Search

This is an annual report that provides an overview of OTPS' work throughout 2023 and tells the story of how OTPS' work helps the NASA mission.

At least 22 lunar missions are planned in the next four years. Half of these missions will occur in the Moon’s south polar region. Due to this upcoming proliferation of actors and activities at or near the lunar south pole, and due to the potential close proximity of operations, NASA and other operators will face challenges never faced before. NASA’s Deputy Administrator and Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy with answering two questions related to the Artemis campaign: (1) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account in the selection of lunar landing and operations sites, and (2) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account when implementing tools such as safety zones in order to protect these operations and U.S. interests? We present policy tools (options and recommendations) to NASA leadership and program planners so that they can consider policy measures to respond to challenges inherent in landing and operating at the lunar South Pole—this answers question one. We also describe a set of options (transparency, coordination, and implementation) to increase the effectiveness of these tools—this answers question two.

Just within the next four years, we expect to see at least 22 lunar surface missions. Half of these missions will occur in the Moon’s south polar region. Due to this upcoming proliferation of actors and activities at or near the lunar south pole, and due to the potential close proximity of operations, NASA and other operators will face challenges never faced before. NASA’s Deputy Administrator and Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions related to the Artemis campaign: (1) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account in the selection of lunar landing and operations sites, and (2) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account when implementing tools such as safety zones in order to protect these operations and U.S. interests? In addition to the challenges inherent in lunar operations, NASA subject-matter experts (SMEs) are concerned about certain challenges to NASA operations that may require policy solutions. The goal of this report is to provide options and recommendations to NASA leadership and program planners so that they can consider policy measures to respond to those challenges. This report also describes options for transparency, coordination, and implementation to increase the effectiveness of these measures.

Over-optimistic project advocacy often causes exaggerated performance claims and underestimated costs and schedules. This can distort project management and damage systems engineering. NASA projects such as the space shuttle and Hubble are extreme examples. NASA's spectacular success in the Apollo moon landings seems to have produced overconfidence and carelessness, but also to have gained tolerance for unrealistic claims and forgiveness when they were proven wrong. Apollo risk analysis predicted many astronaut fatalities. This was believed but was potentially damaging to the Apollo program, so risk analysis was discontinued. The moon landings beat bad odds because Apollo obsessively reduced risk. Its success seemed to confirm that risk analysis was unreasonably pessimistic and that risk could be overcome by good engineering. This understanding caused risk to be increased during space shuttle engineering and led to an unnecessarily dangerous approach. The shuttle design placed a fragile spacecraft next to the fuel tanks and failed to provide crew escape or launch abort. These design decisions directly caused the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. After Challenger, risk analysis was re-established. The current rocket and capsule design does consider risk and the result strongly resembles Apollo. Apollo advocacy led NASA to abandon risk analysis and this was ultimate cause of the Shuttle tragedies. Excessive advocacy that distorts risk, cost, and schedule could be prevented in an ideal organization that used systems engineering to make rational and fair decisions. However, most real organizations accommodate human and group needs using informal methods often described as "the system." Humans have biases, use innate decision making heuristics, instinctively rely on "gut feel," and establish deviant groups through groupthink. Expecting organizations to become totally rational is impractical, but specific problems such as neglecting risk and underestimating cost and schedule can be directly challenged with some hope of success.

"Are we alone" is a question whose ambition can only be met with a NASA-led global collaboration. In this white paper, we describe how this makes "The Search for Life Beyond Earth" a new Grand Challenge for NASA. As described in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the White House National Economic Council, Grand Challenges are "ambitious but achievable goals that harness science, technology, and innovation to solve important national or global problems and that have the potential to capture the public's imagination." NASA had identified an "Asteroid Grand Challenge" centered on the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, which was closed out in June, 2017. Here, we explain how NASA's next Grand Challenge could be focused on "The Search for Life Beyond Earth," with a flagship-scale mission in Astrophysics as its centerpiece.

