Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 53
5
Report of the Pane' on
Enabling Concepts anti Technologies
INTRODUCTION
NASA's Enabling Concepts and Technologies
(ECT) program was created as one of three subpro-
grams of the Pioneering Revolutionary Technology
(PRT) program by the Aerospace Technology Enter-
prise (ATE) in October 2001. The program consists of
several elements that were previously funded under
separate programs throughout NASA. ECT is described
as the "front-end of the technology pipeline that feeds
the focused development and validation programs of
the NASA Enterprises" (Moore, 2002~. ECT is de-
scribed by the same source as the arm of NASA that
performs fundamental research and development of
"high-risk, high-payoff cross-cutting technologies with
broad potential application to the needs of multiple
Enterprises." According to Moore, the program objec-
tives for ECT are these:
.
.
.
The ECT program is divided into three main
projects, which map to these goals:
.
.
Explore revolutionary aerospace system con-
cepts to enable the grand challenges and strate-
gic visions of the NASA Enterprises and to
expand the possibilities for future NASA mis-
s~ons.
· Advanced Systems Concepts, which includes
three elements: Technology Assessment
Analysis (TAA), Revolutionary Aerospace
Systems Concepts (RASC), and the NASA In-
stitute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC),
Energetics, which includes Advanced Energy
Systems and On-Board Propulsion elements,
and
Advanced Spacecraft and Science Compo-
nents, which includes four elements: Advanced
Measurement and Detection (AMD), Distrib-
uted and Micro-Spacecraft (D&MS), Resilient
Materials and Structures (RMS), and Space
Environmental Effects (SEE).
An organization chart for the entire PRT program
can be found in Appendix C. Projects are located and
managed at four NASA centers: Glenn Research Cen-
ter, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Langley
Research Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The ECT program's projects and elements were
Develop advanced technology for sensing and
funded at the levels reported In Table 5-1. External
spacecraft systems to enable bold new m~s-
sions of exploration and to provide increased
scientific return at lower cost.
Develop advanced energetics technology to
provide low-cost power and propulsion for en-
hanced mission capabilities and to enable mis-
sions beyond current horizons.
iNASA research budgets, until the recent release of the proposed
FY2004 budget, were not presented in full-cost accounting form.
As a result, budget figures presented here do not reflect full-cost
accounting.
53
OCR for page 54
54
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
TABLE 5-1 Enabling Concepts and Technologies (ECT) Program Organization and Budget, FY2002 and
FY2003 (million $'a
Project/Element FY2002 FY2003
Advanced Systems Concepts project
Technology Assessment Analysis element
Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts element
NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts element
NASA Technology Inventory and Miscellaneous
Space Architect
Energetics project
Advanced Energy Systems element
On-board Propulsion element
Advanced Spacecraft and Science Components project
Advanced Measurement and Detection element
Distributed and Micro-Spacecraft element
Resilient Materials and Structures element
Space Environmental Effects element
Space-based NRAs
Congressional earmarks
ECT program, total
13.0
0.0
8.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
17.7
13.1
4.6
18.5
10.2
2.8
4.0
1.5
40.0
3.6
92.8
34.6
16.6
1.6
8.0
4.0
1.0
20.0
n/a
n/a
23.2b
13.1
3.9
4.7
1.5
40.0
n/a
114.5
aProgram organization and budgets for FY2005 and future years are currently under planning and as a result are not presented in this table.
Preliminary information indicates that further changes will be made to the ECT program at this time, including possible refocusing and
defocusing of several program elements.
bThis entry reflects the sum of projects and elements within ECT that were organized within the Advanced Spacecraft and Science
Components (ASSC) project in FY2002. During FY2003, projects were organized in a slightly different manner, which is not reflected in this
chart. Components of the ASSC project were broken into three new projects: Revolutionary Spacecraft Systems (including Distributed and
Microspacecraft and Space Environmental Effects), Advanced Measurement and Detection, and Large Space Structures (including Resilient
Materials and Structures and a new Large-Aperture Technology element). A third reorganization is anticipated in FY2005.
SOURCE: Adapted in part from Moore (2002 and 2003b).
NASA Research Announcements (NRAs), also re-
ferred to by the program as the Space-Based NRAs, are
funded at $40 million per year. This broad set of NRAs,
discussed in a section to follow, was designed to infuse
innovative technology into NASA from various ex-
perts, both foreign and domestic. Two future program
elements, Revolutionary Spaceflight Research and
Multi-technology Integrated Systems, were not evalu-
ated by the panel since they are not scheduled to begin
until FY2005.
