1. It was emphasized over and over that a key to successful NASA work is to cultivate grass-roots collaboration with NASA scientists. We need to tenaciously hunt down real live scientists at NASA centers and get them interested in what we are doing to the point where they want to collaborate. NASA Center resources are best accessed through collaborations with NASA scientists. This was the main message of the conference.
2. NASA is interested in outreach.
3. NASA is very interested in applications and technology transfer, but as a demonstration and development partner, not an implementation partner.
4. Earth science focus is moving away from demonstration of observation technology and technology for observation’s sake, to the design of systems and measurements to address specific scientific questions.
5. NASA is very concerned about stakeholders and demonstrating the practical value of NASA technology for everyday decision-making.
6. Some interesting opportunities are coming up for university involvement in designing and building instruments for earth science observations, with NASA supporting development and launch. PI-approach which makes PI responsible for every phase. This might be a good opportunity for collaboration between Tech science and engineering departments to build specific sensors/platforms for space or balloon observations.
7. Workshop attendees expressed frustration with the meeting format, because the message was clearly "Grass-roots collaboration is really important", but GSFC had scheduled NO time for meeting with the GSFC scientists or program managers.

What follows is a copy of my notes for anyone who might be interested. Warning: Lots of bureaucratic burble and fluff ahead, with a few good nuggets of info….

Introduction and Opening Remarks my Alphonso Diaz, Director of GSFC

Motto for GSFC: Do good and be good. "New" focus for GSFC of creating services and partnerships with the academic community (doing good) and being the best locus of science and technology possible (being good). GSFC as a Space and Earth Science Center and a Leader in Earth Systems Enterprises, has 6000 engineers and scientists in a total work force of 9000 (downsized from 12,000 high in 1993).

Dr. Stephen Maran, Asst. Director for Administration and Outreach, Space Sciences Directorate
Four major themes: Sun-Earth Connections, Structure and Evolution of the Universe, Search for Origins (GFSC leader), and Solar System Exploration (JPL leader). Lots of techno-advertisements for these programs were shown.

Dr. Vincent Salomonson, Director, Earth Sciences Directorate (MODIS Director)
Talked about evolving Earth Science in the 21^st Century, with specific focus areas in population growth issues such as food production and resource management, air and water quality, natural environments and habitats, and landuse planning/management. Reiterated necessity of the focus areas of climate change, population growth, land transformations, pollution, and biodiversity, and the impacts of all of the above on habitability, quality of life, and economic consequences.

Spoke of the Vision 20/20 Initiative to foster Proactive Environmental Prediction, with goals of two-week advance weather prediction, climate and environmental predictions, and land/biosphere predictions. Mentioned the Lab for Hydrospheric Processes and the Global Change Data Center.

Current earth system thrusts at NASA include:
Changes in the Climate System, through coupled models, regional effects, downscaling issues.
Global Carbons Cycles (changes in water, energy, biosphere, c limate, biodiversity, and carbon sinks)
Greater collaboration with Goddard Earth Science and Technology Center (GEST)
Aggressive development and commercialization of advanced technologies
Promotion of Spin-offs of Earth Science Enterprise applications

 Dr. Michael G. Ryschdewitsch, Deputy Director, Systems, Technology, and Advanced Concepts Directorate
Traditional mode of individual, grass-roots collaboration with specific Goddard scientists seems most productive, however they are looking for new ways and new mechanisms, such as integrated mission design. What modes of interaction are most beneficial? Suggested expanding from science themes to technology using same model of collaboration. How do universities see their role in technology and development?

Missions have historically originated at the Center, but they are developing future proposals through open solicitations, peer reviews, and level playing fields. Goddard wants to be a partner to assist institutions to compete.

Technology interacts with Earth and Space Science directorates for specific problems, such as LIDAR technology for studying vegetation canopies, and solar inputs effects on climate and meterology. Lots of emphasis on commercialization and export of technologies.

Orlando Figuroa, Director, Systems Technology, and Advanced Concepts (STAAC)
GSFC wants to be an "enabling" center—what can they do for YOU?

Engineering and Technology strategic plans are trying to create bold cost-effective solutions to challenging questions. STAAC wants ti defube technological architecture, the character of instrumentation and missions that shape the future of earth and space science. Placed some emphasis on the SBIR and STTR programs to commercialize technology.