The Concept & Use Cases Package #2: Technical Capability Level 3 document represents the collaborative research efforts between the FAA and NASA as joint members of the Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) Research Transition Team (RTT). Contained in this document are the 1) Terms and Definitions, 2) Foundational Principles, 3) Concept Narratives, 4) Use Cases, 5) Operational Views, and 6) Roles and Responsibilities of actors interacting within what is considered to be encompassed by Technical Capability Level 3 UTM operating environments. The contents of Package #2 should NOT be considered established policy or construed as regulatory in nature. What is presented is meant to communicate the current, agreed upon understanding between the FAA and NASA on particular features of UTM as exemplified through use cases and concept narratives for the purposes of supporting joint NASA/Industry Demonstrations and the UTM Pilot Program. It is also meant to foster discussion and refinement of the concepts and approaches being pursued by the other RTT working groups.

The International Space Station is a valuable platform for research in space, but the benefits are limited if research is only conducted by individual countries. Through the efforts of the ISS Program Science Forum, international science working groups, and interagency cooperation, international collaboration on the ISS has expanded as ISS utilization has matured. Members of science teams benefit from working with counterparts in other countries. Scientists and institutions bring years of experience and specialized expertise to collaborative investigations, leading to new perspectives and approaches to scientific challenges. Combining new ideas and historical results brings synergy and improved peer-reviewed scientific methods and results. World-class research facilities can be expensive and logistically complicated, jeopardizing their full utilization. Experiments that would be prohibitively expensive for a single country can be achieved through contributions of resources from two or more countries, such as crew time, up- and downmass, and experiment hardware. Cooperation also avoids duplication of experiments and hardware among agencies. Biomedical experiments can be completed earlier if astronauts or cosmonauts from multiple agencies participate. Countries responding to natural disasters benefit from ISS imagery assets, even if the country has no space agency of its own. Students around the world participate in ISS educational opportunities, and work with students in other countries, through open curriculum packages and through international competitions. Even experiments conducted by a single country can benefit scientists around the world, through specimen sharing programs and publicly accessible "open data" repositories. For ISS data, these repositories include GeneLab and the Physical Science Informatics System. Scientists can conduct new research using ISS data without having to launch and execute their own experiments. Multilateral collections of research results publications, maintained by the ISS international partnership and accessible via nasa.gov, make ISS results available worldwide, and encourage new users, ideas and research. The paper explores international collaboration history, its evolution and maturation, change of focus during its different phases, and growth of its effectiveness (in accordance with the especially established criteria) in the light of benefits for the entire ISS community. With the International Space Station extended through at least 2024, more crew time becoming available and new facilities arriving on board the ISS, these benefits of international scientific collaboration on the ISS can only increase.

The International Space Station is a valuable platform for research in space, but the benefits are limited if research is only conducted by individual countries. Through the e orts of the ISS Program Science Forum, international science working groups, and interagency cooperation, international collaboration on the ISS has expanded as ISS utilization has matured. Members of science teams benefit from working with counterparts in other countries. Scientists and institutions bring years of experience and specialized expertise to collaborative investigations, leading to new perspectives and approaches to scientific challenges. Combining new ideas and historical results brings synergy and improved peer-reviewed scientific methods and results. World-class research facilities can be expensive and logistically complicated, jeopardizing their full utilization. Experiments that would be prohibitively expensive for a single country can be achieved through contributions of resources from two or more countries, such as crew time, up- and downmass, and experiment hardware. Cooperation also avoids duplication of experiments and hardware among agencies. Biomedical experiments can be completed earlier if astronauts or cosmonauts from multiple agencies participate. Countries responding to natural disasters benefit from ISS imagery assets, even if the country has no space agency of its own. Students around the world participate in ISS educational opportunities, and work with students in other countries, through open curriculum packages and through international competitions. Even experiments conducted by a single country can benefit scientists around the world, through specimen sharing programs and publicly accessible \open data" repositories. For ISS data, these repositories include GeneLab, the Physical Science Informatics System, and different Earth science data systems. Scientists can conduct new research using ISS data without having to launch and execute their own experiments. Multilateral collections of research results publications, maintained by the ISS international partnership and accessible via nasa.gov, make ISS results available worldwide, and encourage new users, ideas and research. The paper explores effectiveness of international collaboration in the course of the ISS Program execution. The collaboration history, its evolution and maturation, change of focus during its different phases, and growth of its effectiveness (in accordance with the especially established criteria) are also considered in the paper in the light of benefits for the entire ISS community. With the International Space Station extended through at least 2024, more crew time becoming available and new facilities arriving on board the ISS, these benefits of international scientific collaboration on the ISS can only increase.