The ECT program is also designed to promote a
transition between fundamental research and mission-
oriented, applied research (see Figure 5-1~. The goal of
the program is to fund 50 percent in the exploration
phase (TRL 1-3) and 50 percent in the transition phase
(TRL 4-6~. Furthermore, the intent of the exploration
phase is to promote the development of ideas from out-
side NASA via NRAs and other contractual mecha-
nisms. The transition phase is used to promote new
technologies to other NASA enterprises. The cofunding
of projects is emphasized in this phase.
REVIEW PROCESS
The Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies
was constituted in early June 2002 as one of three pan-
els supporting the Committee for the Review of
NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology (PRT)
Program. Its charge was to review all projects and ele-
ments within the ECT program. The ECT panel met
June 10-12, 2002, at NASA Ames Research Center in
conjunction with the Computing, Information, and
Communications Technology (CICT) and Engineering
for Complex Systems (ECS) panels. At this first meet-
ing, panel members received broad overviews of the
PRT program, the research within ECT, and the ele-
ments and tasks within the ECT projects. After this ini-
tial meeting, members of the panel visited various
OCR for page 55
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
Application 2
Exploration Phase Transition Phase Insertion Phase
1-5 years ' 3-9 years ~ 5-15 years
FIGURE 5-1 ECT program implementation strategy. SOURCE: Adapted in part from Moore (20021.
NASA field centers to interact directly with the re-
searchers and to delve more deeply into specific project
areas (see Appendix D).
Parallel to the site visits, panelists received re-
sponses from questionnaires designed to elicit infor-
mation on specific tasks within the ECT program (see
Appendix E). Information on the research's tie to pre-
vious work, potential customers for the technology,
roadblocks being faced, and other information were
obtained.
ECT panel members then met in Washington, D.C.,
for a final panel meeting to report on site visits, tele-
conferences, and other information-gathering activities.
Subgroups held meetings to come to consensus on fi-
nal observations, findings, and recommendations, and
the complete panel addressed similar topics from a glo-
bal standpoint. After the final meeting, the systems sub-
group of the panel held a final teleconference on Octo-
ber 3, 2002, with NASA PRT and ECT managers to
discuss the status of systems analysis and to address
issues that had arisen during the open sessions with
NASA in this area.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The following subsections present general findings
and recommendations that apply to the ECT program
as a whole. More detailed findings are presented in sub-
sequent sections that discuss individual projects and
elements within ECT.
55
Goals and Research Portfolio
The appropriateness of each research project was
evaluated based on (1) the relevance of the tasks to the
overlapping NASA strategic plans2 (Goldin, 2000;
O'Keefe, 2002), its science themes, and the derivative
missions and (2) the criteria for PRT research within
the charter and strategic plan of NASA's Office of
Aerospace Technology (Code R) (Venneri, 2001~. The
ECT panel also evaluated each project in terms of the
degree to which it is revolutionary or evolutionary, its
risk, and its orientation to fundamental science or ap-
plications. To distinguish evolutionary from revolu-
tionary, the panel assessed whether the work was (1) a
natural extension of known methods applied to the
same problem (evolutionary) or (2) a departure from
traditional methods, or used methods from another area
or discipline not normally applied to this field, or in-
volved the discovery or utilization of new physical dis-
coveries and theories or phenomena (revolutionary).
The panel understands that terms such as "revolu-
tionary" and "pioneering" can be subjective and un-
clear in the context of this review. In the area of space-
craft technologies, concepts can appear very
revolutionary and generate significant visibility for
2The PRT program was formulated under the NASA Strategic
Plan 2000. The program began operating under the new Strategic
Vision in April 2002, just a few months before the review began.
OCR for page 56
56
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
themselves yet provide little or no benefit to actual
space systems when flight engineered to the spacecraft
system level. For example, a new propulsion device
may be very efficient at accelerating propellant in the
laboratory and therefore seem attractive in terms of re-
ducing power and propellant requirements. However,
if this same device requires other high-risk, high-im-
pact subsystems, the additional requirements must also
be considered in the evaluation of the device. There-
fore, the following guidelines were adopted for use in
, . .
the review:
.
.
.
"Revolutionary" or "pioneering" technologies
are technologies that could have orders of mag-
nitude benefits for a spacecraft or space mis-
sion. Specifically, the panel recognizes a tech-
nology as revolutionary if it has the potential
to remarkably improve satellite and space mis-
sion performance, cost, or simplicity, taking
into account the issues associated with devel-
opment, qualification, and insertion into flight
systems.
Conversely, seemingly revolutionary new con-
cepts that do not consider the systems applica-
bility and impact are not automatically highly
regarded by the panel.
Since both cost and performance are principal
drivers in new technology development, revo-
lutionary new concepts are also evaluated in
terms of their total life-cycle costs, supportabil-
ity, and test and evaluation requirements.
