NASA Science Mission Directorate
Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Linda R. Brown
Interviewed by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal
Pasadena, California – 10 May 2017
Ross-Nazzal:
Today is May 10, 2017. This interview with Dr. Linda Brown is being
conducted in Pasadena, California, for the Science Mission Directorate
Oral History Project. The interviewer is Jennifer Ross-Nazzal, assisted
by Sandra Johnson. Thanks again for taking time this afternoon to
meet with us. We certainly appreciate it.
Brown: You’re
welcome, my pleasure.
Ross-Nazzal:
I’d like to start by asking you to talk about your interest
in science as a child.
Brown: I was
really more interested in math, in terms of what I could have access
to. There weren’t so many things on TV. We got our first TV
when I was seven years old, and we got it to see the coronation of
the queen of England [in 1953]. That motivated my family to do something.
Ross-Nazzal:
Oh yes, that’s a big event.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. I always enjoyed math in school. That was the
thing that I really liked. Later the courses exposed me to science,
and I found how things worked was interesting to me. I went out to
my father’s workbench and sometimes manipulated the tools there,
because I just thought that was fun to do. Then, when I was a preteen,
I got interested in reading. I liked things that were mysteries, and
I liked things that were histories. I went to astronomy after reading
about mythology. I wandered into the other part of the library and
read about the lives of astronomers.
One book was The Sleepwalkers [A History of Man's Changing Vision
of the Universe by Arthur Koestler (1959)], [that] really shook me
up. I thought, “Wow.” To see this progression of thought
and understanding of nature and the universe, I thought that was pretty
special. That made me think about being a teacher. I had an opportunity
to tutor someone in high school in math, and I really liked that experience
as well. In the end, when I went to college, I decided I would try
to major in physics. That was the progression for me in terms of interest.
Ross-Nazzal:
I imagine you were one of very few women in your program at that point.
Brown: Yes.
In the beginning physics class, there was at least 100 students, and
there were 3 of us [women]. But I had gotten used to being in situations
where I didn’t care so much about what other people thought.
“Oh, well, I like that. I’ll do that.” In high school,
women could play basketball. We had six people on the team. Three
of them had to stay on one side of the court, the other three on the
other. So you played defense, or you played offense. You couldn’t
cross that line.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were you on the basketball team?
Brown: Yes,
I played. Our school had a pool because we were about 20 miles from
Lake Erie [in Ohio], so there were a lot of opportunities. They had
a pretty good sports program for women, as well as the guys.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s pretty unusual for that time period.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right, it was. The population was like 15,000. It was
very small, yet they did have a physics class. I only learned later
that only about one-fourth of the country had high school physics.
I was just shocked. How could you not learn physics?
Ross-Nazzal:
Your small community offered that, that’s interesting. So you
ended up teaching, and you moved to Rhode Island, which I thought
was an interesting move from Ohio.
Brown: That
was “I’m going to get out and see the world” time.
Also the fact that there were fewer job offerings in [teaching] physics
than I had really realized. That one came up first and I thought,
“Well, Ohio was nice for a while, but gee whiz, I can go live
on the East Coast next to the ocean.”
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, it sounds nice.
Brown: It
was near the Connecticut border; it was a nice location. I could take
the train to Boston [Massachusetts], I could take the train down to
New York [City, New York]. I had a friend or two in both places. So
that was my “see the world”—or at least see part
of the East Coast—time.
I really did enjoy teaching; I really did enjoy physics. Chemistry
I wasn’t so prepared for. I was learning it as the year went
on, but then eventually I ended up with two physics classes and two
algebra II classes. That was just fine, that was nice.
Ross-Nazzal:
Quite a mix.
Brown: Yes.
By the third year, I decided this was not a community I wanted to
stay in. Rhode Island was special in the way that they encouraged
their teachers to get masters’ degrees. That was unusual at
the time.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, that’s very unusual.
Brown: I don’t
know what states are doing these days. I had encouragement to do that,
and that gave me a reason to leave and seek something else.
Ross-Nazzal:
So you decided to move south where the climate was much nicer, warmer?
Brown: Yes.
I applied to Georgia Tech [Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta],
Purdue [University, West Lafayette, Indiana] and Florida State [University,
Tallahassee]. Georgia and Florida State offered me funding, which
I needed. I couldn’t do that without. I thought well, go warmer
[to Florida]. It was near the Gulf [of Mexico], so that was a fun
thing to do.
As I got acquainted with people and groups, I had the experience of
going to the upwelling of a spring that turned into a creek and then
turned into a river. People would go there on weekends and bring inner
tubes, [some] filled with cases of beer, and boats and just float.
They just would all jump in, and then let the current carry them down
to a certain point where there were people waiting to pick you up
and take you back to your car.
Ross-Nazzal:
Sounds nice.
Brown: Yes,
that was a nice combination, I really enjoyed that. The other part
was that my dad decided to retire, and they moved near Cape Kennedy
[Cape Canaveral, Florida]. That was another motivation, to get back
closer to them, even though it was a few hundred miles away still.
Ross-Nazzal:
Sure, it’s not like Tallahassee is that close, but of course
much closer than Ohio. Why did you decide to pursue the PhD at that
point?
Brown: In
the graduate program you took a test. The low grade said “goodbye,”
and the high grade [I received] was to skip the master’s and
get a PhD. I thought okay, since it came with financial support. I
just saw that that was going to get me a different range of opportunities.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were you thinking of going into academia at that point? Or were you
thinking of working for the government?
Brown: That
was one of the things. I didn’t know what I was going to do,
but I thought that credential and that extra knowledge was important
to have for changing my direction and my career.
Ross-Nazzal:
That was a time when the women’s movement was really gathering
a lot of steam. Were you interested at all in that? Or was that just
on the sidelines as you were pursuing your degree?
Brown: I wasn’t
involved, but I was interested. I didn’t go out and burn my
bra or anything like that. Yes, I was quietly supportive I suppose.
We had small groups, clusters of women in the same activity and would
get together and talk about things. It was a time of realizing that
there was more potential in us than we had been encouraged to think
about.
Ross-Nazzal:
Right, more than becoming a teacher or nurse or a wife.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were you also one of the few women in your PhD program at that point?
Or were there other women pursuing that same field?
Brown: I think
there was one other [woman] that I connected with. It was a relatively
small department. Florida State had been a girls’ school, and
then they became coed. They recruited a former [employee] of the National
Bureau of Standards [now the National Institute of Standards and Technology]
to come start a physics program [Earle K. Plyler]. He was a spectroscopist,
and he was very encouraging of everybody. He would come and talk,
he’d show interest. “What are you doing? How’s your
work going?” That was really good. My major professor was a
very nice person who was very encouraging as well, so I just slowly
absorbed things.
Ross-Nazzal:
How did you get interested in spectroscopy?
Brown: When
I was doing my undergraduate degree, I realized I really liked optics
when I had the coursework for that. I also liked E&M, electromagnetism.
Those were obvious connections to studying some aspect of light, so
that was, I think, really the interest that I had on that.
Ross-Nazzal:
Would you tell us about your doctoral dissertation?