NASA robotic sample return missions designated Category V Restricted Earth Return by the NASA Planetary Protection Office require sample containment and biohazard testing in a receiving laboratory as directed by NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8020.12D - ensuring the preservation and protection of Earth and the sample. Currently, NPR 8020.12D classifies Restricted Earth Return for robotic sample return missions from Mars, Europa, and Enceladus with the caveat that future proposed mission locations could be added or restrictions lifted on a case by case basis as scientific knowledge and understanding of biohazards progresses. Since the 1960s, sample containment from an unknown extraterrestrial biohazard have been related to the highest containment standards and protocols known to modern science. Today, Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 standards and protocols are used to study the most dangerous high-risk diseases and unknown biological agents on Earth. Over 30 BSL-4 facilities have been constructed worldwide with 12 residing in the United States; of theses, 8 are operational. In the last two decades, these brick and mortar facilities have cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars dependent on the facility requirements and size. Previous mission concept studies for constructing a NASA sample receiving facility with an integrated BSL-4 quarantine and biohazard testing facility have also been estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. As an alternative option, we have recently conducted an initial trade study for constructing a mobile and/or modular sample containment laboratory that would meet all BSL-4 and planetary protection standards and protocols at a faction of the cost. Mobile and modular BSL-2 and 3 facilities have been successfully constructed and deployed world-wide for government testing of pathogens and pharmaceutical production. Our study showed that a modular BSL-4 construction could result in approximately 90% cost reduction when compared to traditional construction methods without compromising the preservation of the sample or Earth.

We are at a turning point in the history of space exploration and development, where new industries are being born to use space in non-traditional ways. Established state-run industrial space sector is no longer the only game in town; commercial space is becoming competitive. Many new entrepreneurial companies, such as SpaceX, Deep Space Industries, etc. are developing new markets, such as Orbital, Suborbital, and Deep Space. Together, government and private industry can facilitate the birth of this new industry. The U.S. national policy on commercial space is to develop a robust and competitive U.S. commercial space sector and to energize competitive domestic industries to participate in global markets. NASA can do this by purchasing and using commercial space capabilities and services; exploring the use of nontraditional arrangements for acquiring space capabilities and services; refraining from activities that preclude, discourage, or compete with commercial space activities; and pursuing opportunities to transfer some functions to the commercial space sector, where beneficial. Commercial space must be competitive, while the government has other priorities such as safety, jobs, etc.

The purpose of the NASA Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to review research activities involving human subjects to ensure that ethical standards for the care and protection of human subjects have been met and research activities are in compliance with all pertinent federal, state and local regulations as well as NASA policies. NASA IRB's primary role is the protection of human subjects in research studies. Protection of human subjects is the shared responsibility of NASA, the IRB, and the scientific investigators. Science investigators who plan to conduct NASA-funded human research involving NASA investigators, facilities, or funds must submit and coordinate their research studies for review and approval by the NASA IRB prior to initiation. The IRB has the authority to approve, require changes in, or disapprove research involving human subjects. Better knowledge of the NASA IRB policies, procedures and guidelines should help facilitate research protocol applications and approvals. In this presentation, the myths and truths of NASA IRB policies and procedures will be discussed. We will focus on the policies that guide a protocol through the NASA IRB and the procedures that principal investigators must take to obtain required IRB approvals for their research studies. In addition, tips to help ensure a more efficient IRB review will be provided. By understanding the requirements and processes, investigators will be able to more efficiently prepare their protocols and obtain the required NASA IRB approval in a timely manner.

NASA is able to achieve human spaceflight goals in partnership with international and commercial teams by establishing common goals and building connections. Presentation includes photographs from NASA missions - on orbit, in Mission Control, and at other NASA facilities.

