Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society
PREFACE
xiii
concept white papers, which were submitted in response to an invitation to the research community. 1 The
panels mapped concepts against their prioritization of science targets and also considered factors such
as technical readiness, scientific impact on particular disciplines, and, in some cases, operational utility.
Then the survey committee selected 12 concepts for further study and CATE assessment. At the end of that
process, six concepts were chosen for consideration, leading to the survey committee’s recommendations
of priorities. The details of this process are described in Appendix E.
In June 2011, NASA requested a clarification of the survey’s scope to explicitly consider the Solar
Probe Plus (SPP) mission. Previously, NASA had instructed the committee to assume that SPP and Solar
Orbiter, along with missions that were in advanced development, were part of the baseline program and
should not be subject to review or prioritization. 2 This new request specified that the SPP mission was not
to be reprioritized, but that the survey committee should comment on the scientific rationale for the mission in the context of scientific developments since the publication of the 2003 decadal survey. Also, the
survey committee was asked to provide appropriate programmatic or cost triggers as part of the anticipated
decision rules to guide NASA in the event of major technical, cost, or programmatic changes during the
development of SPP.
To address the change in the survey’s scope, the NRC formed a study group specifically tasked to
address these questions for the Solar Probe Plus mission. The group was chosen to minimize conflicts of
interest while maintaining relevant scientific and technical expertise. The Solar Probe Plus Study Group
was led by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology, who served as an unpaid consultant to
the survey. The remainder of the study group was made up of members of the survey committee and the
discipline panels. The study group held one meeting in August 2011 and presented its conclusions in an
internal report to the survey committee in October 2011.
The three discipline panels cast their scientific prioritization in the form of discipline goals and priorities, from which they derived more detailed scientific “imperatives” and, finally, implementation scenarios
or reference mission concepts. It is important to recognize that panel-specific priorities and recommendations (imperatives) are not equivalent to report recommendations—these can be offered only by the decadal
survey committee. The panels’ various scientific inputs, assessments, and priorities for new ground- and
space-based initiatives were integrated by the survey committee and an overall prioritization derived. The
survey committee’s prioritization of new spacecraft initiatives was heavily influenced by the CATE assessment provided by the Aerospace Corporation.
Chapter 1 of this report discusses the committee’s key science goals for obtaining the necessary scientific knowledge for a society dependent on space, and it outlines the basic strategy that underpins the
survey committee’s recommendations for the next decade. Chapter 2 provides a retrospective view of recent
notable successes in the field and exemplary achievements during the past decade and the research goals
for the several subdisciplines of solar and space physics for the next decade. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 discuss
specific implementation plans for a balanced program for NSF and NASA. Finally, Chapter 7 provides the
survey committee’s vision for a space weather and space climate program for the nation that could provide
the new, integrated capabilities needed to serve the needs of a society ever more reliant on space. Chapter
3 provides an overview of the societal relevance of the field of solar and space physics and addresses the
1 The survey’s website, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_056864, includes links to the survey’s request
for information and to the submissions that were received in response. Appendix I also lists the responses received.
2 As per its charge from NASA, the survey committee did not “grandfather” missions or mission concepts from the previous decadal
survey unless they were already in advanced development. In some cases, a concept from the previous survey was reproposed for
consideration by the present survey committee (e.g., MagCon); in others, elements of an earlier concept were incorporated into a
new proposal.
Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society
PREFACE
xiii
concept white papers, which were submitted in response to an invitation to the research community. 1 The
panels mapped concepts against their prioritization of science targets and also considered factors such
as technical readiness, scientific impact on particular disciplines, and, in some cases, operational utility.
Then the survey committee selected 12 concepts for further study and CATE assessment. At the end of that
process, six concepts were chosen for consideration, leading to the survey committee’s recommendations
of priorities. The details of this process are described in Appendix E.
In June 2011, NASA requested a clarification of the survey’s scope to explicitly consider the Solar
Probe Plus (SPP) mission. Previously, NASA had instructed the committee to assume that SPP and Solar
Orbiter, along with missions that were in advanced development, were part of the baseline program and
should not be subject to review or prioritization. 2 This new request specified that the SPP mission was not
to be reprioritized, but that the survey committee should comment on the scientific rationale for the mission in the context of scientific developments since the publication of the 2003 decadal survey. Also, the
survey committee was asked to provide appropriate programmatic or cost triggers as part of the anticipated
decision rules to guide NASA in the event of major technical, cost, or programmatic changes during the
development of SPP.
To address the change in the survey’s scope, the NRC formed a study group specifically tasked to
address these questions for the Solar Probe Plus mission. The group was chosen to minimize conflicts of
interest while maintaining relevant scientific and technical expertise. The Solar Probe Plus Study Group
was led by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology, who served as an unpaid consultant to
the survey. The remainder of the study group was made up of members of the survey committee and the
discipline panels. The study group held one meeting in August 2011 and presented its conclusions in an
internal report to the survey committee in October 2011.
The three discipline panels cast their scientific prioritization in the form of discipline goals and priorities, from which they derived more detailed scientific “imperatives” and, finally, implementation scenarios
or reference mission concepts. It is important to recognize that panel-specific priorities and recommendations (imperatives) are not equivalent to report recommendations—these can be offered only by the decadal
survey committee. The panels’ various scientific inputs, assessments, and priorities for new ground- and
space-based initiatives were integrated by the survey committee and an overall prioritization derived. The
survey committee’s prioritization of new spacecraft initiatives was heavily influenced by the CATE assessment provided by the Aerospace Corporation.
Chapter 1 of this report discusses the committee’s key science goals for obtaining the necessary scientific knowledge for a society dependent on space, and it outlines the basic strategy that underpins the
survey committee’s recommendations for the next decade. Chapter 2 provides a retrospective view of recent
notable successes in the field and exemplary achievements during the past decade and the research goals
for the several subdisciplines of solar and space physics for the next decade. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 discuss
specific implementation plans for a balanced program for NSF and NASA. Finally, Chapter 7 provides the
survey committee’s vision for a space weather and space climate program for the nation that could provide
the new, integrated capabilities needed to serve the needs of a society ever more reliant on space. Chapter
3 provides an overview of the societal relevance of the field of solar and space physics and addresses the
1 The survey’s website, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_056864, includes links to the survey’s request
for information and to the submissions that were received in response. Appendix I also lists the responses received.
2 As per its charge from NASA, the survey committee did not “grandfather” missions or mission concepts from the previous decadal
survey unless they were already in advanced development. In some cases, a concept from the previous survey was reproposed for
consideration by the present survey committee (e.g., MagCon); in others, elements of an earlier concept were incorporated into a
new proposal.