Brown: It
was on the spectrum of formaldehyde. You pass light through a gas,
and of course some of the gases make the light go dimmer, but it’s
not the same across the whole wavelength scale. You have periods where
you get the same amount of light, and then you don’t. The amount
of light gets reduced, and that’s connected to energy levels
in either the atom or the molecule.
It turned out that it was kind of a puzzle, because each feature had
a special identity called a quantum number. When you got a new spectrum,
it was your task to figure out these quantum numbers so that you could
apply quantum mechanics to reproduce the spectrum that you see. That
was a challenge, that was always the challenge.
You had to measure the location of these peaks. Sometimes a spectrum
looked like that if it was emission or absorption on the wavelength
scale. [Demonstrates with fingers] Use that information to sort out
the identity of each feature, and then you could have a particular
calculating model to try to reproduce that. The location of the wavelengths
was one aspect. The other was how big that depth was and how wide
the line, the feature, was. Sometimes if you had low pressure it was
narrow line. If you had a high pressure, the line got wider.
When I first started, in order to get the area of that line, we used
this device called a planimeter. [Shows device.] The features were
inked out on a piece of paper, on like a roll of toilet paper, that
would automatically scroll as the spectrometer scanned through the
wavelengths. We had to take the piece of paper and trace along the
line. The device uses the length around the line, [which] can be converted
it into an area; a line integral can produce an area. We took the
area by hand, and we’d write it down on a piece of paper. Then
we would punch it into a punch card, one feature per punch card, and
go read it into a computer. It had a program that would compute the
area into what we called the strength of the line. That was how I
did my dissertation.
Ross-Nazzal:
How long did that take? It sounds like a very tedious process.
Brown: Recording
the spectra took—I’d have to get into a unit. Let’s
say that we could record, with the device, about 100 scale units a
day. My dissertation covered about 1,000 units of those. When we were
doing the depths, the intensities, we would do different pressures.
If you went to higher pressures, the lines would get deeper and deeper.
I spent many weeks just recording spectra. So that’s how I started.
Even when I first came to [NASA] JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
California] I was doing this.
Ross-Nazzal:
Just doing that? Oh my gosh.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. I got involved with the ATMOS [Atmospheric Trace
Molecule Spectroscopy] project, which was going to fly on the Space
Shuttle. That gave me access to better computer possibilities and
also people who would write programs for me. So this [planimeter]
got replaced with a program that would allow me to find out where
they were on the wavelength scale. We had a program that, once it
knew where lines were, would do an algorithm that would determine
the area on its own by nonlinear least-squares curve fitting.
Ross-Nazzal:
Saving you a lot of time, I imagine. Oh my gosh, and a lot of paper.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. The only problem was that sometimes our resolution
was such that these features were not well-separated. So we had to
manually tell the program, “Oh, there’s two features there.”
There was an interactive thing between the users, so that was the
big deal.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s amazing that you were using that in the ’70s.
Brown: Yes.
I don’t have the ruler [anymore], but it was a fine metal ruler
with lots of intervals, down to a few fractions of a centimeter.
Ross-Nazzal:
How did you find out about that opportunity at JPL? You mentioned
you took a side trip to come work at JPL.
Brown: A former
PhD in spectroscopy was working at JPL doing this type of work to
support people who were observing the atmosphere with this technique,
with spectroscopic equipment. They were [using] apparatus that was
on the ground and also they had things that were set into balloons
that went up to quite high altitudes. The balloons floated across
the U.S. for a while and then came back down.
They needed spectroscopy; in fact, the agencies don’t really
want to support spectroscopy as lab work. They only do it because
there’s some remote sensing project that needs the information.
So we always have to be careful about keeping our funding going. On
the other hand, when they want to build something, then they turn
to the laboratory people to help them design the instruments.
Ross-Nazzal:
You had told me that you bought an orange Super Beetle [Volkswagen],
as you referred to it and drove all the way across country from Florida.
Can you tell us about that trip? Kind of unusual at that point.
Brown: I made
one and a half trips, because I came here [for the summer], went back,
and then came again [for a job]. I would drive about I think 10 hours
a day, with some breaks.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s a long trip.
Brown: I guess
it took about five days. I-10 [Interstate-10 cross-country highway]
wasn’t always completed, so I would be on I-10 for a while and
then I’d have to go to the side road. But I really enjoyed it.
It was like the whole horizon is there, “Look at that, I’m
going there.” The first time, I gave my cat to people who were
going to take care of it while I was gone, so the cat didn’t
have to go all the way that way.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s probably a little easier. Cats really don’t like
to travel at all if they can help it.
Brown: Yes.
On the one trip westward, I started having a strange noise in my car
about in Texas, and I thought “Uh-oh.” It was going clung-clung-clung
in the back. I found a Volkswagen dealer, and I only had so much [money].
I didn’t have a credit card—this was [back in] the day—I
was just carrying what I had. Would they take a check? The people
were very nice, and it turned out to be something not very difficult
to repair. They charged me only $20. I always thought maybe they just
gave me a break because I was this poor woman out there all by herself
traveling across country.
The other interesting thing in Texas was that I had planned to get
to El Paso by the evening, and I got too tired and I couldn’t
make it. Just east of El Paso there was this one little town. They
had a motel sign, and I said, “Oh, thank goodness.” When
I got there, the lights of the motel [rooms] were all on, but nobody
was at the desk. I went to the gas station next door and I said, “I
wanted to check in.” They said, “Oh yes, the keys are
all in the door, just pick a room you want and pay them in the morning.”
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s an unusual setup.
Brown: Yes,
the restaurant was closed, so I ate out of the candy machine. Soda
and candy, that was my dinner that night.
Ross-Nazzal:
You can do that at that age.
Brown: Yes,
I thought “Well, so this is Texas.” It was, in a sense,
a labor to keep driving every day. I felt like a truck driver. There
were new experiences, finding my way and going across the southern
states, and then through Texas of course. I noticed in the cities
in Texas there were so many Cadillacs on the road, new Cadillacs.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s funny. So what did you think of JPL the first time that
you came out? What was your impression of the area compared to Florida
State?
Brown: California
had many more people around. The climate was so nice, and I rented
someone’s guesthouse. It was small, and it was a bit above Pasadena,
actually Arcadia. So I could see the mountains really nicely, and
it just seemed so fresh and clear. Although when I think back about
it—when I first arrived in the summer, I was here several weeks
before I realized how close the mountains were because of the smog.
Then one day it cleared and I thought, “Look at that!”
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s beautiful.
Brown: The
air quality has improved so much over the decades, now you don’t
have that as much.
Ross-Nazzal:
I imagine. I guess that was pretty soon after the Clean Air Act was
passed.
Brown: That’s
right.
Ross-Nazzal:
You mentioned that they were doing work with balloons. Were you doing
any work with that?
Brown: No,
I was totally in the lab. Running different gases, measuring them,
and creating lists of numbers as to where you would find the spectral
feature and how strong it was, its intensity. I did that month after
month, and then when we had enough we would start analyzing and applying
quantum mechanical models to see if we could reproduce that. Then
I gave a calculated list to the people who wanted to do remote sensing
on different molecules.