Human exploration of the solar system is an ambitious goal. Future human missions to Mars or other planets will require the cooperation of many nations to be feasible. Exploration goals and concepts have been gathered by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) at a very high level, representing the overall goals and strategies of each participating space agency. The Global Exploration Roadmap published by ISECG states that international partnerships are part of what drives the the mission scenarios. It states "Collaborations will be established at all levels (missions, capabilities, technologies), with various levels of interdependency among the partners." To make missions with interdependency successful, technologists and system experts need to share information early, before agencies have made concrete plans and binding agreements. This paper provides an overview of possible ways of integrating NASA, ESA, and JAXA work into a conceptual roadmap of life support and environmental monitoring capabilities for future exploration missions. Agencies may have immediate plans as well as long term goals or new ideas that are not part of official policy. But relationships between plans and capabilities may influence the strategies for the best ways to achieve partner goals. Without commitments and an organized program like the International Space Station, requirements for future missions are unclear. Experience from ISS has shown that standards and an early understanding of requirements are an important part of international partnerships. Attempting to integrate systems that were not designed together can create many problems. Several areas have been identified that could be important to discuss and understand early: units of measure, cabin CO2 levels, and the definition and description of fluids like high purity oxygen, potable water and residual biocide, and crew urine and urine pretreat. Each of the partners is exploring different kinds of technologies. Different specific parameters may important to define or explore possible ranges depending on the system concepts. Early coordination between technology developers can create new possibilities for collaboration, and provide input to determine what combined options may provide the best overall system architecture.

The NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program has served as a beneficial funding vehicle to both US small technology businesses and the Federal Agencies that participate in the program. This paper, to the extent possible, while observing Intellectual Property (IP) laws, will discuss the many SBIR and STTR (SBIR Technology Transfer) successes in the recent history of the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). Many of the participants of the International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES) have based their research and papers on technologies that were made possible by SBIR/STTR awards and post award funding. Many SBIR/STTR successes have flown on Space Shuttle missions, Space X Dragons, and other spacecraft. SBIR/STTR technologies are currently infused on the International Space Station (ISS) and satellites, one of which was a NASA/JAXA (Japanese Space Agency) joint venture. Many of these companies have commercialized their technologies and grown as businesses while helping the economy through the creation of new jobs. In addition, this paper will explore the opportunity for international partnership with US SBIR/STTR companies as up to 49% of the makeup of the company is not required to be American owned. Although this paper will deal with technical achievements, it does not purport to be technical in nature. It will address the many requests for information on successes and opportunities within NASA SBIR and the virtually untapped potential of international partnering.

This is a presentation to the DOI UAS Interagency group that is informational in nature; just sharing publicly available and previously released information on UAS regulations and some of the UAS operations Langley Center has, to create awareness with other government agencies.

A lecture to students at the International Space University. Topics include: - We are at a turning point in the history of space exploration and development the cusp of a revolution, new industries are being born that use space in many non-traditional ways - The established military industrial space sector is no longer the only game in town - Increased competition and new capabilities will change the marketplace forever - Everyone interested in working in the space sector will be affected.

Partnerships have become a more integral part of the journey to Mars as NASA continues to lead human space exploration. The current budgetary and political reality requires that partnerships be a key component of moving beyond Low Earth Orbit. This paper will discuss the challenge of finding innovative partnerships that take advantage of the capabilities of the growing commercial space market. Challenges include identifying specific technological needs, recognizing the growing expertise and desires of commercial space to move beyond Low Earth Orbit, incorporating commercial partners into the Mars Roadmap, and working with international partners.

Many UAS will operate at lower altitude (Class G, below 2000 feet). There is an urgent need for a system for civilian low-altitude airspace and UAS operations. Stakeholders want to work with NASA to enable safe operations.

Spaceflight began as the exclusive province of government, however, starting in the 1980's the United States began to promote commercial participation in space transportation. Beginning with Executive policy and extending through legislation and regulation, NASA has embarked on facilitating the commercialization of space transportation to serve NASA needs and enable a non-NASA market place. This presentation provides background on the transition to commercial space transportation and the specific role NASA is playing in that endeavor.

The implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) in the United States is an ongoing challenge for policymakers due to the complexity of the air transportation system (ATS) with its broad array of stakeholders and dynamic interdependencies between them. The successful implementation of NextGen has a hard dependency on the active participation of U.S. commercial airlines. To assist policymakers in identifying potential policy designs that facilitate the implementation of NextGen, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and LMI developed a research framework called the Air Transportation System Evolutionary Simulation (ATS-EVOS). This framework integrates large empirical data sets with multiple specialized models to simulate the evolution of the airline response to potential future policies and explore consequential impacts on ATS performance and market dynamics. In the ATS-EVOS configuration presented here, we leverage the Transportation Systems Analysis Model (TSAM), the Airline Evolutionary Simulation (AIRLINE-EVOS), the Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES), and the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), all of which enable this research to comprehensively represent the complex facets of the ATS and its participants. We validated this baseline configuration of ATS-EVOS against Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B) data and subject matter expert opinion, and we verified the ATS-EVOS framework and agent behavior logic through scenario-based experiments that explored potential implementations of a carbon tax, congestion pricing policy, and the dynamics for equipage of new technology by airlines. These experiments demonstrated ATS-EVOS's capabilities in responding to a wide range of potential NextGen-related policies and utility for decision makers to gain insights for effective policy design.

Fourteen international space agencies are participating in the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG), working together to advance a long-range human space exploration strategy. The ISECG is a voluntary, non-binding international coordination mechanism through which individual agencies may exchange information regarding interests, objectives, and plans in space exploration with the goal of strengthening both individual exploration programs as well as the collective effort. The ISECG has developed a Global Exploration Roadmap (GER) that reflects the coordinated international dialog and continued preparation for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit - beginning with the Moon and cis-lunar space, and continuing to near-Earth asteroids, and Mars. Space agencies agree that human space exploration will be most successful as an international endeavor, given the challenges of these missions. The roadmap demonstrates how initial capabilities can enable a variety of missions in the lunar vicinity, responding to individual and common goals and objectives, while contributing to building partnerships required for sustainable human space exploration that delivers value to the public.

Many UAS will operate at lower altitude (Class G, below 2000 feet)There is urgent need for a system for civilian low-altitude airspace and UAS operations. Stakeholders want to work with NASA to enable safe operations.

Presenter will talk about NewSpace and Emerging Space opportunities for industry and public-private partnerships.NASA Thesaurus.)No

This presentation describes the CCP SMA approach to assuring the approved verifications of hazard controls are in place.

The presentation captures the background on the addition of the European Service Module International partner to the Orion Program and lessons learned on managing a multi-Agency international effort.

NASA established the Commercial Crew Program in order to provide human access to the International Space Station and low earth orbit via the commercial (nongovernmental) sector. A particular challenge to NASA is how to determine the commercial provider's transportation system complies with Programmatic safety requirements while at the same time allowing the provider the flexibility to demonstrate compliance. This will be accomplished through the use of Shared Assurance and Risk Based Assessment by NASA thus shifting more responsibility to the Provider. This model will be the focus of this presentation.

UAS operations will be safer if a UTM system is available to support the functions associated with Airspace management and geo-fencing (reduce risk of accidents, impact to other operations, and community concerns); Weather and severe wind integration (avoid severe weather areas based on prediction); Predict and manage congestion (mission safety);Terrain and man-made objects database and avoidance; Maintain safe separation (mission safety and assurance of other assets); Allow only authenticated operations (avoid unauthorized airspace use).

A Space Act Agreement (SAA) is a contractual vehicle that NASA utilizes to form partnerships with non-NASA entities to stimulate cutting-edge innovation within the science and technology communities while concurrently supporting the NASA missions. SAAs are similar to traditional contracts in that they involve the commitment of Agency resources but allow more flexibility and are more cost effective to implement than traditional contracts. Consequently, the use of SAAs to develop partnerships has greatly increased over the past several years. To facilitate this influx of SAAs, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) developed a process during a kaizen event to streamline and improve the quality of SAAs developed at the Center level. This study assessed the current SAA process to determine if improvements could be implemented to increase productivity, decrease time to activation, and improve the quality of deliverables. Using a combination of direct procedural observation, personnel interviews, and statistical analysis, elements of the process in need of remediation were identified and potential solutions developed. The findings focus primarily on the difficulties surrounding tracking and enforcing process adherence and communication issues among stakeholders. Potential solutions include utilizing customer relationship management (CRM) software to facilitate process coordination and co-locating or potentially merging the two separate organizations involved in SAA development and activation at MSFC.

Space Act Agreements (SAAs) are contractual agreements that NASA utilizes to form partnerships with researchers, industry, and academia to stimulate cutting-edge innovation within the science and technology communities. center dot This study assessed the current SAA development and activation process at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to determine if improvements could be implemented to increase productivity, decrease time to activation, and improve the quality of deliverables.