The ECT program is intended to include both revo-
lutionary basic research and evolutionary basic or tran-
sitional work that meets NASA's needs. The balance
of this research should be consistent with top-level pro-
gram goals. In analyzing the entire portfolio of ECT,
the panel felt that the ratio between evolutionary and
revolutionary work should be reevaluated. It seems that
the program's top-level goals (Hanks, 2002) empha-
size revolutionary work while the program itself actu-
ally consists of both revolutionary and evolutionary re-
search. Placing an emphasis on research labeled
"revolutionary" might wrongly imply that evolution-
ary work has less value. What NASA appears to really
need is excellent quality, high-impact research.
A consideration in achieving such excellent qual-
ity is the degree to which the research is (and should
be) connected to an application. The ECT program
properly includes research across this spectrum. There
are applied projects well connected to specific mis-
sions, balanced by other projects more oriented to so-
lutions that can be generalized. ECT includes both ba-
sic and applied research.
Finding: To carry out its mission of both innovation
and transition, projects with varying degrees of risk
and maturity must be part of the ECT program.
Recommendation: Value should be attached to ex-
cellent quality research that will have (or could
have) a substantial impact on NASA missions, inde-
pendent of whether it is perceived to be revolution-
ary or not.
Recommendation: Regular critical reviews of the
progress of projects (both in-house and out-of-house)
should be performed, with periodic quantitative
reassessment of their relevance and system benefit to
proposed high-level NASA mission priorities and com-
parison with competing technologies.
At the same time, several elements within ECT
should reevaluate their portfolio and goals and consider
riskier, even revolutionary approaches. For example,
the Resilient Materials and Structures element should
consider more tasks that embrace the ECT far-reaching
vision of resilient materials and structures (Hanks,
2002), which involves concepts such as self-assess-
ment, self-healing, and multifunctionality. It is also im-
portant to note that the onboard propulsion Energetics
work has been purposefully chosen to be more evolu-
tionary in nature than other NASA programs in on-
board propulsion. (See additional discussion on page
72. ) The most rigorous way of choosing a research port-
folio should be through a systems analysis that consid-
ers the realistic potential of proposed technology de-
velopments. NASA should require, for example, that
research in radically new approaches consider perfor-
mance goals in relation to the current state of the art.
The performance of a new technology sometimes be-
gins behind that of a state-of-the-art technology, but
over time, the new technology should overtake and
exceed the old. The panel recognizes that there is not
always a way to rigorously represent new technology
in a systems analysis since appropriate performance
metrics may not yet be available. In this case, manag-
ers should use their current knowledge of potential
technological advances in concert with systems analy-
sis in order to not miss potentially revolutionary work.
OCR for page 57
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
This is particularly the case for research into mission-
enabling technologies that might not necessarily pro-
vide cost, weight, or power saving but instead might
enable missions that were previously technologically
impossible.
Program goals for the ECT program are well con-
nected to both PRT-level goals and Aerospace Tech-
nology Enterprise (ATE)-level goals that ultimately
feed into the NASA-wide goals developed in the 2000
NASA Strategic Plan (Goldin, 2000~. However, little
top-down strategic planning within ECT connecting
these top-level goals with the actual research being
performed was seen. The top-down direction may be
lacking simply because ECT inherited projects and
NRA work from the previous management of various
individual PRT components. The panel notes that
NASA managers plan to develop future portfolios
within this program using strategic planning tools and
processes, such as the Technology Assessment Analy-
sis (TAA). The panel supports a systems approach, but
notes the current direction of TAA may not provide
this capability (see TAA section).
The panel also observed that many of the elements
focused on individual technology advancement with-
out an overall look at the effect those individual com-
ponents had on an entire spacecraft system or a specific
mission. While increasing the performance of indi-
vidual components is important, the impact of various
choices on the entire system must be considered. The
panel was troubled by the lack of even simple (i.e.,
first-order) systems calculations to support technology
investment decisions. For example, the Stirling work
in Energetics (see page 76) has promise, but the panel
did not hear of an adequate assessment of the effects of
vibration on the entire spacecraft or a comparison with
other technological solutions in development at other
research organizations. The panel also saw several rou-
tine thermal projects within ECT that address the low-
est mass and cost elements of small satellites and there-
fore would be expected to have little impact.
Panel members note that most activity within ECT
focuses on space systems, yet the scope of the objec-
tives could also apply to planetary probes, rovers, and
other space exploration and development technologies.
Other NASA technology development programs that
are not within the purview of this review overlap the
ECT technology areas but are managed and funded
within other NASA enterprises. However, the basic
research being conducted by these other programs
should also be considered during ECT program portfo-
57
lio selection. For example, a NASA-wide microspace-
craft technology roadmap would enable better coordi-
nation between related technology development pro-
grams throughout NASA.
Finding: Many ECT tasks do not include a systems-
level viewpoint in their research. Systems analysis
was lacking in many areas and at various levels of
the ECT program.