My dissertation had been formaldehyde, which they were trying to find
in their data at the time. Someone in Japan had worked on that region.
It was a pretty hard region to understand. People were quite good
at finding one isolated vibrational state, and there were models that
were working for that. But when they got to some of the other types
of molecules, where there were multiple vibrational states close together,
that was more difficult. The one vibrational state would move things
around for the others. It was very complicated. I eventually found
the identities of seven different bands in that region, but I didn’t
have the tool to really do a calculation for that. I didn’t
have the computer code that was capable of that.
Ross-Nazzal:
You mentioned a colleague in France did that many years later.
Brown: Yes,
so I made an empirical list of the identities and the wavelengths
and the intensities of that. Then I had a scare because there was
a person at Lincoln Labs [Lincoln Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), Lexington] at the time who was developing a laser
spectrometer, and he did “my region.” He was publishing.
But we eventually got together, because he had one type of information,
and I had the quantum assignments. So we eventually had a joint effort
there with that.
Ross-Nazzal:
You could collaborate.
Brown: That’s
right. But that’s always been [the challenge], trying to find
something that is needed and getting it done before somebody else
gets it done.
Ross-Nazzal:
Right, that’s a big challenge and publishing before someone
else does. So how long were you out here at JPL before you went back
to finish your PhD?
Brown: I think
it was seven months, I’ve actually forgotten.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s quite a long time. I thought maybe it was over a summer.
Brown: No,
then I went back [to Florida]. I had done most of the workup for my
dissertation when I’d left, but there was the writing to do.
Everything was typed by hand. They gave us a secretary who would type
it nicely.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s a nice perk.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. Then we’d show pictures of spectra, and
those were done with a camera. It was quite labor-intensive to get
your dissertation done.
Ross-Nazzal:
I’m thinking it must have been, to include those photographs
at that point. Things weren’t as easy as they are today with
printers and Xerox machines.
Brown: Yes,
you sent the photographs as individual things to the publisher. It
was a lot of effort to just get a manuscript together.
Ross-Nazzal:
You decided to apply for a postdoc [postdoctoral research fellowship].
Were you still thinking about maybe academia? Had you decided after
you had been working at JPL?
Brown: I decided
I really liked this stuff. Then when [Robert A.] Toth came out to
ask for somebody who would work temporarily, he said, “Well,
there’s this postdoc opportunity.” He showed me the door,
and that’s how that worked out.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were you hoping that it would eventually turn into a full-time position?
Or were you still thinking you might go somewhere else?
Brown: There’s
no guarantee. I understood there was no guarantee for a postdoc to
continue. I had a sort of “I’ll wait and see what happens”-type
attitude.
Ross-Nazzal:
You continued doing the type of research you had been doing?
Brown: Yes,
and I’ve continued that all my life. Let me sit down in front
of my terminal and close the door and look at spectra, and I’m
just a happy camper all day. I never really wanted to do more than
that, because it was just so much fun. Each spectrum is a mystery
that you’re trying to solve: identifying the lines, and then
applying a model that reproduces what you see, that’s always
the challenge.
Ross-Nazzal:
You said you spent many years, most of your career, studying methane.
Brown: Yes.
While I was doing my dissertation, some colleagues of Plyler, who
had started the physics program at Florida State, invited his former
colleagues down to visit. Also, someone at JPL who was flying a balloon
instrument wanted knowledge of methane in a particular spectral region.
That evolved into me working on methane, because I was the lowly graduate
student who could be put to work on that.
Ross-Nazzal:
You didn’t have a choice, right.
Brown: Well,
I had a choice, but the other graduate students were committed to
other things, so I was the free agent at the time.
Ross-Nazzal:
In that retirement PowerPoint [presentation] it said, “Methane
is tough.” I was curious what they were referring to. What does
that mean?
Brown: Light
molecules are tough. It’s a difficult spectrum to model. If
you have a CO2 [carbon dioxide] spectrum or CO [carbon monoxide],
they’re just a set of regular lines. They’re well-separated
from each other. But in methane, it’s a light molecule and the
patterns are all different as a function of the quantum numbers. They
have more bands that can exist together in the same spectral region.
Some of them are really big and some of them are really small, but
the small ones are pushing on the big ones and stealing intensity
from the big ones, so they show up a little bigger than you’d
expect them to be.
It’s really like a puzzle. You throw all the pieces on the ground,
and then you have to go through and figure out, “This goes with
this one, and this goes with that one, and that goes with that one,”
until you get the picture. Again, the theoretical equations to reproduce
the spectrum took decades to really come together. It was really an
international effort to really understand how to do those calculations
[to reproduce the observations], and it’s continuing.
The picture [presentation] showed that for [the] lowest, there’s
only two vibrational states. Then there become five vibrational states,
and then there become eight vibrational states. But each of the vibrations
can have multiple components. You have all those components making
transitions of patterns. It’s quite a maze to identify the quantum
assignment, so that you can know how to enter the information into
a master calculation. The lower vibrational states are well in hand,
but by the time you get up to the fourth [vibration] one, there’s
actually about 60 individual states that are together and affecting
the intensities and the positions of each other. It’s an interesting
molecule type.
Ross-Nazzal:
I had no idea. When I read that I was just curious.
Brown: CO2
is a linear molecule, the atoms line up [in a straight line]. Water
is a bent molecule. Then you have ammonia, which has four atoms and
it’s got one [nitrogen] surrounded by three hydrogens. That’s
a more complicated structure. Methane has five atoms—the more
atoms, the more problems, essentially.
Ross-Nazzal:
You mentioned that it was an international effort, so you were working
with people all across the globe.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. It became easier once the Internet got going.
[Before], we’d go to the same meetings, and we’d learn
about each other’s work and find ways to collaborate—but
by mail. Once we had the internet, it was easy to transmit things.
I would record spectra of, say, a million points, and I could shoot
it over to anybody in the world who wanted to work with me on the
spectra.
Ross-Nazzal:
Quite a nice change from snail mail, plus you know it arrived. At
some point you started working on ATMOS. How did you get involved
in that project?
Brown: All
these remote sensing projects have a house spectroscopist on hand
to tell them where the features of various chemicals can be found
on the electromagnetic spectrum. I was working with Toth, who was
part of the ATMOS effort, and I eventually became part of that.
There’s two aspects. One is that you record spectra and do the
processing of the spectra and the analysis. Then you make a long list,
and you make the list available to people in an electronic database.
I became the person who took control of the electronic database [for
ATMOS]. It’s not a fun job, really. You’re [often] just
manipulating other people’s work and you’re describing
it.
Ross-Nazzal:
I was going to ask if you would talk about that a little bit.
Brown: Yes.
The fun job is taking a spectrum where you don’t know the important
information and working on it and solving that puzzle. The remote
sensing provided the means and funding to do both.
Ross-Nazzal:
Was that located in the payload bay of the Shuttle or was that something
that the crew handled in the Spacelab that first mission?
Brown: This
was before Spacelab. It was in the bay, they had to open the bay up
to do that.
Ross-Nazzal:
I was curious if the crew had any sort of interaction with it, or
if it was on its own.
