1. Heliophysics System Observatory Science Cooperation. Who, Where, When Lika Guhathakurta Science Mission Directorate NASA Headquarters

2. Strategic Goals  NASA’s Mission –To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research  Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Strategic Goals –Earth Science: Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs. –Heliophysics: Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system. –Planetary Science: Advance scientific knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and resources present as humans explore space. –Astrophysics: Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets.

3. SMD Management Principles Active participation by the research community outside NASA is critical to success Base selections on open competition and scientific merit assessed via peer review Promote vigorous and timely interpretation of mission data by ensuring prompt, broad, and easy access to research data Apply new technology aggressively within constraints of acceptable risk Establish partnerships to help achieve science objectives Share results and excitement of our program through formal education and public engagement

4. Science and Mission Planning The foundation of strategic planning in each division (science area) is its National Research Council (NRC) decadal survey; these provide: –Assessment of current status of knowledge –Identification of the most important science objectives –Prioritized sequence of flight missions Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium (2001)  (update in development)  New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy (2003) (update has been initiated)  The Sun to the Earth -- and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics (2003)  Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (2007)

5. Mission Implementation Priorities Fundamental criterion: scientific importance Other factors considered in prioritization include: –Technology readiness –Mission science interdependencies –Partnership opportunities –Executive and legislative branch mandates –Programmatic considerations (e.g., budgets, other resources, program balance) Missions closer to launch are generally given higher priority for funding than missions further from launch

6. NASA Science Mission Launches (CY09-CY18) SOFIA § Glory Aquarius GOES-P ST-7 2009 2010 2011 NPP Juno MSL GRAIL NuSTAR 20132012 LDCM LADEE RBSP LWS SET-1 SMEX-12 SMAP Venture 1 MAVEN GPM Core Astro-H As of 5/7/09 For planning purposes only 2014 ICESat-II Venture 2 Discovery-12 2015 ESDS-3 EX-1 Mars 2016 ExoMars 2016 NASA mission on space shuttle International mission with substantial NASA contribution Joint NASA - International Partner mission Reimbursabl e for NOAA NASA mission on US ELV ESMD mission with SMD participation ✓ LRO/LCROS S ✖ OCO SDO WISE ✓ Kepler ✓ HST SM-4 ✓ GOES-O ✓ NOAA-N’ ✓ Herschel ✓ Planck 2017 GPM Const MMS SMEX-13 JWST GOES-R ESDS-4 Venture 3 New Front 3 Astro-1 EX-2 GOES-S Solar Orbiter 2018 Venture 4 ILN Mars 2018 Solar Probe + STP-5 ✓ = Successfully launched to date ✖ = Launch failure § = Early science flights begin Italics = pre-competition or pre-formulation phase

7. Flight Mission Programs  Approximate size categories –Small = less than $600 million –Medium = $600 million to 1 billion –Large and Flagship = greater than $1 billion  Except for New Frontiers, the PI-led lines are small mission lines  Strategic missions are all medium and large missions Earth ScienceHeliophysicsPlanetaryAstrophysics StrategicSystematic Strategic/Decadal Survey Living With a Star Solar Terrestrial Probes Mars Exploration Outer Planets Cosmic Origins Physics of the Cosmos Exoplanets Exploration PI-ledESSP Venture ExplorerDiscovery Mars Scout New Frontiers Explorer

8. Strategic Missions Missions prioritized by NRC decadal surveys; often multi-decade projects Lead Center assigned to manage each project International partner contributions negotiated by NASA Headquarters Science requirements set by community-based Science Definition Team Instrument investigations selected by AO Often have competitive opportunities for broadened community participation –Science teams –Participating scientists –Interdisciplinary scientists –Data analysis funding

9. PI-Led Missions Missions competitively solicited by AO must respond to science priorities in decadal survey generally flown within 5 years of selection PI forms team, proposes entire mission –science objectives –team composition and roles –spacecraft and instrument design –operations + data analysis –full lifecycle cost International partnerships are part of the proposal, structured by the PI Final science requirements fixed in negotiation between PI and NASA Headquarters at confirmation PI is required to deposit data in publicly accessible data archive for community use Headquarters may add Guest Investigators or other mechanisms to broaden community participation