Recommendation: Systems analysis should be
strengthened as a crucial part of the portfolio man-
agement and project selection process to support in-
vestment decisions in the technology areas needing
development. This process should recognize the pri-
orities NASA has for its missions and the potential
impact the research projects have on enabling and
enhancing those missions. This process should also
be applied to individual tasks and used by individual
researchers as a mechanism for ensuring that re-
search goals retain their original desired relevance.
However, it should not be so rigid as to disallow ser-
endipity and ideas of opportunity.
Technical Quality
Most of the tasks within the ECT program were
deemed either good or excellent on an individual basis.
A few projects had poor methodology, limited experi-
mental setups, and/or lack of planning, but they were
generally funded at relatively low levels. ECT panel
members judged approximately 20 percent of the ECT
program to be world-class (criteria listed in Chapter 2~.
Areas (and individual tasks) of world-class quality
singled out by the panel were these:
.
.
.
· Hall, ion, and pulsed plasma thrusters in elec-
tric propulsion, advanced photovoltaics tech-
nology, and advanced energy storage work, all
within the Energetics element,
The radio frequency/terahertz (RF/THz) thrust,
the focal plane thrust, microshutter arrays, and
microthermopile arrays within the AMD ele-
ment,
Modulation Sideband Technology for Abso-
lute Range (MSTAR) and formation flying
work within D&MS, and
Experimental and Analytical Methods for
Characterization of Gossamer Structures in
RMS.
OCR for page 58
58
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
The SEE element also provides a unique and much-
needed service to the spacecraft design community.
These areas of research are discussed in more detail in
the individual project and element sections below.
Finding: The panel judged approximately 20 per-
cent of the ECT program to be world-class. Specific
areas of world-class quality within the ECT pro-
gram include the radio frequency/terahertz thrust,
the focal plane thrust, the microshutter arrays, and
the microthermopile arrays in Advanced Measure-
ment and Detection; electric propulsion, advanced
photovoltaics technology, and advanced energy
storage in Energetics; modulated sideband technol-
ogy and formation flying in Distributed and Micro-
Spacecraft; and gossamer structure characteriza-
tion in Resilient Materials and Structures.
Generally the panel found good quality researchers
in all programs. There were, as for any program, re-
searchers at all levels of capability, experience, and
quality of work. Many of the top researchers also had a
firm grasp of what needed to be considered for a tech-
nology to be adopted by a mission or transitioned for
other uses. Such an understanding is not always found
in the research community or reflected positively in the
mission orientation and end goals of the ECT program.
In other cases, the ECT panel observed a lack of con-
nection between the researchers and their customers.
The role of on-site support contractors in the ECT pro-
gram was not made clear to panelists during site visits
or other briefings. Most support contractors work
seamlessly with NASA civil servants on a day-to-day
basis.
There were a few instances of researchers pursuing
concepts that they had invented and patented, such as
electric propulsion hollow cathodes, microelectro-
mechanical system (MEMS) Stirling coolers, and in-
tercalated graphite shielding. These tasks were funded
by the Energetics project, albeit at a relatively low and
appropriate level. In some instances a case could be
made that these research projects were out of scope and
better moved to another NASA center. However, the
ECT panel found this to be an excellent practice when
it comes to developing and retaining top researchers.
Scientists need the flexibility to pursue their new ideas.
Good managers provide these scientists with a reason-
able amount of time and funding to encourage innova-
tive concepts that can lead to pioneering, revolutionary
technology. Such "blue-sky" ideas may mature into
valuable and much-used technology.
The panel also noted instances where researchers
appeared overburdened with marketing and advocacy
activities that competed with existing and new research
for valuable time and resources, although the need to
"sell" a program is recognized.
Recommendation: Since flexibility and serendipity
are key elements of basic research programs, the
ECT program should continue to allow its top sci-
entists small, short-term amounts of funding to pur-
sue ideas that may not be entirely within the rigid
scope of the program or that may at first seem to
provide little return on investment.
Facilities at all locations were deemed excellent for
the types of work performed, the main exception being
the inability to test chemical propellants at NASA
Glenn. The E-beam lithography lab at the Jet Propul-
sion Laboratory (JPL) and the Polymer Rechargeable
Battery Lab and the electric propulsion test facilities at
NASA Glenn are all world-class facilities. More spe-
cific discussion of facilities can be found in the pro-
gram element sections below.
External peer review seems to be used effectively
in selecting the external work funded under Space-
Based NRAs and in the external NRA s within the SEE
element. However, the panel observed little evidence
of comprehensive external peer review of internal
NASA work in the ECT program. The panel notes that
PRT-wide reviews are performed by the PRT subcom-
mittee of the Aerospace Technology Advisory Com-
mittee (ATAC) and the PRT Technology Needs Coun-
cil; however, these reviews focus on programmatics
and not necessarily on technical quality. Peer review is
used at one of the ECT centers, NASA Langley Re-
search Center, to evaluate its own organization. How-
ever, this review is not taken into account by the PRT
management at NASA Headquarters in making pro-
grammatic decisions or evaluating technical quality.