Brown: It
was on its own. I wasn’t so involved with the details of the
instrument itself. I was involved with what the spectra looked like
that came out of the instrument. It was really fun. At the time, we
didn’t have the ability to push data across the Internet so
rapidly. It was telecommunicated down to the [NASA Johnson Space]
Center in Houston and then written on a magnetic tape.
The whole team went to the monitors in Houston to see how the operation
of the instrument was going and make decisions about what things should
be done, if there were any changes made to the setup. Then they had
one person take a load of tapes to an airplane and fly back to Los
Angeles. The processing was done on our group minicomputer. I happened
to be in the room when the first spectrum came out. It was like, “Is
it going to be good data or not? Oh dear!” Two of us looked
at it together and said, “Look at that, oh yes, it’s a
line. Look, look, I can see the CO2 lines.”
Ross-Nazzal:
It worked!
Brown: It
worked. The first place we looked in CO2, it should have been like
this [demonstrates], but we saw lines that kind of looked like this.
We thought, “Oh dear, is that a distorted recording there?”
Then we looked at another CO2 band in a different wavelength. It looked
like it was good, but there were some extra lines there. “Why
do we have those extra lines?” We suddenly realized we were
seeing CO2 in the atmosphere and some residual CO2 inside the instrument
box.
That was really kind of fun. You know the effect that if your train
is coming towards you blowing its whistle, and then [when] it goes
past [you] it changes the tone. That was what was happening. We saw
that happening in our instrument. If we were going toward the Sun
in the orbit, the extra line was on one side. Once it went past [going
away from the sun], it was on the other side. Physics in action. That
[interpretation] became a game. We printed out the whole spectra on
chart paper and pasted it on the wall, and then people went along
with their pencils and said, “Oh, that’s water. Oh, that’s
CO2. Oh, that’s CO.” They wrote down the obvious [chemicals
directly on the chart paper]. Then the fun game was to look for chemicals
that hadn’t been clearly characterized in the atmosphere.
Ross-Nazzal:
You were also doing some work out at Kitt Peak [National Observatory,
Arizona].
Brown: Yes,
that was such a fortunate situation. The commercial spectrometer that
was working at JPL was not as good as we wanted it to be. At the same
time, someone who had worked at Kitt Peak to help build a very special
spectrometer took a job at JPL. We heard about this instrument and
how it was designed to record spectra of the Sun, but they had a lot
of downtime. It really wasn’t used as much. In conversation
people realized all we had to do was take a chamber for the gas and
a light source, and it could become a lab spectrometer for us. So
we did. It took a number of years to evolve into something that was
more routine, driving some equipment across the West to get some things
there.
Ross-Nazzal:
Tell us about that. You mentioned that you were taking what I would
consider a fairly large vehicle with materials in it to do these experiments.
Brown: Since
it was an astronomical facility, they didn’t have the ordinary
things that we’d need like tight chambers to hold gas, pressure
gauges and temperature gauges, lines to transfer gases from cylinders,
safely—all the routine [devices] that we have. You have that
one picture of me sitting in the [facility]. On the one side it shows
the gas chamber, with the long tube sitting in front of this big white
thing, which was the spectrometer. It was a very special design for
the time.
Later, companies started selling spectrometers that were pretty good.
What was special about this spectrometer was that it could do good
recordings in the ultraviolet, as well as in the infrared. As we used
it, new equipment was acquired, new optics were acquired so that it
could go down farther in the infrared. It became a very useful instrument
for a large portion of the electromagnetic spectrum for laboratory
work.
Ross-Nazzal:
I wonder if you can walk us through one of the experiments or tests
that you did using that spectrometer, from setting up until you were
finished. How long would a test take? What did it require you to do?
Brown: One
aspect that was very good is that we could record spectra with very
good signal-to-noise in about 75 minutes. A lot of the time, if we
wanted better signal to noise we would record overnight. It could
operate itself without personal attention. The software was really
special, because it was connected to a telescope that would just stare
at one particular object for a long period of time and integrate to
build up the signal-to-noise. It was designed for that more critical
aspect of making spectra.
Our job was to make the plan of what we were going to run, in terms
of what chemicals and what pressures we would choose. Sometimes we
would mix chemicals to make the lines fatter, which was a [pressure]
broadening parameter that people needed to analyze atmospheric spectra.
We’d have a plan where we would set up the cell the first day
and a half and get it pumped out so it didn’t have any other
chemicals in it to any degree. Then, if we got started by 4:00 in
the afternoon of the second day that was good. We’d keep running
spectra, have a turnaround every two hours. In other words, run the
spectrum, record it, check it, and in the meantime do something about
changing the gas conditions.
At some point we would say, “1:00 [am], we’ll go to bed
and we’ll let it run something overnight by itself.” We
ran like that for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Then Friday we tore
the [gas] equipment down and took it back [home to JPL] with us. Eventually
they let us leave our equipment there. A data collection session lasted
a week, and we’d end up with about 20 different spectra.
Ross-Nazzal:
How did you collect that material?
Brown: At
first it was magnetic tapes, and then eventually it was little cassette
tapes. We usually wanted to have a hard copy, but eventually we could
send everything over the Internet.
Ross-Nazzal:
Made your life a lot easier. And you could fly.
Brown: Yes,
but the really important part was that we had the good knowledge of
the pressures and temperatures of the gas inside the cell, so we would
continually monitor that visually. We’d read gauges and record
that.
Ross-Nazzal:
You were doing this for about 20 years? Is that what I read?
Brown: I was
doing that there, I think ’77 to 2005.
Ross-Nazzal:
Quite a long time.
Brown: Yes,
but it was fun. I really enjoyed going away and doing that. It was
at about 7,000 feet [elevation]. I realized I felt the lack of oxygen
there, and it took me about a day and a half to get my body to adjust.
I’d just walk around [feeling] dull the first 24 hours. It was
outside Tucson. I enjoyed Tucson, particularly loved the [Arizona-Sonora]
Desert Museum. I would always try to go there every time if I could,
at least stop for a while.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, it’s a beautiful area. At some point, in ’86 around
the [STS 51-L Space Shuttle] Challenger accident, you and your husband
decided to adopt a child. Then you ended up adopting another child.
Brown: Yes.
We have a son and a daughter, that’s right.
Ross-Nazzal:
Talk a little bit about that work-life balance, since your husband
also worked at JPL and traveled.
Brown: That’s
right. Yes, he was an equal partner. We were equal partners in taking
care of what needed to be done for the kids. It’s an exciting
time when you have kids. First few years, “Oh, they’re
doing this,” “Oh, look, look, she did that!” First
words—my son wanted some extra food and he said, “More.”
On the other hand, my daughter—we were going out somewhere,
and she wanted to wear some particular clothes she liked. I said,
“I’m sorry, it’s dirty.” She said, “Go
mall.”
Ross-Nazzal:
Oh, isn’t it funny how quickly they learn consumerism?
Brown: Yes.
We went to all the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, team sports. It’s
an important part of life. We really enjoyed that.
Ross-Nazzal:
You found that NASA was amenable to you having a family and working?