Mitch Brown, Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate
Basic philosophy is to better serve customers. To focus on future needs rather than the crisis de jour. Emphasize end to end system development, while bringing new outside talent to complement activities within GSFC. To increase flexibility to support many simultaneous projects and more discipline expertise. Enhancing teams t meet responsibilities and training the generation of future leaders.

Challenges include transitioning from product focus to management of skills by GSFC. Increasing interaction with customers, and understanding core competencies. Creating a wedge of resources to support increase technical activities. Sustaining GSFC engineering as a national resource.

Emphases on evaluating project support, assuring core competencies, effectively identifying and applying resources, developing processes for customer involvement, and leveraging fair and effective partnerships.

Technology focus areas: Advanced instruments that are cheaper, smaller, better. Large aperture systems. Distributed observations. Rapid formation and execution of ideas. Science info systems (sets of instruments to address specific science questions.)

James Moore, Director, Flight Projects Directorate
Some stuff about university-initiated flight missions such as SOLSTICE and TRIANA. Go to web site for points of contact and chiefs.

Brad Poston, Grants Officer, Procurement Operations
Lots of very detailed info about NASA vehicles for cooperation (Grants, CANs, Contracts) but it went by very fast. Consult web site genesis.gsfc.nasa.gov/grants/. New grants handbook coming out.

Rosa Acevedo, Head, Procurement Support Branch.
Do SBIRs and STTRs.

Martin Israel, Dept. Physics, Wash University
Spoke about experience collaborating with NASA, basically good but travel restrictions are a problem and administration is frustratingly slow (both NASA and universities)

Bradley Petersen, Dept of Astronomy, Ohio State University
Most of his interactions were initiated by research scientists at the grass-roots level. Seek to sell ideas to specific scientists in the appropriate branch.

Lennard Fisk, Dept of Atm, Ocean and Space Science, University of Michigan
Fundamental problems and issues of working with NASA, mainly from perspective of building space hardware. New emphasis on shorter, quicker, cheaper, better is a paradox and penalizes universities

Because it dries up the long development times and continuous stream of projects which must be maintained for universities to retain personell, skills and equipment to build hardware. Proposals are inefficient because they cost a lot to develop and universities don’t have the resouces, hence more proposals go to industry, and there is inherent bias.

Eric Barron, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
New Face of Earth Science, driven by climate change, and including a strong filter of "Service to the Nation". Research is moving to reflect the scale of human activities. Connections to stakeholders and partnerships are key components of the new face. Strong focus on interdisciplinary science, which is enabled by depth of knowledge and good communication. He made the astute observation that traditional organization of universities by department breaks down under interdisciplinary model and that research problems are issues-based, such as change, toxics, water resources, which cross the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

Visions for future include Sensor Webs, hybrids between research and operational modes of business, integrated regional models, disciplines for forecasting, and situtation room capability (what-if predictions).

During discussion/questions, somebody showed a map and claimed "Virtually every state is getting some form of earth science funding, however I noticed that ND, SD, ID, and ME were all $0!

Gassam Asrar, NASA Associate Administrator for Earth Sciences
Spoke of a road map of opportunities. NASA HQ asks what and why, while centers figure out how. Centers are intimately involved in programs and can serve as eyes and ears and as a catalyst for continued participation from the outside.

Changes to earth science in last few decades. Seventies involved demonstrating the observation technologies. Since 80’s focus is more on designing meaningful scientific experiments that are more specific and thorough. In the past we took a few vital signs of the earth, now we are gearing up for a full physical. Spoke of boing beyond the boundaries of earth science disciplines and enabling interdisciplinary approaches. Some required factors include: 1) space observations, beyond role of individuals, requires NASA support and implementation. 2) capturing processes and exporting them to the end users for utilization. 3) Robust scientific research and analysis. 4) Intellectual capital and brainstorming future directions and experiments. 5) Earth science must demonstrate value to society by finding solutions to practical problems 6) Development of missions and satellites under new strategy of smaller cheaper mixtures of experiments 7) developing advanced technologies for near, mid, and far-term missions (0-7,7-20, and 20+ respectively.

Currently investing 18% of budget in research and science, want to increase it to 25%

Encourage private sector investment in remote sensing, but many commercial models are currently flawed because companies are focusing on space technology and gee whiz imagery (push model) rather than building a customer demand for products that are useful for day to day decision making (pull model). Livelihood of NASA depends on building that pull model, NASA wants to increase its current investment in applications from 6% to 10% of budget.

