire mission life cycle, in order to make certain societal needs are
appropriately considered during the design process, and to ensure
societal benefits are derived from the implemented observations.''
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Eric J. Barron, Dean, Jackson School of Geosciences;
Jackson Chair in Earth System Science, University of Texas,
Austin
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. You testified that the Decadal Survey calls attention to the need
for improved understanding of aerosol cloud forcing and ocean
circulation, two areas ``that are considered to be the most limiting in
terms of our ability to improve climate model predictions.'' What
potential gains in the predictive capability of climate models could we
expect if the Decadal Survey's Aerosol/Cloud/Ecosystems (ACE) and
Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT) missions were to be implemented?
A1. It is difficult to be precise in estimating the degree to which any
new set of observations will improve our ability to simulate climate.
Climate models have a number of uncertainties of varying importance,
which may in fact compound each other or serve to obscure the relative
importance of individual factors. However, the improvements can be
placed into perspective in a manner that clarifies their importance.
Aerosol climate forcing is estimated as having a similar magnitude
forcing as carbon dioxide, but the uncertainty is five times greater.
There are several factors governing this large uncertainty: (a)
aerosols have a short life time in the atmosphere, (b) not all aerosols
are alike, and the differences in their character define how they
influence the heating of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, and (c)
aerosols indirectly influence climate through their affect on cloud
formation, again a significant factor in defining the Earth's energy
budget. Interestingly, the estimates of the uncertainties associated
with aerosols have not changed significantly from earlier IPCC
projects, indicating that we are making limited progress in this area.
The ACE mission is designed explicitly to tackle this long-standing
problem by enabling a better understanding of aerosol-cloud interaction
through better accuracy, finer resolution and greater spatial coverage.
Ocean topography allows us to monitor sea level and the heating
(thermal expansion) of the oceans. In addition, ocean topography is a
measure of the ocean surface circulation. The continuous measurement of
ocean surface topography since 1992 provides one of the most
significant data sets available to assess the capabilities of ocean
circulation models. However, SWOT offers significant improvement.
Recent estimates indicate that current climate models are
overestimating the heat uptake. In concert with mass measurements of a
GRACE-type instrument, significant improvement in this key attribute
can be obtained. In addition, the improvement of our understanding of
upper ocean processes depends on our ability to resolve important
features, specifically ocean eddies. Increased resolving capability can
provide a detailed picture of mesoscale circulation that can be used to
improve our understanding of the physics governing the ocean
circulation and of the interaction between the ocean and the
atmosphere, and hence provide an important foundation for improving
climate models.
Q2. The Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council
proposed a NASA Earth Science Initiative. The proposal involves
redirecting support for a planned FY08 solicitation for an Earth System
Science Pathfinder to a decadal survey mission. What is your reaction
to that proposal?
A2. The Decadal Survey recommends a set of critical observations with
defined priorities and, in addition, a class of missions that enable a
more opportunistic approach (to ensure that the program remains
innovative and able to respond to new scientific discoveries). The
notion of redirecting a planned FY08 solicitation for an Earth System
Science Pathfinder (ESSP) to a Decadal Survey mission is a step towards
achieving the Survey objectives. However, two issues become very
important. First, the current NASA budget is not sufficient to achieve
the Decadal Survey's priority missions. The proposal is therefore a
small part of what must be a much more strategic approach to Earth
observations. A successful program must follow the carefully defined
set of missions described by the Decadal Survey, involving small,
medium, and larger missions (costs). It is difficult to imagine that
the systematic approach of the Decadal Survey can be achieved with
ESSP-type missions. Second, we must ensure that the strategy of the
Decadal Survey is maintained, with a systematic approach to priority
missions and the inclusion of missions that can be innovative and
creative. The later opportunities (proposed as Venture class missions),
as described in the Decadal Survey, are very different from NASA's ESSP
missions, which are largely opportunities to incorporate competition in
the implementation of specific objectives.
Q3. Your testimony refers to potential restrictions on instrument
information, access to data, and software that may arise in
international collaborations. What would be the implications of such
restrictions for climate data sets?