Brown: Oh,
it was no problem at all. The only problem was when we were both active
and needed to go to meetings. There had to be some negotiation on
that sometimes. One week we both thought we needed to go to a meeting
at the same time. It was really important for both of us to be at
our separate meetings. My husband negotiated with his organizers to
move his talk to one end of the meeting, so he could do it and then
come back in the middle, and I got the arrangement to have my talk
in the second part of the meeting. We managed to split that one.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, that’s nice. That’s a good concession to make when
you’re both professionals.
Brown: Being
an astronomer, he had to be away more often than I did, because he
would go to Hawaii to use the telescopes there.
Ross-Nazzal:
Oh, that’s not a bad gig. Did you ever get a chance to go with
him?
Brown: Yes,
I did once. That’s when I found out that I shouldn’t be
at 10,000 feet, because I really had altitude sickness. One of the
worst nights of my life.
Ross-Nazzal:
Sorry to hear that.
Brown: He
works at 14,000 feet.
Ross-Nazzal:
Fourteen thousand feet, wow.
Johnson: It’s
a long way up.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s very high up. Did he ever travel with you when you were
doing some of your work out at Kitt Peak?
Brown: No,
he never did. We traveled a lot otherwise where meetings made it possible
to turn into a vacation. The kids went to Paris when they were nine
and seven. We would often take them to the [American Astronomical
Society] Division of Planetary Science meeting, so they got to see
people and see a little bit of what we did. Other people brought their
kids, too. It was a nice little community there.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s nice. Did either of them choose to follow in your footsteps?
Brown: No,
but they had their own talents and skills. So they’re making
use of that.
Ross-Nazzal:
Sure. I wanted to ask you about some of the other databases you worked
on. You mentioned working on that database for ATMOS, but you also
worked on the HITRAN [High-Resolution Transmission Molecular Absorption]
and the GEISA [Gestion et Etude des Informations Spectroscopiques
Atmosphériques (Management and Study of Spectroscopic Information)]
database. What’s captured by those two databases that you were
working on?
Brown: My
work for ATMOS was very specific to their needs. The HITRAN database
was started in the early ’70s by the Air Force. I think it was
motivated because they were looking at wavelengths that lasers could
pass through the atmosphere. If there was a chemical that had an absorption,
that was not the right place to have the laser frequency. It was not
a top-secret thing, it was done as open-literature research.
The people doing atmospheric research thought the Air Force compilation
was very useful when they were trying to interpret spectra that were
recorded using the Sun passing through the atmosphere. That evolved
into the HITRAN. It was a very useful thing for people to have, but
the Air Force stopped funding it. So they shifted it on another organization
that would be willing to support that. They ended up at the [Harvard-Smithsonian]
Center for Astrophysics, which was part of the Smithsonian organization.
The GEISA was started to support European remote sensing of the atmosphere.
For a while, they [the databases] were competing. One list would gain
a certain molecule, and then the other list would come along and acquire
that and have other molecules. The GEISA also had a system of software
that was organized for the European community. It was a major project
that was supported because of Earth remote sensing. For astrophysics,
they started acquiring a few other molecules as well.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were you putting data into those databases?
Brown: Yes.
Once you did the research under public money, you needed to make it
all available. You’d make a list, and people would ask you for
it. It just became easier to give it to the database.
Ross-Nazzal:
They could just go out and acquire it.
Brown: That’s
right. You had to describe it in the literature. From time to time,
there would be a paper that came about there. Those papers had a tremendous
number of citations, so that made you look good.
Ross-Nazzal:
I wanted to ask you about your relationship and work with some of
the other NASA Centers. Did you do much work at all with say Goddard
[Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland] or some other Centers?
Brown: There
were some other spectroscopists that I did work with at Goddard [and
Ames], but I had a lot of collaborations with people in Europe as
well. The spectroscopists are a worldwide community, and we get together
at meetings and find out what the other person is doing. If we see
an opportunity to collaborate because we have different types of assets
that would benefit each other, that’s what we do. There were
some spectroscopists at Goddard, but they tended to be involved in
spectroscopy for other purposes. I was either working more to help
astronomers or help atmospheric remote sensing people.
Ross-Nazzal:
Did you feel a sense of competition between them? Or because they
were working on such different projects that wasn’t the case?
Brown: It
was more different projects. But of course one had to compete against
one’s friends. Organizations like NASA really don’t want
to pay for laboratory spectroscopy. I think it’s considered
a necessary evil to some. They pay for what they see they need. I
was always in contact with what I call the “user community”
as to what they didn’t have that they knew they wanted to have.
It didn’t work if I knew they needed something, but they didn’t
yet know it. Within what’s now called the ROSES [Research Opportunities
in Space and Earth Sciences] proposal system, we had to pay attention
to what was ongoing in terms of research projects for astronomy and
atmospheric work. That [meant] going to meetings. Going to their meetings,
as well as our meetings, was important to do.
Ross-Nazzal:
Can you talk a little bit more about that? About how you determined
what was going to be important in the future that you would have to
put forward? How did you determine that?
Brown: There
were certain instruments that were going to be built and flown for
atmospheric purposes. Beyond ATMOS, there was AIRS [Atmospheric Infrared
Sounder] and TES [Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer]. Some of the
European instruments had American co-Is [coinvestigators] as well.
I would make an effort to learn about these new instruments and see
what they were going to do, then see where the holes were in the spectroscopic
information that they were going to need and go talk to these people
and let them know. You had to be in sales as well as research.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s tough. Can you talk about some of the collaborations
that you had with the Europeans?
Brown: Yes.
First, it was people in France who were working on methane at the
University of Dijon [Université de Bourgogne, Dijon], which
is in the southern part [of the country], like the mustard. Methane
was a hard molecule to understand. At first there was a group in England
that seemed to be doing work. I did a little bit with them, but they
eventually admitted that they didn’t really have the right knowledge
to handle the problem.
At the same time, they were competing with the Dijon group, so I stopped
working with the English people and got acquainted [with the French],
made new friends. Plus, they were all aware that I was doing laboratory
studies in methane, so they were also approaching me. It was a lot
of collaborations formed at meetings. You go and find out somebody
was doing something, and [learn] there was a common interest. Then
it was a matter of “How do we each get money to do work together?”
Quite often that conversation would happen a couple years before I
actually submitted a proposal. We had a plan, and if we both got funding
then we could work together.
Ross-Nazzal:
Can you give us an example of a project that happened to work out
where you touched base, both got funding?
Brown: I’m
an experimentalist, so I would always try to work with a good theorist.
The group in Dijon were people who had a program that specialized
in the theoretical aspects of understanding methane, or spherical
tops besides that. They noticed my work, and they invited me to come
visit them for a month. I had another occasion to visit them, as well.
The personnel changed over the decades. People retired, but I got
acquainted with new people. Theory is really hard, and there’s
only a handful of people in the world that understand methane theory.
I would figure out who that was and then I would go “make friends”
at the meetings. Things would just evolve.
Ross-Nazzal:
Was language ever a barrier for you?
Brown: No,
the Europeans all speak English. I have difficulty speaking any language.
I’ve studied Spanish, German, Russian, and French. I can barely
make myself known in French. I can go and order food, and I can read
signs that tell you, “Oh, I take this train.” Even the
Russians would publish their work in Russian, and I’m actually
a coauthor on a Russian paper [written] in Russian.
