Exob.
8-4

MEMORANDUM TO EXOBIOLOGY COMMITTEE
Space Science Board
National Academy of Science

1. You will by now have received, and perhaps even read, reports of the last

Board meeting (June 25). Under pressure from Congress, which was rather critical

of the establishment of the Office of Life Sciences in NASA (cf. Science, August 12,
1960) it was considered important to consolidate advisory activities of the

Academy in space research, and this has been done by a consolidation of the
Bloastronautics Committee with the Space Science Board. | hope I have faithfully
reflected your judgment as well as. my own in strenuously urging against a composite
Biology Committee; biological interests on the Board are now represented by three
separate committees, successors to the former Committee 11, and now designated:

14. Exobiology 15. Environmental Biology 16. Man-in-space

Committee 14 will continue with the same membership as 'Westex''. With the

maturing organization in NASA itself (e.g. the Biosciences Advisory Committee

with Mel Calvin to review operational proposals, and the intramural steering
committees) our responsibilities are to represent the. scientific community in the
general oversight of the national program. This committee is a unique concentration
of interest in exobiology and can perform an indispensable function in continually
reviewing the basic approaches to it, and in eliciting and criticizing ideas from
all our colleagues.

Next meeting.

2. {f Aaron Novick is still agreeable, {| would like to suggest that we hold a
meeting at Eugene in October, either during the first or the last week of that
month. If any of you have specific exclusions (and could otherwise attend) please
let me know soon. Perhaps the chief news to date has been the lack of any striking
new developments. 1 think you will not accuse me of having insisted on unnecessary
diversions, but I believe this would be a good occasion to get together again and
see just where we stand. Agenda items will be welcomed; | would also propose to
get your reactions to:

A. The present concept of the planetary microscope system (see attachments)

B. Calvin's findings on meteorite components (hoping he can be present to
talk about them)

C. Status of IR studies on planets, especially the earth; and In particular
the design factors that should be suggested for high altitude surveys
that are now contemplated

D. The detection systems summarized in the NRC-Chemistry report May 2h, 1958
(of which | hope you will soon have received a copy).

3. During the past months, | have spent some time trying to get a clearer picture
of the present status of IR studies of the earth and there -have been several
informal meetings. Most of what there is should doubtless remain classified;
however, General Flickinger has thrown strong support to mounting high altitude
experiments specifically for the purpose of matching the Sinton telescope data

and Calvin's laboratory work, The §R wavelengths we are interested in do not
appear to have been studied from our standpoint and certainly not at the requisite
resolution. We could help this program by submitting more concrete ideas on
which wavelengths ought to be looked at, what kinds of terrain, and so forth.
2.

4. The attached memoranda are doing multiple duty as reports; 8-3 is my best
effort at completing our task of a long range prospectus; 8-1,2 will serve to
indicate the directions of the planetary microscope program here. Your comments, |
even if they are not critical, would be welcome, as | am trying to report a
consensus without burdening you with recurrent exchanges of papers.

Cordially,

Joshua Lederberg

9/5/60