A3. The climate record depends on generating and sustaining long-term
records in which the observational uncertainties must be smaller than
the sought-for geophysical measurements. Key to a robust program is to
ensure (a) overlap in time between instruments in order to identify and
reduce calibration uncertainties, (b) transparency in programs for
monitoring sensor calibration and performance, (c) verification of the
products of analysis algorithms and the ability to reprocess data to
correct errors in earlier processing algorithms, (d) improved quality
of the observations within a time series (as opposed to launch of less
capable instruments), (e) avoidance of orbit drift, and (f) validation
of geophysical products, providing an independent check on the
performance of space-based sensors and processing algorithms.
Restrictions on data access, instrument information, and software
clearly will restrict or raise questions about many of these keys to a
robust climate record. The implication is a reduced value to the long-
term investment in observation time series, largely through increased
levels of uncertainty in the climate data sets.
Q4. Is there a consensus (among federal agencies, academia, and other
users) on a set of climate and environmental measurements to which the
nation should commit for sustained observations? If so, what is the
set? If not, should there be such a set of consensus measurements and
what would be involved in reaching consensus?
A4. Substantial, but not universal, consensus exists. The 2003 Global
Climate Observing System (GCOS) report provides a list of climate
parameters (``The second report on the adequacy of the global observing
system for climate in support of the UNFCCC.'' GCOS-82, World
Meteorological Organization, Tech. Doc 1143, 85 pp., 2003). This report
was adopted by the Climate Variability and Change Panel and provides a
high level of consensus on needed measurements. The Climate Variability
and Change Panel then assessed current observing capabilities and those
planned for the coming decade to develop a table within Chapter 9 of
critical climate variables and mission needs.
More generally, the observations need to address specific
requirements. Our observations must document the forces on the climate
system (solar and volcanic activity, greenhouse gases and aerosols,
changes in the land surface and albedo), the state of the atmosphere,
ocean, ice and land surface to understand how the system is changing,
the characteristics of internal variability that may obscure long-term
change, and the feedback processes involving the atmosphere, land and
ocean, biogeochemical cycles and the hydrologic cycle. It is the
assessment of the Climate Variability and Change Panel of the status of
current and planned measurements in comparison with the GCOS report
that defined the critical missions proposed in the Decadal Survey.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. To what degree are the governments of large developing countries,
such as China and India, taking an interest in climate change research
and attempting to mitigate further damage to the environment? Do they
acknowledge that climate change may be, in part, a consequence of human
activity? Has a credible estimate been developed on the amounts of some
pollutants released into the atmosphere by these countries?
A1. China and India are both participants in the IPCC process and have
endorsed the conclusions of the report. Certainly, this indicates a
level of acknowledgement that climate is changing and is significantly
a consequence of human activity. The large populations of India and
China make them significant contributors to carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases, as well as aerosols. There are reliable estimates of
greenhouse gas contributions by the countries of the world, and
contributions of China rival (and recently passed) those of the United
States in magnitude. China has instituted a major study to look at the
impacts of climate change on China, in part modeled after U.S. reports
to examine the potential consequences of climate variability and
change. Such research activities imply a more active interest in
assessing potential damage to the environments of China. However, there
is little sign of efforts to mitigate climate change. My opinion is
that the economic growth within China and India is the foremost factor
in setting policy. Without global agreement on emissions mitigation,
between developing and developed countries, there appears to be little
incentive to take action in China or India. Research studies on
impacts, as they emerge, may alter this viewpoint. China's new position
as the number one emitter of carbon dioxide may also result in greater
world pressure to address emissions.
Q2. The Decadal Survey highlighted the importance of developing a
strategy to transition technologies from NASA to operational systems.
How is transition managed today? What steps can NASA take to improve
technology transition between researchers and the applications
community?
A2. There are two significant National Research Council Reports on the
transition of NASA technologies to operational systems. The first is
From Research to Operations in Weather Satellites and Numerical Weather
Prediction: Crossing the Valley of Death (2000), and the second is
Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment-Accelerating the
Transition from Research to Operations (2003). The investment in
transitioning valuable information and technologies from NASA into
operations is extremely small. The first report recommended a joint
NASA-NOAA testbed for promoting transition from research to operations,
and a small office was funded. The second report recommended an
Interagency Transition Office to develop and implement a strategy for
transition. The progress here is small and the problems are numerous.
There is a lack of investment in the transition of technologies, there
is a lack of clear agency responsibilities, and there is a lack of
defined strategy. The consequence is that a very large amount of
capability never achieves a status of serving society.