Ross-Nazzal:
Are you?
Brown: Yes,
I can find my name. Eventually, the paper would be translated and
appear in an English-[language] journal. That was very interesting.
Ross-Nazzal:
How big is the world of spectroscopy? It sounds like it’s a
very small cohesive group, the way you’re describing it.
ROWN: I suppose
thousands. One of the publishing companies put out a list of the 10,000
productive scientists [based on citations of their publications].
Our group made the list. Really, many of the people who made databases
were on the list. But they put us in the wrong category, so that was
kind of a joke.
I made some very good friends with particularly the French people
and particularly women colleagues. We’re still friends. We would
get acquainted for some particular reason at a meeting, or some common
interest that we wrote each other about, and that’s continued
for decades. When I first started going to France, I wrote that I
was amazed at how many more women were employed in spectroscopy [than
in America]. Considering France is so—a certain attitude of
the men toward the women, I guess. In spectroscopy they did seem to
thrive better in some sense.
Ross-Nazzal:
Is that the case here in the [United] States, or is it quite different?
Brown: There
seemed to be a larger portion of the population of women involved
in science than when I initially got here. These days, I think it’s
leveled out better. Initially, it was a little lonely when I first
started going to meetings.
As I did work, I got better known. At one point I was involved in
calibration standards of frequencies. Because of the fine quality
of the Kitt Peak instrument, I could do that. There was a professor
in Germany, and he sought me out to ask me something, discuss his
work and my work and how they overlap. We were having a conversation
in the hallway, and then he went back to a group of young people—which
I assume was his group—and he said, “That’s Linda
Brown.” [Pats herself on the back.] I felt like I was making
some good progress at that point.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s nice.
Brown: Interestingly,
the main meeting for spectroscopy was back at Ohio State [University,
Columbus]. I had mentioned that I had classes with [K.] Narahari Rao,
who was the editor of the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy. When
I started coming to the meetings and I happened to mention that to
him, he went back and looked up my grades for his classes. Fortunately,
I had gotten a B and an A, the A in optics. He was supportive of many
women spectroscopists that came to the meeting. He was really a champion
for us, and we all appreciated that.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, that’s so important. You mentioned those ROSES panels.
You submitted several, and you actually received funding for most
of your projects. Would you tell us about some of those?
Brown: Toward
the end I learned the scheme, which was to find out what the astronomers
need, figure out which ones I can do well, and then propose—preferably
with a collaborator from one of the group that needs it. Plus, my
husband was quite helpful, being a planetary astronomer. I would go
to his meetings and look at the posters and talk to people. That was
essentially what you did to find out what laboratory work would be
useful to people doing remote sensing projects, go to their meetings.
Ross-Nazzal:
Would he also put out a call for you? Pass out your cards maybe? Tell
them about your work?
Brown: No,
he wouldn’t do that. I never had a card. I had [published] papers.
[Before I retired] I was at JPL, and I asked my colleague to look
up [how many]. The count ended up to be 181 publications.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s very impressive.
Brown: At
first I didn’t write very well, but over the years I finally
learned how to do that.
Ross-Nazzal:
I thought that was very interesting, how you mentioned that your colleagues
introduced you to Strunk & White [The Elements of Style by William
Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White], and talked about how to write an effective
paper.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. Those two individuals were excellent writers.
Barney [Crofton B.] Farmer was head of ATMOS and had a balloon program
before that. He was just a wonderful writer. I learned from him, as
well as Odell [F.] Raper.
Ross-Nazzal:
How many people worked as spectroscopists at JPL? How many of them
were there?
Brown: We
were attached to specific remote sensing categories. Bob Toth and
I were with Farmer’s group for a long time. There was another
person who did similar work, [Jack S.] Margolis. We were an informal
group. We weren’t the same group.
Then, way off to the other side of the lab, were the spectroscopists
who worked for astrophysics purposes. We hardly ever talked to them,
it was really strange. We kind of knew each other, but when we started
working at Kitt Peak taking data, one of them realized that he could
do something useful with it. That was our way of getting into the
other group.
Eventually, JPL decided that we needed to be in the same group, so
we finally got to be friends with each other. They stayed in more
the microwave region. When it came time to get our own instrument,
we put it into their lab, the astrophysics group lab. That’s
managed to survive the change of personnel.
Ross-Nazzal:
When you combined, is that when you became a supervisor for a short
period?
Brown: Yes.
[Herbert M.] Pickett was the first supervisor, then he evolved into
other tasks. They needed somebody to be the supervisor. I didn’t
really want to do it, but I thought, “Who are they going to
ask next?” I said, “Okay, well, I’ll give it a try.”
Fortunately, JPL [later] decided to make larger groups so they didn’t
need as many group supervisors.
[Break]
Ross-Nazzal:
I was just thinking you seem so interested in the technical details
of your work that you might be bored by having to do all the administrative
tasks. It takes away from the mysteries that you were [solving].
Brown: Yes,
it’s boring. It is. When I first started, I would take a little
spectrum—we had a big long coffee table, and I’d sit on
the floor trying to find assignments while I watched television. It’s
just really a game, a mystery, where you’re trying to find the
clues and put the clues together.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s funny how you started enjoying mysteries as a child. You
had also told me that you were promoted to be a principal scientist,
but you had to ask to be considered.
Brown: Yes.
It’d been a lot of years since my previous—I kept getting
nice pay raises, but I knew that there was this level of promotion,
and I wondered why I was not being promoted. Then I was able to read
the rules, and I found that I could ask to be considered for promotion.
I thought “Well, okay.” So I did that. I went through
the whole procedure, and got recommendations, and got [the promotion].
Ross-Nazzal:
Do you recall when that happened, when that aha moment occurred?
Brown: I don’t
recall. Brian [J. Drouin] wrote down that I was promoted in 2003,
which was around the time where I was doing the group supervisor stuff.
That probably had an influence on that, but I don’t remember
actually when it was.
Ross-Nazzal:
We’ve talked about some of the work that you’ve done.
I wonder if you could tell us—you probably worked on so many
different projects over the years—but some of the planetary
missions you’ve been involved in, or some of the remote sensing
projects. Just to have your name attached with some of those efforts.
Brown: I was
never really a co-I on any of the planetary things, it was more the
database things. The [NASA Astrobiology Institute] Virtual Planetary
Laboratory, which is more of a theoretical group effort to understand
exoplanets—that was from lots of different aspects, [such as]
the possibility of life in extreme environments. They had activities
where they would look at hot water pools and what life could evolve
in there. Basically, I did the same old thing for them, which was
to have a database of molecular line parameters of different chemicals.
Or, if there wasn’t the database available, collect recorded
spectra wherever I could find it.
We would have weekly meetings that were international. People called
in from different parts of the world, and the topics they discussed
were really quite intriguing. They were covering what would be the
conditions where life could exist, as opposed to not exist. A certain
temperature range, taking the Earth model as the most likely scenario.
That exposed me to a whole category of science that I normally would
not hear about. I think that one was quite interesting.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, it was pretty fascinating. I was reading some of the material
about it and thinking it must be very exciting to be involved at the
forefront of research. You also were involved in the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory [OCO].