Specific comments on the usefulness of the reviews
and the review process at NASA Langley are also out-
side the purview of this panel's work.
Publications can be an excellent way to evaluate
and ensure continued excellence in a research program.
The panel did observe that ECT researchers for the
most part had had a large number of conference papers
published. However, in many cases the researchers did
OCR for page 59
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
not take the extra step of preparing their work for peer-
reviewed journal publication, apparently because such
publication is neither encouraged nor explicitly sup-
ported by NASA management. The number of publica-
tions and patents in some specific areas of excellence
was, however, commendable, and is noted in the indi-
vidual project and element sections that follow.
NASA should maintain an environment that nur-
tures and rewards intellectual leadership and technical
excellence. Expectations should be aligned with the
metrics of excellence and leadership that apply within
the broader technical community for example, accep-
tance of work in refereed publications and the award of
patents. Metrics like these should be encouraged in
addition to, not in place of, metrics for measuring
progress toward technology maturation and transition
to NASA flight programs. The highest-quality tasks
managed to do both. The ECT panel does note, how-
ever, that it is sometimes difficult to publish articles on
technology under patent and undergoing the licensing
process.
Recommendation: ECT managers should imple-
ment a set of criteria, used either in a critical assess-
ment or in an external peer review, for assessing the
quality of in-house or external research. The assess-
ment should be carried out for ongoing projects and
proposed new efforts. Criteria should be adjusted
to reflect the expectations of different fields and
should include the number of peer-reviewed jour-
nal articles, the number of patents, and the number
of missions adopting the technology and its impact
on those missions.
Such assessments will not burden the staff of suc-
cessful programs since their delivered hardware and
publications are already a measure of their excellence.
Management and Strategic Planning
There is a general need for better strategic plan-
ning within the ECT program. The panel saw little top-
down direction for the program in this area. With the
exception of the Advanced Measurement and Detec-
tion (AMD) element and some new developments in
the Distributed Spacecraft Systems area, there was little
evidence that the portfolio and future work were
planned in a truly strategic manner. In part, this is due
to the circumstances that brought portions of the ECT
program together into a single program. These pro-
59
grams were originally conceived and begun in differ-
ent areas of NASA, often at different field centers and
sometimes with different goals, objectives, and man-
agement structures. Some of this dispersion of strate-
gic intent remains in the program.
Many managers admitted that they were awaiting
the technical and portfolio assessment capability touted
in the Technology Assessment Analysis (TAA) ele-
ment within the Advanced Concepts project. This ca-
pability, which would, in concept at least, provide valu-
able information for strategic planning, has not yet been
advanced to a point where it can be effectively and
confidently used. As recommended by the PRT com-
mittee in Chapter 2, systems analysis and research tech-
nical assessment capabilities should be developed and
would be useful tools for strategic planning.
Approximately 20 percent of the ECT budget is
devoted to Advanced Systems and Concepts (ASC);
this funding is supposed to serve as seed money for
new technologies. This is a reasonable portion of the
budget to devote to exploration, but it is disconnected
from the actual technology research and development.
In other words, little of the funded ASC work actually
stimulates a research program. It might be more appro-
priate to use some of this money to explore outside-
the-box ideas for example, 10 percent of the ASC
funding could be used at the overall ECT level uncon-
strained by project area and another 10 percent used by
the individual ECT element managers to explore out-
side-the-box technologies and concepts within their el-
ements. Another alternative is to measure the success
of ASC by how many of the ideas are transitioned to
projects in ECT and to fund future ASC work based on
past success.
These issues in strategic planning are due in part to
the lack of consistent objectives and funding and even
to management structure within NASA over the last
decade. A link can be shown between the stability of an
individual project and the project's technical perfor-
mance over a long time horizon. This is especially so
for the more fundamental and challenging research
tasks, in which basic advances in science and engineer-
ing are required. The ECT program is fundamental re-
search, and fundamental research often takes a long
time to bear fruit. However, the ECT program (or at
least those parts that were in the Space Technology
program) has undergone frequent and sometimes dis-
ruptive restructuring and reorganization. Most elements
of the ECT program (earlier, the Space Technology
program) have been managed by five different enter-
OCR for page 60
60
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
350
300
250
200
73 150
LL 100
50
o
Code R
Code X
Code S
Code R
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
FIGURE 5-2 Space technology program funding history. Legend: Code R. Aerospace Technology Enterpnse; Code C, Com-
mercialization Enterpnse; Code X, Advanced Technology Enterpnse; Code S. Space Science Enterpnse. Current NASA Codes
X and C are not the same organizations listed above. SOURCE: Taken in part from Moore (2002~.
prises within NASA in the last 10 years (see Figure
5-2~. The panel recognizes that certain program time
spans are imposed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). However, these OMB constraints in-
volve 5-year time horizons, while parts of the ECT pro-
gram have experienced 1- and 2-year lifetimes between
reorganizations. As a result, top-down planning and
direction (not to mention funding) were difficult to sus-
tain. The panel found, however, that the most success-
ful elements within ECT had managed to perpetuate
long-term research in spite of rather than because of
the changing program structure at the top. If current
plans for the FY2005 ECT program are implemented,
the ECT program will have undergone three top-level
organizational changes within the course of this review.