NASA's Ames Research Center, in its role as partnerships lead for NASA asteroid redirect robotic missions and as a supporting Center for the Asteroid Grand Challenge, responded to increasing interest in near-Earth objects (NEOs) by holding a workshop entitled 'The Economics of NEOs' on the 6th and 7th of September 2014. The workshop was intended to serve as a catalyst for discussions and to foster collaborations between industry, academia and government. This document serves as a summary of the discussions which took place within three sessions and their respective table discussions; Session One: Background and Motivation; Session Two: Economics of NEOs; and Session Three: Policy and Legal Frameworks. This document is a collection of observations by individuals and does not express the consensus view of all participants; it does not express US Government or NASA policy.

This presentation includes NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program FY14 task overview plans and recent highlights.

Innovative partnerships will enable NASA to achieve more of its technological goals with less resources Cooperative development with other industries will expand the scope of advanced technologies that will be available to future missions.

The primary goal of Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) is interoperability between communications and data systems of space agencies' vehicles, facilities, missions and programs. Of all of the technologies used in spaceflight, standardization of communications and data systems brings the most benefit to multi-agency interoperability. CCSDS Started in 1982 developing standards at the lower layers of the protocol stack. The CCSDS scope has grown to cover standards throughout the entire ISO communications stack, plus other Data Systems areas (architecture, archive, security, XML exchange formats, etc.

Throughout the history of the International Space Station (ISS), crews on board have conducted a variety of scientific research and educational activities. Well into the second year of full utilization of the ISS laboratory, the trend of scientific accomplishments and educational opportunities continues to grow. More than 1500 investigations have been conducted on the ISS since the first module launched in 1998, with over 700 scientific publications. The ISS provides a unique environment for research, international collaboration and educational activities that benefit humankind. This paper will provide an up to date summary of key investigations, facilities, publications, and benefits from ISS research that have developed over the past year. Discoveries in human physiology and nutrition have enabled astronauts to return from ISS with little bone loss, even as scientists seek to better understand the new puzzle of "ocular syndrome" affecting the vision of up to half of astronauts. The geneLAB campaign will unify life sciences investigations to seek genomic, proteomic, and metabolomics of the effect of microgravity on life as a whole. Combustion scientists identified a new "cold flame" phenomenon that has the potential to improve models of efficient combustion back on Earth. A significant number of instruments in Earth remote sensing and astrophysics are providing new access to data or nearing completion for launch, making ISS a significant platform for understanding of the Earth system and the universe. In addition to multidisciplinary research, the ISS partnership conducts a myriad of student led research investigations and educational activities aimed at increasing student interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Over the past year, the ISS partnership compiled new statistics of the educational impact of the ISS on students around the world. More than 43 million students, from kindergarten to graduate school, with more than 28 million teachers located in 49 countries have participated in some aspect of ISS educational activities. These activities include student-developed investigations, education competitions, and classroom versions of ISS investigations, participating in ISS investigator experiments, ISS hardware development, educational demonstrations, and cultural activities. Through the many inquiry-based educational activities, students and teachers are encouraged to participate in the ISS program thus motivating the next generation of students to pursue careers in STEM.

This chapter will describe the challenges that earth scientists face in developing science data products relevant to decision maker and policy needs, and will describe strategies that can improve the two-way communication between the scientist and the policy maker. Climate change policy and decision making happens at a variety of scales - from local government implementing solar homes policies to international negotiations through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Scientists can work to provide data at these different scales, but if they are not aware of the needs of decision makers or understand what challenges the policy maker is facing, they are likely to be less successful in influencing policy makers as they wished. This is because the science questions they are addressing may be compelling, but not relevant to the challenges that are at the forefront of policy concerns. In this chapter we examine case studies of science-policy partnerships, and the strategies each partnership uses to engage the scientist at a variety of scales. We examine three case studies: the global Carbon Monitoring System pilot project developed by NASA, a forest biomass mapping effort for Silvacarbon project, and a forest canopy cover project being conducted for forest management in Maryland. In each of these case studies, relationships between scientists and policy makers were critical for ensuring the focus of the science as well as the success of the decision-making.