Brown: Right,
that’s still in orbit now collecting data. That was to determine
atmospheric chemistry that involves carbon molecules. It had an instrument
that would take data over a period of time in different parts of the
Earth. The first one [in 2009] failed to launch, ended up in pieces
in the South Pacific [Ocean] somewhere, because a latch didn’t
let go. That was a sad time, but fortunately they had built a second
instrument as a test. They turned that into the next instrument [launched
2014], and it’s been operating successfully. There was supposed
to be a third one, but it’s in jeopardy with the new [presidential]
administration [of Donald J. Trump].
Ross-Nazzal:
I wanted to ask you about that because science is really a hot potato
topic these days. I’m curious what your thoughts are about these
opinions that have become very popular lately, especially now that
we have a new administration.
Brown: I hope
those people will come to their senses. They have financial agendas
that they want to place in higher than life agendas.
Ross-Nazzal:
Do you have any concern that some of the research that you did over
the years might disappear? There’s a lot of concern about what’s
happening with the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and some
other agencies.
Brown: I think
they don’t even know I exist. All the databases that I created
are being updated and improved elsewhere. I interact with people in
Asia as well as Europe, and it’s an ongoing thing. There’s
so much activity that requires knowledge of spectra at all wavelengths.
It’ll disappear because someone made it better. We figure that
if a work lasts a decade then it was good. We don’t expect that
to be longer. Someone must have a reason to make some aspect of it
better.
Ross-Nazzal:
You had mentioned in one of the e-mails to me that funding was such
a challenge for you, that was your biggest challenge. Would you talk
about how, over the years, funding increases and sometimes it decreases?
How did you deal with that up and down?
Brown: I tried
to get pieces of funding for nonspectroscopic things, little tasks
that didn’t take me too much away. Sometimes I succeeded, and
sometimes I didn’t. I really had only one year where it was
critical. I had only 75 percent of my salary, so someone in management
hired me to do something that I didn’t want to do. I was very
bad at it, but I made my best effort until I could get my own funding,
either from joining some project or writing proposals.
I finally got the recipe down for winning proposals, which was go
talk to people who would use it, who knew they wanted it. I also started
being invited to the review panels, and that provided a lot of insight
about what types of proposals and their presentation would work versus
not work. I gave up on the language. I would speak about my work,
and learn how to talk other people’s language about my work.
It was a communication lesson.
Ross-Nazzal:
That’s an important lesson learned. You said something that
I thought was interesting, that one year you only had 75 percent of
your salary. When you’re working at JPL, you have to compete
for money even for your salary? That’s not provided by the Center?
Brown: That’s
right. Either you have your own individual proposal or you’re
part of a project, so it’s important for JPL to win projects.
I mentioned one experience where I was part of one [team] that came
in second rather than first, the FINESSE [Fast Infrared Exoplanet
Spectroscopy Survey Explorer] project.
That was a whole new experience in understanding how JPL had set up
groups of people, just to help win proposals. I thought “Oh,
okay, I never knew about these groups.” They were very good
in preparing the team, telling what they were doing and how they had
to present it. It was very good advice. The PI [principal investigator]
hadn’t really had that much experience, had been a person doing
his own work in the corner, so to speak. It was a whole new change
for him as well.
It was frustrating to get the help at times—“No, you don’t
do it that way”—but it was very interesting. I was made
part of it because they were going to use spectroscopy to look at
exoplanets. I was the database person who could tell them what was
available and what was needed. Then, in turn, I tried to turn that
information into a proposal to do lab work. I was always on the lookout
for topics that would find favor with reviewers.
Ross-Nazzal:
Did you get money from other agencies besides NASA?
Brown: No.
Ross-Nazzal:
No, just NASA. Did you ever go to any launches at [NASA] KSC [Kennedy
Space Center, Florida] or Vandenberg [Air Force Base, California]?
Brown: Yes.
We went to Galileo, which [launched October 18, 1989]. We have a picture
of my husband having my daughter in a shoulder thing on his back,
holding a baby bottle in her mouth, waiting for the launch. For OCO
I went to the first one, but I didn’t go to the second one.
Ross-Nazzal:
That must have been disappointing.
Brown: My
parents lived very near the Cape when I was in graduate school, so
I got to see Apollo 14, 15, and 17. [Apollo] 17 was at night. You
would stand along the river there, and you would watch. This sphere
of light just came out over the whole land. It was just fabulous,
just fabulous.
Ross-Nazzal:
What great memories.
Brown: I went
to one exhibit that they held in the VAB [Vehicle Assembly Building]
lab [at KSC]. That was really neat to see that. They had some sort
of equipment that they had to manipulate, and I got to manipulate
it. I thought, “Oh, this is fun.” When they began recruiting
women [astronauts], I thought “It’s too bad that didn’t
come earlier.” By then I was involved with too much that I liked,
and I didn’t want to think about doing something like that.
If it had been earlier, I might have made the effort to do it.
Ross-Nazzal:
I was wondering about that, because that was around the time that
you started coming out here [to California]. I was curious if you’d
had a chance to meet any of the women, I know they did Center tours.
Brown: Not
closely, no.
Ross-Nazzal:
It would have been an interesting field, but you certainly have made
a great career for yourself.
Brown: I was
12, I think, when they launched Sputnik. I was in Muncie, Indiana.
I was born there. I went out and I tried to see it go over. I saw
something and I thought that was it, but my husband said, “Oh,
that couldn’t have been it.” Anyway, I always thought
I saw Sputnik go over Muncie, Indiana.
Ross-Nazzal:
It’s a good story. You were also able to get some funding to
buy a new spectrometer, which sounds like it’s a pretty significant
investment. Could you talk about that?
Brown: Yes,
it was. I think by then I was known to program managers because of
my proposals getting funded, and I had served on some review committees.
I decided “$250,000, that’s a lot, but maybe [they’d
support it.].” I don’t know how much the program funds,
but the planetary people have always had this major equipment pot
that you could propose to. So I did, and I won. I found out that I
had taken two years of that program to get my instrument, but thank
goodness for me.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, it worked out well.
Brown: But,
again, I think I had built up the right reputation and had had the
right interaction with people who made decisions.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, and you didn’t have to travel to Arizona anymore.
Brown: Well,
I like traveling to Arizona. I missed that, although we got to fly
after we deposited equipment. Several other groups would come and
use it, and they had their equipment there, too. They had one whole
open room where they stored equipment for people.
Ross-Nazzal:
Very nice. I had asked you about the decadal survey that you had contributed
to. You mentioned you had done some work, but it wasn’t all
that significant by the end.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. Have you been involved with a decadal survey operation?
Ross-Nazzal:
No, we haven’t. We’ve talked to some people who’ve
contributed.
Brown: You
submit something and then they put it up, and they have a mechanism
where people endorse it in the community. So I did that, and I got
lots of endorsements from the laboratory folk. I thought I would get
at least two sentences. I tried to put two sentences in there they
could just pick up and not think about, in an “oh, by the way”-type
of reference. Which I think represents the attitude that the organizations
have about laboratory studies—[it’s] the necessary evil.