While the panel understands that many of the research
projects within these programs will continue, this is yet
another example of constant churning in the program.
Finding: The ECT program and its previous incar-
nation, the Space Technology program, have under-
gone frequent and disruptive restructuring and re-
organization over the past decade, which has af-
fected top-down planning and direction. This dis-
ruption has undercut the long-term support
necessary for fundamental research.
Recommendation: NASA should commit to and
provide a stable management environment that will
encourage and support long-term research within
both the agency and its community of collaborating
industrial, academic, and other government re-
searchers.
Managing risks in a basic research program is a
difficult task. By definition, portions of a research pro-
gram should contain a reasonable amount of risk due to
the uncertainty and serendipity that inhere in such pro-
grams. High-risk efforts should have risk-reduction
mechanisms built into their structure in order to drive
risk down to an acceptable level. The panel notes that
many individual areas within the ECT program address
OCR for page 61
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
risk satisfactorily. The AMD element employs a realis-
tic assessment of risk and addresses it well. The D&MS
testbed work inherently addresses risk while testing
integration issues before technologies are pursued fur-
ther. The Energetics project performs excellent work
in many areas, but the panel saw little treatment of risk.
By design, any work in systems analysis, if done prop-
erly, will address risk. However, risk assessment was
not a primary consideration in the ASC project.
A portion of strategic planning and management
should involve a determination of which portions of
the program should be performed in-house and which
portions of it outside. The ECT program in FY2002
comprised over 51 percent externally funded work
(Moore, 2002), most of it through a set of Space-Based
NRAs. While this statistic appears to demonstrate nu-
merical parity between in-house and outside work, it
should not be interpreted to mean there is an effective
mix between NASA and non-NASA personnel in the
projects. Collaboration outside NASA ranged from
excellent to good to, in some cases, poor. This means it
is not possible to draw general conclusions about the
level and quality of ECT-wide collaboration with ef-
forts outside NASA. Instead, the matter is discussed as
necessary in specific sections below. Most technolo-
gies within the ECT portfolio could (and should) be
open in some way to external research. The panel notes,
however, that NASA must continue to maintain exper-
tise in many technology areas where industry or other
government agencies do not have an interest or over-
lapping missions. There are also areas where NASA
must continue to maintain a knowledge base in order to
successfully plan missions and incubate new technol-
ogy. Examples of such areas are these:
.
.
.
Energetics project
Radioisotope powered devices
High-specific-impulse electric propulsion
(<2,500 s)
Radiation-tolerant solar power
Spacecraft batteries and fuel cells
Distributed Spacecraft element
Ultraprecision formation flying with large
baselines (100s of meters)
Control of large constellations/clusters of
formation flying satellites
Microspacecraft element
Technologies and integration of innovative
microsensorcraft
61
.
.
Technologies for microspacecraft in hostile
environments (i.e., solar proximity, outer
planets, etc.)
Miniature propulsion for control of large gos-
samer structures
Advanced Systems Concepts element
Systems analysis tools
Resilient Materials and Structures element
Gossamer structures
Space-durable materials
Deployable telescope technology
Conversely, there are areas in which NASA should
involve top external researchers in order to get new
ideas. The SEE element does this very successfully,
using $1.1 million of its $1.5 million FY2002 budget
to fund competitive research whether in-house or out-
side. Of the $1.5 million total, $927,000 is for work
performed completely outside NASA. Other areas
within the ECT program rely on Space-Based NRA s to
fund external work. The Energetics program, however,
could easily expand its interaction and cooperation with
external or other in-house NASA efforts.
A systems analysis and technical assessment capa-
bility, such as proposed by the TAA, is an essential
capability that NASA should have in-house so it can
properly judge its portfolio. While expertise from the
outside (i.e., from universities and industry) can supple-
ment this capability or help in the creation of tools, it is
important that the knowledge and a significant portion
of the analysis be performed within NASA so NASA
managers have the understanding necessary to make
sound decisions about technology balance and content.
Finding: The TAA element within the ECT pro-
gram is an important area for NASA to continue
investing in. However, the panel believes that the
element has not been given the emphasis it needs.
Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts
(RASC) and the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts
(NIAC) are parallel activities, the former in-house and
the latter outside. Having an ability to generate ad-
vanced concepts both within and outside NASA is im-
portant and should be maintained. However, as is
pointed out in the specific sections on these project el-
ements below, both the RASC and NIAC activities
should be tied closely with NASA's technology port-
folio as well as the missions it hopes to perform, be-
OCR for page 62
62
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
cause if the advanced concepts resulting from them are
not relevant, they will be ineffective no matter where
they are generated.
Recommendation: NASA should maintain internal
research and development activities and expertise
in areas unique to NASA's mission where commer-
cial or defense interests are limited and for items
that are on the critical path for future missions.
The sections that follow address each of the techni-
cal areas within ECT. Within each section are specific
observations, findings, and recommendations that ap-
ply to the respective areas.
NASA CROSS-ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS
During FY1999, the Office of Space Science at
NASA released a NASA Research Announcement
(NRA) entitled the Cross-Enterprise Technology De-
velopment Program (NRA-99-OSS-05~.3 The NRA's
goal was to infuse the agency with research at a low
level of technical maturity (i.e., basic research) to con-
ceptualize and develop revolutionary new technologies.
NASA centers, JPL, and other organizations were all
allowed to compete under the announcement (NASA,
1999~. Management of the awards was shifted to the
ECT program in FY2002.
Ten technology thrust areas were chosen in a broad
search: Advanced Power and On-Board Propulsion;
Breakthrough Sensor and Instrument Component Tech-
nology; Distributed Spacecraft; High Rate Data Deliv-
ery; Thinking Space Systems; MicrolNano Science-
craft; Surface Systems; Ultralightweight Structures and
Space Observatories; Next Generation Infrastructure
Systems; and Atmospheric Systems and In-Space Op-
erations. The effort ultimately awarded $40 million per
year to 111 awardees selected from 1,229 proposals.
Each award was for 3 years. The selection proceeded
as follows: First, 43 separate external technical peer
review panels4 evaluated all submitted proposals ac-
3Also referred to as the Space-Based NRAs.
4The names, affiliations, and expertise of the external reviewers
and the content of nonawardee proposals were not available to the
panel due to procurement sensitivities.
cording to criteria listed in the solicitation announce-
ment. Then, the top-rated proposals (which numbered
428) were evaluated for relevance to the needs of
NASA's various enterprises, with 111 of the them be-
ing selected based on various criteria. Table 5-2 shows
the selection in various thrust areas.
The NRA was advertised as "NASA's primary ve-
hicle for undertaking basic research within the Agency
to conceptualize and develop revolutionary new tech-
nologies" (NASA, l999~. The panel saw little evidence
of that boldness in the list of awarders.
Despite the lack of detailed information on all the
research performed under the NRA, the panel saw
many good ideas. However, across the awards, one
could question the degree to which they were "revolu-
tionary new technologies." For example, radioisotope
power sources, hot electron detectors, solid state
microrefrigerators, and thermochemical research on
sensing materials appear to be topics that are either al-
ready covered within the internal ECT portfolio or not
necessarily truly new ideas. The panel recognizes that
the process for selecting proposals was challenging
because of the large number of proposals and the wide
range of technologies and applications the NRA was
trying to support. The large number of technical review
panels make it difficult to normalize results across so
many panels and technical areas.
The panel observed that the management of the
NRA was problematic. The NRA s had been transferred
from the Space Science Enterprise to the Aerospace
Technology Enterprise when the Enabling Concepts
and Technologies (ECT) program was formed. This
management change, coupled with the broad focus of
the announcement, has led to a general lack of integra-
tion of the projects with NASA programs and centers.
However, the NRA s associated with the research top-
ics within the Resilient Materials and Structures (RMS)
element appear to be well integrated into the ongoing
research program. The element should maintain its cur-
rent procedure for integrating the Cross-Enterprise
NRAs.
This general disconnect between NASA programs
and the NRA awards is due in part to the competitive
environment set up between the awardees and the
NASA researchers who did not win awards. Effective
competition enhances productivity and quality. How-
ever, the winning teams are now competitors for fund-
ing and can no longer freely exchange ideas and find-
ings. For example, an excellent NRA contract may be
awarded to an outside group for a new thruster design,
OCR for page 63
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE 5-2 Cross-Enterprise Technology Development NRA Awards
63
Technology Thrust Area
Proposals
Reviewed
Proposals
Selected
Percentage
Selected
Percentage
of Total
Advanced Power and On-Board Propulsion
Breakthrough Sensor and Instrument Component Technology
Distributed Spacecraft
High Rate Data Delivery
Thinking Space Systems
Micro/Nano Sciencecraft
Surface Systems
Ultralightweight Structures and Space Observatories
Next Generation Infrastructure Systems
Atmospheric Systems and In-Space Operations
Total
172
308
73
90
114
106
80
140
99
47
1~129
13
40
7
13
10
10
2
9
6
111
7.6
13.0
9.6
14.4
8.8
9.4
2.5
6.4
6.1
2.1
9.8
11.7
36.0
6.3
11.7
9.0
9.0
1.8
8.1
5.4
1.0
100.0
but if the awardees have a firewall between their basic
research and the NASA Glenn test and analysis capa-
bility, more may be lost than gained from the competi-
tion. The panel believes that the NRA work could have
a higher payoff if individual NRAs were solicited in
various thrust areas and managed directly by the PRT
project most closely related to the subject matter, al-
lowing increased cooperation and interaction between
NASA researchers and those winning the NRAs.