Wants to reduce expense of building satellites from 60% to 55%of budget and reduce development time, as well as encouraging private sector investment.

Priority for the next decade is on highly innovative missions. Implementation approach to this goal is to

1. Learn from past experience to better pose questions and design experiments
2. Make cross-cutting observations that allow us to define questions better, ie. There should be a science focus instead of just an observation focus.
3. Capture student involvement through University Class Explorer (UNEX) and UnESS (University Earth System Science
4. Discovery class/ Pathfinder opportunities
5. Continuity of key observations, as well as defining what is KEY.
6. New partnerships with NOAA, take stock of technology and improve systems, weather prediction and hazard assessment.
7. New Millenium Program: demonstration of key space-based technologies

M Price asked Asrar to speak on the relative importance of regional studies, which are popular with local stake holders, versus NASA’s focus on nationally and globally relevant research, particularly on NASAs interest in regional issues and what characteristics of regional studies that made them competitive. His answer was basically that NASA is interested in technology demonstration, not implementation, and that once technology is demonstrated it is up to the local level to make it happen.

Robert Casanova, Director, NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts
Looking for new innovative, completely different, revolutionary ideas for development of technology for 10-40 years from now. Used example of Arthur C. Clarke’s 1930 paper describing the communication satellite. Current round of NRAs to support Phase I development of concepts has special focus on Earth science, which was notably absent from earlier round.

Richard Fahey, Acting Director, Office of University Programs.
Reiterated importance of personal contacts and collaborations, as well as being aware of dates and competitions. Suggested student and faculty fellowships at Goddard and other centers.

Partnering in Projects Panel (Cambell, Harrington, Pierce, Daelemans)
Applied Info Sciences branch looking for technology transfers, Regional Application Centers. They give technology to universities who provide resources to implement them for regional applications. Run through simple MOUs. Example of giving software to receive and process satellite transmissions, but univ has to buy the dish and support the people.

Pierce talked about doing great science in small spacecraft through UNEX and UnESS.

Daelmans described various shuttle payload boxes and his departments role as go-between for university and school small experiments on the shuttle. Launches as low as $10K for simple stuff, and they try to make the logistics and paperwork easy, so approved payload operators only have to worry about the payload, not the NASA bureaucracy.

Round Table Discussion of Earth System Science.
Blanche Meeson moderated. Linnus talked about Info management and the Goddard DAAC and mentioned his interest in data mining techniques to increase the info to raw data ratio flowing out of the DAACs. Also interested in developing value-added products. Specifically he was referring to mainly free data distrubuted by the Goddard DAAC, but other centers might be interested in charge-for data. Mechanism for implementation of agreements vague, suggested unsolicited proposals, MOUs, etc.. Lin spoke briefly about global modeling.

Chuck Cody spoke about Lab for Atmospheres and the Instrument Incubator program—a call for proposals to facilitate rapid advance of scientific instruments (development, not deployment). Special focus on LIDAR and in situ airborne instruments. Interest in atmosphere/ocean/land measurements. Mentioned specifically aerosols, radiative transfer, temperature profiles, ozone, vegetation, topography, gravity, aeromag, microwaves, esp. microwave.

Much of the round table discussion centered on the following issues.

1. General consensus of participants that the most useful activity for University Day would have been to provide opportunities for participants to meet and interact with program managers and scientists in topical field areas, rather than listening to the high brass describe vague directions. This view was strongly iterated by other groups and was probably the dominant reaction to the workshop.
2. Some complaints by younger faculty that the NASA structure was hard to break into, favored established researchers, and that specific info on how to develop collaborations was not being presented. Other more established faculty pointed out the importance of being persistent in seeking personal contacts and developing worthwhile ideas, cultivating strong research groups and ties to people and institutions with complementary resources, and being aware of upcoming solicitations and responding directly to the thrusts defined therein. The whining turned to muttering.

Blanche Meeson spoke about the new upcoming Science Strategic Plan due to be released soon, and spoke that the newly established Applications Groups is developing their first Strategic Plan. She encouraged participants to pay attention to these plans in formulating research ideas, and emphasized again the importance of personal contacts with NASA center scientists. She also mentioned a new upcoming NRA to work with state and local governments to develop remote sensing based solutions. MB’s ears pricked up at this potential source of funding for pothole work.

Alphonso Diaz made a few final vague complimentary closing remarks, and that was that.