Ross-Nazzal:
You told us that you retired in 2016. Why did you decide to retire
at this point?
Brown: Health
reasons, and also I was worried. They reorganized the ROSES groups,
and they put all the laboratory people into a database-making call.
It seemed like they were more interested in collecting information
than creating new information. I didn’t know as many people
who would be reviewing. I didn’t know who would be reviewing,
so I decided that between the health and the uncertainty about funding
it was the right time to leave. I’m hoping my junior colleague
will be able to survive that. We had some funding carry over from
OCO, and he’d been involved with some other projects as well.
Ross-Nazzal:
I’m sure you passed along your wisdom that you had learned over
the years.
Brown: I tried
to.
Ross-Nazzal:
What do you think was your greatest contribution, looking back over
all those years that you spent at JPL?
Brown: I had
a chance to realize something that no one else had seen yet. It’s
not earthshaking, but it was an aspect of our science that involved
line shapes which became more and more important in what I undertook.
It was how the shape of the feature can be changed by an additional
mechanism. I had seen it in other molecules, and when I was using
the computer screen to retrieve the information, I noticed that two
water lines that were close together had an unusual shape. They had
less absorption outside the lines and more absorption between the
two. I said, “That looks like line mixing.” So I was able
to pursue that.
The understanding is still going on, but I had identified some transitions
where that effect was the strongest in water. A couple years later,
I went to a conference where someone was showing atmospheric spectra
and where there were water absorptions. We always show the spectrum,
and then observed minus calculated spectra. I noticed it didn’t
quite fit at those two places where I’d seen this line mixing.
I thought, “Aha!”
When people do graphical comparison, observed minus calculated, they
say, “Oh, the spectroscopy is wrong,” if they see something
not matching. There’s a new effort, globally, by the people
who like to do this work to create a new molecular line shape that
takes into account a lot of different mechanisms more seriously than
was pursued before. So I feel like I helped spark something by seeing
that.
Ross-Nazzal:
Along those lines, where do you see your field going over the next
20 years?
Brown: I think
the technology is changing. We have cavity ring-down spectroscopy,
which is very sensitive. When I started, the grating spectrometers
were going out the door and the Fourier transform [infrared] spectrometers
and laser [absorption] spectrometers were the thing that were becoming
more powerful in terms of research.
Now, I think the grating spectrometers will be a second choice as
people develop these cavity ring-down instruments and other things
like that with more sensitive detectors. My major professor and the
people that he knew—they knew people who, to record a spectrum,
set the grating, read a voltmeter, wrote down the number, changed
the grating, wrote down the number, and then manually plotted that
to see a spectral line.
Ross-Nazzal:
I was going to say that looks a lot easier compared to what you just
described.
Brown: That’s
right. It’s a technology-based instrumentation that hopefully
keeps changing and allows people to do more things and see more sensitive
things.
Ross-Nazzal:
I wanted to ask if you thought gender at all had impacted your career
at JPL.
Brown: Probably,
but I was a bit feisty about that. I was on the lookout for that,
but on the other hand I did have managers that were better at that
category than others.
Ross-Nazzal:
How do you think opportunities for women changed at your Center over
the years? You mentioned that council.
Brown: There’s
more women going into the management side. The promotions are there
and the opportunities, so it’s clearly changed for the better.
Ross-Nazzal:
You mentioned the [JPL] Advisory Council for Women [ACW], which you
sat on for a couple of years. Would you share some details about that?
Brown: I heard
that the Director [Bruce C. Murray] had originally set it up to get
more women engineers and scientists to come in, but it evolved into
an organization that represented all the women at JPL. It became a
place that women who had some difficulty with perhaps a personal interaction,
a supervisor versus employee type of thing, could go to and get advice
and help. JPL eventually set up components where such details and
complaints could be handled within the organization in a just way.
This was at the beginning of the ACW’s activity, and it has
continued on. They sponsor seminars and events to encourage women
and let women know about opportunities, or how to handle some difficult
situations that might arise because of gender.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were there any issues that popped up when you served on that council?
Brown: I don’t
remember at the moment. We compartmentalized the women to handle certain
things. I didn’t handle anything directly myself. Things were
set up so that a person with some difficult situation could go to
someone that they might know and that would be close by.
Ross-Nazzal:
You’ve shared with us some very important lessons learned. I
wonder if there’s any others that you’d like to share
with us today.
Brown: The
biggest lesson is find something you like and just go with it. You’ll
have a happy life. Fortunately, it was rewarding financially and in
terms of being recognized, having your worth recognized as well.
Ross-Nazzal:
You seem to have found your passion in life, your calling.
Brown: Yes,
that’s right. I thought I was going to be a teacher all my life,
but I got happily diverted and had a much different life.
Ross-Nazzal:
I’m going to ask Sandra if she has any questions for you.
Johnson: Not
right now.
Ross-Nazzal:
Is there anything else that you wanted to discuss today or that maybe
we overlooked? I think over time we talked about a number of things
you mentioned in your e-mail.
Brown: Oh,
there’s a couple individuals that I encountered. They were spectroscopists
or else organized atmospheric people. Two of them won a Nobel Prize.
One was Mario [J.] Molina, who studied atmospheric chemistry and identified
the problem with the ozone layer being the chlorofluorocarbons.
The other was Robert [F.] Curl [Jr.], who was aiding some astronomers
trying to understand certain chemicals that seemed to be in the interstellar
medium. They were made only of carbon. He used quantum mechanics to
figure out how many carbon atoms would form stable molecules so they
have the chain. It turned out to be odd numbers all the way up to
the 60-atom carbon ball—the buckyball, the Buckminsterfullerene.
It was the basis for nanotechnology, but when I knew him we’d
just see each other at meetings. I felt like, “Oh, two people
who know my name won the Nobel Prize.”
The most interesting person was Bob [Watson]. He was working at JPL
in atmospheric science and he went to [NASA] Headquarters [Washington,
DC] as a program manager. He supervised the programs that I got funding
from. Then he was part of the White House during the [William J. “Bill”]
Clinton administration. He’s the one that explained climate
change to the Vice President [Albert A. “Al” Gore, Jr.]
at the time. When he got on committees and when the administration
changed, they wanted him to shut up. He eventually got taken off some
commissions and he went back to Europe. He’s had a very good
career then. A few years ago [in 2012] he was knighted by the Queen
[Elizabeth II].
All of them were just doing what they wanted with enthusiasm. They
were pursuing science, an interesting science question. They found
fame and fortune, so to speak, as a result of their unusual dedication
to a problem.
Ross-Nazzal:
Given the fact that you studied methane, do you feel like you’ve
contributed a great deal to the understanding of global warming and
climate change? Do you think that you’ve had that sort of impact?
Brown: I think
I’ve provided the information for people who evolved the understanding,
yes. That wasn’t my goal, I was just having fun. I aided the
remote sensing effort by my research, so they could go out and get
real numbers about what’s happening—I think that would
be my contribution to that.
Ross-Nazzal:
Thank you very much for spending some time with us this afternoon,
we appreciate it.
[End of interview]
Return to JSC Oral History Website