FIELD JOURNAL FIELD JOURNAL FIELD JOURNAL FIELD JOURNAL
Off to a Running Start
by Jack Farmer
Week of March 10, 1997
This week is off to a running start with meetings and several important
writing assignments. And I am also taking the time to reorganize my
office! I received some bad news this week that I will share with you
later, but first some job highlights.
I have been given the responsibility to help organize a workshop here
at NASA Ames on the topic of Evolutionary Biology. The problem is, NASA
needs to support more research in this science area, but to really do
that effectively, we must target those aspects of the very broad field
of Evolutionary Biology that are the most crucial to NASA's mission.
That mission as I see it is to "explore the living universe," to discover
if we are alone in the cosmos and to help humans explore the environment
of space (toward what Capt. Kirk would call "the final frontier").
Part of our task in this workshop is to educate our supervisors at
NASA Headquarters about the field of Evolutionary Biology, what it encompasses
and what research areas in that field are most relevant to NASA's goals.
To do that we are going to invite some of the top scientists from across
the country to talk to us about what they find most exciting in the
field, and where they see the field going over the next few years. The
group will be small (perhaps 15 total), advisory in nature and hopefully
informal. So, to help get that "off the ground" I have been calling
lots of people and trying to entice them to join us for two days in
April. This would seem easy enough were it not for the fact that most
of the people we are inviting are college teachers with lots of other
responsibilities and we are not giving them much notice to plan!
I also have several pressing writing assignments this week that have
to be completed and it is hard to find large blocks of uninterrupted
time to think. Writing is not easy for me. I need to have silence and
no distractions to really be efficient. The challenge for me is the
telephone, email, and the casual drop-in who just wants to chat. I am
considering taking a time management course that will help me balance
these things more effectively. But it is important to talk with colleagues,
and one does not just close the door day after day and not pay a price.
But maybe if I set aside some specific blocks of time for such things,
I won't feel so bad about closing my door occasionally.
So what's so important that I should have to hide and write? I'm presently
a member of an advisory committee for NASA called the Mars '01 Science
Definition Team. Our group has the responsibility of identifying the
most important science objectives for the orbital and landed missions
that will be launched in 2001, making recommendations to NASA Headquarters
so they can construct an Announcement of Opportunity or "A.O." for release
to the broader scientific community. The A.O. will basically be an invitation
to the outside science world to propose research projects and instruments
that could be flown to Mars in the year 2001. These experiments and
their supporting technologies will be expected to address one or more
of the science objectives identified by our group.
My assignment is to add my contributions to the draft document and
comment on what others have already written. This is very important
because the '01 mission opportunity must provide certain types of supporting
data that will be needed to guide us to the right place on Mars for
a sample return mission that will be launched in 2005. That returned
sample should come from a place that has a good chance of containing
a record of past life. There is a lot riding on the preceding missions,
and especially '01, which will be our last chance to get really high-resolution
mapping from orbit. On one hand, this all seems pretty far off, but
in actuality, it is just around the corner.
Another thing I have to write up this week is a review of a manuscript
that was sent to me some time ago by a science magazine called "The
Journal of Sedimentary Research." As scientists, we are expected to
perform this service on occasion, providing a critique of other scientist's
work. It is called the peer-review system and it is the way the science
community at large operates to ensure that the best quality work gets
published. It is true that lots of things get published that are poorly
done and probably wrong, but there is a certain class of journals that
operates on the peer-review system which is highly regarded, and having
your work appear in one of those journals means that it has survived
critical review and is now regarded as solid science. So, about once
every month or two I receive a paper to review from one of the journals
in my field, and I try and do my best to give a good critique that will
help the peer-review process along. After all, the next time it will
be someone else's turn to review a paper, and perhaps it will be one
I have written!
This morning I spent time in the lab doing a particle size analysis
of a sample that my science colleague Andy Cheng sent to me. Andy is
an engineer and is developing a robotic sampling device to collect rocks
on Mars. The device will go on a rover and includes a corer that is
fired by an explosive charge into the surface of a rock. The coring
device is designed to enter the rock and capture a piece of it along
with some of the powder that is formed. The idea is that the larger
sample pieces could be collected for sample return and the powder delivered
to another device on the rover which will analyze it for the mineral
or organic content. My task is to determine the range of particle sizes
produced by the explosive corer, the grain shapes and their composition.
I am doing the grain size work using a standard sieving method where
we shake the sample down through sieving screens of different mesh sizes
and measure the fraction of the total sample that is retained on each
screen. From that we can plot up a size-frequency distribution and determine
the size range of materials produced by the method. Knowing this is
important for understanding what kinds of analyses can be done on the
samples and how to best design systems that will deliver samples to
the instruments carried on the rover. The results of the grain size
analysis will go to Andy on Wednesday and he will include them in a
presentation we are making at the Lunar Planetary Science Conference
in Houston next week.
I received some bad news this week. One of my colleagues and friends,
Rick Hutchinson, was killed in an avalanche in Yellowstone National
Park. Rick was a wonderful guy, dedicated and friendly, and a great
help to people like me who go to Yellowstone Park each year to do research.
Rick was the park geologist and had worked in Yellowstone as a ranger
for many years. He helped me out numerous times during the past five
years or so, helping me to get to out-of-the-way places to do my work.
He was an expert on the thermal features in the park and knew almost
every hot spring or geyser in Yellowstone and how they behaved. Last
week he was guiding a visiting researcher into an area in Yellowstone
called Heart Lake to look at some of the thermal springs there. They
went in on skis. During the time they were in the area there was a snow
avalanche that caught them, and they did not make it out alive. This
is very sad for all of us who knew Rick, but we also know how much he
loved what he did, and how much he cared about Yellowstone. I like to
think he probably would not have wanted to leave us in his sleep, but
rather the way he did--out and about, doing his useful, friendly things
to help others. I'll miss him a lot!