NASA Changes Science Focus

The National Aeronautics & Space Administration is an agency in flux. In the past year and a half, NASA has received a presidential plan to refocus its efforts with the goal of returning humans to the moon and then on to Mars. As a result, the agency adopted a new organizational structure and shifted its scientific research and development priorities to meet the President's challenges. The agency is also getting adjusted to a new chief.

But the shift of scientific support has drawn concern from both Congress and other NASA followers. The loss of support for research at NASA that is not specifically oriented toward achieving the exploration mission goals has prompted questions about whether human travels to the moon and beyond are worth NASA's turning its back on some areas of science that it has previously supported.

Unveiled by President George W. Bush in January 2004, the plan--the Vision for Space Exploration--is transforming the agency. Before then, NASA's human space activities took place only in low-Earth orbit and consisted of shuttle missions to the International Space Station (ISS), missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope, and habitation and research projects on ISS.

Most of those activities, except for a few on ISS, came to a sudden halt in February 2003 with the loss of the space shuttle Columbia. In this aftermath, the Administration developed its vision.

To achieve the goal of sending humans deeper into space, NASA must refocus its efforts and its budget to support R&D programs that are necessary for space exploration. To facilitate this refocusing, NASA needed to reorganize itself in a way that streamlined structure and allowed for better integration among areas such as physical science research and exploration mission development.

The new structure rolled out last summer condenses NASA's offices into four mission directorates. These directorates are Aeronautics, which focuses on aeronautical technology R&D; Space Operations, which includes ISS and space shuttle activities; Science, which includes earth science and space science studies; and Exploration Systems, which focuses on developing technology to enable and sustain human and robotic exploration missions.

This reorganization merged the Office of Biological & Physical Research--home to most of NASA's chemically related science activities--into Exploration Systems, with the R&D work falling into the Human Systems Research & Technology Program (HSRT). The newly created HSRT did a complete review of all the activities in its portfolio last year.

"All of the intramural and extramural research and technology development tasks were evaluated during a zero-based review for their relevance to the different stages of the vision in December 2004," explains Jitendra Joshi, chief technologist for HSRT. "A significant number of tasks were deemed to be relevant to implementation of the vision," he says.

Among the research deemed relevant and therefore okayed for continued support are process engineering research and technology development targeted at NASA's life support and habitation program. For example, Joshi points out that in the area of air revitalization necessary for long-term human space travel, R&D is ongoing to improve catalysts for trace-contaminant control and to develop methods for carbon dioxide removal and oxygen recovery.

ANOTHER AREA of study involves developing catalysts to reduce organic and inorganic compounds in wastewater. Scientists and engineers are also looking at ways to compact solid wastes and mineralize wastes using incineration and supercritical oxidation. And work is being done to develop multiphase-flow thermal control technologies, Joshi adds.

But it's not all applied research. Joshi says the physical science facilities have been directed toward research that will help NASA make more informed engineering and design decisions for life-support technologies.

Joshi cites several examples of work in this area, including development of packed reactors to understand flow dynamics to optimize water processors and the study of multiphase fluid behavior to aid in two-phase thermal control. He also notes that researchers are using the combustion facility to understand the flammability of materials for exploration needs.

NASA will continue to evaluate its research portfolio and fill any holes that arise, Joshi notes. "Future research or technology development tasks will be driven by gap analysis that takes into account the need for supporting human space exploration," he says.

As NASA aligns its programs to support the new vision, it may soon be facing even more changes once its new administrator, Michael D. Griffin, gets the results of several ongoing studies geared at assessing various agency programs and projects. The changes are expected later this summer.

Griffin, who took the reins from Sean O'Keefe just a few months ago (C&EN, March 21, page 34), comes into the agency at a critical time. Griffin is no stranger to NASA, having served in the 1990s as chief engineer and associate administrator for exploration at NASA headquarters. He also brings with him a strong science and engineering background--something that gives observers hope for retaining a strong science program at NASA.

"Griffin is very much a technology expert, he's very straightforward, and he's decisive," says John M. Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Logsdon adds that these traits are the opposite from those of Griffin's predecessor.

According to Logsdon, Griffin has a clear appreciation for both applied, mission-oriented science and "seed corn," or fundamental, research. Nevertheless, Logsdon adds, Griffin has said many times that "there is not enough money to do all good things." This tight budget situation will yield some winners and some comparative losers. Logsdon strongly believes, however, that there will be no raiding of the science budget to fund the exploration missions.

"Griffin has made it very clear that there is a firewall built between science and human space flight," he says. The science budget, however, will likely be held constant, with funding increases going toward meeting the goals of the vision, he points out.

NOT EVERYONE is so sure that science funding will be protected. "I don't think there is any doubt that [the science part of NASA's budget] will be raided," says Robert L. Park, director of public information at the American Physical Society. "I don't blame the new administrator. He's just doing what he was hired to do," he explains, adding that the relevant budget decisions are being made by the Administration and Congress.

Park also questions the wisdom of choosing to focus on human space exploration and away from research in areas such as earth science, physical science, and aeronautics. "In a sense, there are two NASAs, and there have been for a very long time," he points out. "There is the NASA that does really remarkable science, and then there is the NASA that sends people into space and produces no science. To focus on the [scientifically] unproductive part of NASA is not a good idea," he says.

"In general, NASA has benefited from having a broad-based research program," Park notes. According to him, having such a broad research program has helped NASA recruit good scientists, because scientists often are reluctant to join programs that are narrowly focused.

Like Park, members of Congress are concerned about the narrow focus. The issue has been raised in both the House and the Senate.

The Senate Appropriations Committee addressed its concerns in report language accompanying the NASA-funding appropriations bill. "The Committee is concerned that NASA will neglect areas that will only tangentially benefit from, or that do not fit within, the proposed vision," the report says. "NASA is encouraged to look for ways to maintain a balance with the productive science NASA is known for and currently has under way, while taking the steps to fulfill the exploration vision."

As for funding, the committee recommends an appropriation for 2006 of $16.4 billion, an increase of $326 million from 2005. This amount is $60 million below the President's requested 2006 budget and just more than $70 million under the House Appropriation recommendation. The final amount will be decided in conference.

Legislation to reauthorize NASA has also been introduced in the Senate. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), chairwoman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science & Space, presented her bill (S. 1281) in late June.

"The bill directs NASA to retain and support those 'nonvision' science disciplines and authorizes an additional $100 million, initially, for NASA to do that," Hutchison said when introducing the bill. She also noted that the bill "designates the U.S. portion of ISS as a national laboratory facility," as opposed to narrowing the scope of work to experiments supporting the vision.

On the House side, the Science Committee, which introduced NASA reauthorization legislation of its own (H.R. 3070) last week, has continued to raise concerns about NASA's single focus. "NASA must not become a single-mission agency," says Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.).

"Its activities in earth science, space science, and aeronautics are just as much in the national interest as is human space flight," Boehlert notes. "I think Administrator Griffin is in agreement with us on that."

"NASA is an organization very much in transition," Logsdon says. "Griffin is a person who wants to restore the organization to a paragon of technical excellence."

To restore NASA to technological leadership will not be an easy task, but NASA has shown the ability to overcome difficult challenges, and Park believes it will find a way to continue to do so.