10. Hybrids and Special Cases New Frontiers (medium class) is managed as PI-led program, except science and target objectives are limited to a pre-defined list provided by the NRC New 5-year omnibus AO: Stand-Alone Mission of Opportunity Notice (SALMON) offers 5 types of competitive opportunities –Partner Mission of Opportunity (U.S. H/W on foreign mission) –Participating Investigator (U.S. investigator on foreign mission) –New Science Missions Using Existing Spacecraft –Small Complete Missions (e.g., $2M for complete mission in astrobiology) –Focused Missions of Opportunity (NASA-specified objective on a foreign S/C) Opportunities may not be offered by all SMD divisions for all options every year, depending on available funding

11. Current Issues Space science decadal surveys are nearly 10 years old and are undergoing revision –But the Earth science survey is up to date (2007) and provides specific guidance for flight missions SMD is facing a launch services gap for mid-range launchers Increased budget pressures due to launch slips and accounting changes –Less frequent competition and cooperation opportunities –Exploring strategic partnership with ESA in astrophysics and planetary science New Administration and Administrator => some policy changes and uncertainties –Program balance and priorities (emphasize Earth and environment?) –International cooperation (increased emphasis?) –Export control (laws and regulations may be reviewed and updated)

12. International Cooperation: Overview  International cooperation at NASA: –Is directed by the National Aeronautics and Space Act that created NASA in 1958 and continues to be part of national space policy –Has been a cornerstone of NASA’s activities throughout its history –Includes over 3,000 agreements with over 100 nations –Brings multiple benefits  Current international cooperation: –454 active international agreements  Access to unique capabilities or expertise  Increase mission flight opportunities  Enhance scientific return –10 partners account for 50% of the agreements (France, Germany, ESA, Japan, UK, Italy, Canada, Russia, Australia, Spain) –By Mission Directorate: 2/3 are in the Science Mission Directorate 12

13. International Partnerships Partnerships have a vital role in constructing an innovative, balanced, and affordable program From the very beginning, NASA’s science programs have been strongly international –Today, about 2/3 of SMD’s ~90 flight projects in formulation, development, or operation have international components Many important benefits to NASA –General cost reduction to NASA –Adds capabilities otherwise not budgetarily implementable –Access to broader scientific and technical expertise –Program stabilization –Access to data of partners

14. Founding Guidelines for Cooperation NASA policy foundations unchanged for 50 years! ●“Designation by each participating government of a central agency for the negotiation and supervision of joint efforts ●Agreement upon specific projects rather than generalized programs ●Acceptance of financial responsibility by each participating country for its own contributions to joint projects ●Projects of mutual scientific interest ●General publication of scientific results” Cited from International Programs, NASA Office of International Programs, 1962 In-place by September 1959 per Homer Newell’s book, Beyond the Atmosphere (p. 306)

15. Additional NASA Principles ●Projects must be within known technical, scientific, and budgetary capabilities of partner ●To minimize complexity, division of responsibilities must be clearly defined ●Arrangements must protect against unwarranted transfer of technology ●Each cooperation must be established in a formal written and signed agreement From NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1360.2

16. 16 Guidelines for International Cooperation  Partners are generally government agencies due to the significant level of investment and legal and export control requirements  Each Partner funds its respective contributions, but contributions need not be equivalent. “No exchange of funds” is normal basis  Cooperation must be consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives  Projects/Partnerships: –Must have scientific and technical merit –Must demonstrate a specific benefit to NASA –Are structured to protect against unwarranted technology transfer and take into account industrial competitiveness –Are structured to establish clearly defined and distinct managerial and technical interfaces to minimize complexity –Are documented in a written, binding agreement, closely coordinated with the Department of State and other USG agencies as appropriate

17. 17 Global Reach Europe Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, EUMETSAT, ESA, EU, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom East Asia APCC, China, Mongolia, Korea, Taiwan Canada Central and South America Argentina, Bahamas, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay Japan UN Total 118 countries and 5 international organizations Russia South and South East Asia Armenia, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, Palau Africa and the Middle East Algeria, Bahrain, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, UAE

18. Summary  NASA’s programs have global interest and requirements  International cooperation will remain a hallmark of NASA’s activities into the future, in support of and national policy and Mission Directorate objectives  Well-structured and well-managed international cooperative programs are contributing significantly to NASA’s mission and to our national goals  Future international cooperation: –NASA’s ability to continue to meet its international commitments, particularly on ISS, will be a key component of future relationships with international partners –Will remain very important to the Science Mission Directorate, perhaps with more emphasis on earth observation cooperation –GES process indicates significant interest and opportunities for international cooperation as we implement the U.S. exploration program 18