I also believe that this is not a matter of just transitioning
technologies. One could cite numerous instances in which the
observations, different data sets, and model capabilities of NASA and
NOAA could serve different segments of society ranging from human
health, water management, energy conservation, agriculture, etc. Today,
we have a very small ``applications'' program, designed to help provide
data and expertise for specifically identified needs of society where
NASA or NOAA data can be useful. This is valuable, but, in fact, we
have the potential to do much more to benefit society. For example, we
have the potential to develop predictive models for adverse human
health outcomes related to the environment (including weather and
climate), but this requires active, collaborative research in
environmental health that brings together climate researchers with the
medical community to define the connections and relationships that will
enable such predictive capability. Such outcomes don't occur simply by
providing data sets, it occurs by deliberately investing in areas that
have the potential to transform our large investment in NASA and NOAA
into societal benefits.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Timothy W. Foresman, President, International Center for
Remote Sensing Education
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. According to the report of the MODIS Science Team, as documented
in The Earth Observer publication, ``The use of MODIS data for land
studies has exceeded even our most optimistic expectations and has been
an unprecedented success for NASA's terrestrial program.'' Will follow-
on sensors to MODIS have the capability to support the growing number
of applications derived from MODIS data? If not, what will be the
impact?
A1. MODIS is an experiment. If MODIS was to become operational, then a
growing number of applications could depend upon the platform.
Continuity of the sensors and the MODIS program would have to be
carefully discussed with the user community and appropriate government
agencies (e.g., NOAA, USGS) to define any operational scenarios.
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. Could you please discuss some of the applied uses of Landsat data?
A1. There are so many applied uses of Landsat data that any single
treatment will not do justice. The applications in use over the past
thirty-five years include a broad range of civil engineering uses,
public health and disease vector monitoring uses, master planning and
urban design, water resources, forestry, and a litany of environmental
uses. I used Landsat data on behalf of the Department of Defense for
both environmental work and for war planning in the middle east. I use
Landsat data for a variety of projects while working for the US EPA.
And Landsat traveled with me to the United Nations where good use has
been applied to studying the dynamics of the planet over a three-decade
period. There has been not substitute for this powerful tool.
Q1a. What are the potential implications of any disruptions in the
long-term Landsat data record for the applied uses of the data?
A1a. Disruptions would be a great disservice to the U.S. and the world.
It would be akin to not taking x-rays of your teeth for a ten years
after carefully maintaining your dental health. There is no suitable
replacement. If the U.S. allows a disruption, the science community and
the state and county managers will be at a significant loss.
Q1b. What scientific and operational value do the thermal imaging data
of the Landsat program provide?
A1b. Thermal data has proven to be extremely valuable for a variety of
environmental and energy related applications. As energy becomes more
adult in the workings of communities, they will find more use for the
thermal bands.
Q2. Your testimony refers to non-governmental organizations and their
use of Earth science data to address societal needs. Is there an
appropriate role for NASA in supporting these activities through
technical assistance, training, data access, or other means?
A2. It is my opinion that NASA could provide a great service for the
many NGOs around the country and world. NASA has subsidized a variety
of commercial businesses, but has not been vary successful with the
NGOs. A better understanding of the challenges, missions, and scale of
assistance to NGOs would provide society with many benefits.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. The Decadal Survey highlighted the importance of developing a
strategy to transition technologies from NASA to operational systems.
How is transition managed today? What steps can NASA take to improve
technology transition between researchers and the applications
community?
A1. NASA would require outside expert assistance from experienced
business professionals to handle the transition of technologies to
operational status. The mindset and experience in NASA does not allow
for high success in transitions. Many transitions, however, would be
best supported by quasi-government arrangements as the sensors may be
more scientific in nature and use and not lend themselves to commercial
enterprise. The major of sensors fall into this category.
Q2. Your statement recommends that NASA ``include Earth as its primary
planet of study and Earth sciences at its core.'' What do you mean by
this statement? Are you suggesting that NASA abandon or seriously
reduce other lines of space research?
A2. As the former chief environmental scientist for the United Nations,
it is my opinion that the scarce resources be applied to studying and
monitoring the Earth's systems as the alarming rates of extinction,
land and soil degradation, and ecosystem collapses will impact current
and future generations. Robotic missions are the most cost effective
and allow for widespread web-collaboration among students and
scientists around the globe. I would strongly recommend that space
exploration be re-engineered to focus on remote sensing and robotics
and not squander precious time and resources on human-oriented lunar
and Mars missions.