The panel observed that NASA has showed little
ownership of the NRA work. As mentioned previously,
this is probably attributable to two factors: (1) allowing
NASA centers to compete for awards and (2) no clear
mechanism for evaluating progress during the award's
duration. The lifetime of the NRA awards, while excel-
lent for stability of research funding for the outside
contractors, seemed to cause problems with their man-
agement by NASA. Awarding 3-year-long NRA con-
tracts every 3 years with no rotation of awards or over-
lap of award tenure causes NASA management to be
locked into certain technology choices. A more stag-
gered approach to funding the NRAs should be consid-
ered. It is the panel's understanding that PRT/ECT
management plans to restructure the NRA solicitation
in the coming year to address these concerns. NASA
managers have proposed that, eventually, a rotating set
of technical topics be used each year, allowing for re-
search at various stages to be in progress at any given
time. To begin this process in FY2004, a portion of the
NRA funding will be used to transition the most prom-
ising work into various enterprises in NASA. The first
set of rotating topics will include advanced measure-
ment and detection technology, large-aperture technol-
ogy, and low-power microelectronics technology
(NASA, 2003a).
The panel agrees that the technical concept behind
the NRA is good. It will allow NASA to contract with
leaders in various fields external to NASA and could
prove to be an effective way to infuse many new and
revolutionary ideas into the NASA program with very
little risk and at relatively low levels of funding. How-
ever, the panel feels that the collaboration and manage-
ment of the NRA s could be improved in several ways.
Since September 2002, ECT management has held "re-
views" of the NRA work related to AMD, Energetics,
RMS, and D&MS in order to better integrate the re-
search in the ECT program. There are, however, no
current plans to review the NRA work that is directly
related to the CICT program. While such reviews are a
good start to improving the integration of external re-
search into the program, future NRA management
should expand opportunities for collaboration between
the awardees and NASA researchers.
Panel members briefly reviewed materials avail-
able from the NRA reviews. They found the overall
scientific quality of the work to be good. In the Ener-
getics area, however, the research was not always
aligned with NASA's mission and did not always ad-
equately evaluate system-level payoffs or identify the
mission-enabling drivers of such technology. Further
collaboration between the winning teams and NASA
will do much to improve this, as suggested above.
OCR for page 88
88
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
ity, but the panel has suggested ways to improve the
work or increase collaboration with other efforts, as
outlined in the sections that follow.
Research Portfolio
Most tasks fit within the stated objectives of the
RMS element. However, some are clearly stronger than
others and will have greater scientific impact for future
needs of NASA missions. The element tried to bring
different disciplines together, beginning with a 60-40
split between the number of applied and fundamental
research tasks. However, by having well-established
applied components in the element, the risks of indi-
vidual tasks were minimized, and the whole effort is
now moving toward 75 percent applied research and
25 percent basic research.
The balance of technology maturity in the whole
element is good. Advancing technology from a lower
to a higher TRL is a good decision that will enhance
the visibility and impact of the element. For even better
results, the element needs to focus on fewer but better-
interconnected tasks, which will also secure better tran-
sition of technology. Great benefits are expected from
moving the element's focus from lower precision struc-
tures to higher precision structures, e.g., antennas and
telescopes.
A shift in the balance between more fundamental
high-risk, high-payoff research and user-driven, lower-
risk, mid-payoff research is also warranted. The over-
all PRT program has a far-reaching vision of resilient
materials and structures (Hanks, 2002) that involves
concepts such as self-assessment, self-healing, and
multifunctionality. However, little of this grand vision
was apparent in the RMS tasks.
Recommendation: A shift toward higher risk re-
search on revolutionary materials and structures
and a longer-term vision would greatly enhance the
program. One example would be expanded research
on multifunctional material systems, active controls,
and advanced vehicle concepts, which would shift
the research focus from lower precision structures
to higher precision structures.
Overall, the quality of the work being done in RMS
Is good. As discussed above, several of the strongest
tasks had excellent publication records and were pro-
ducing work on a par with efforts in academia, the na-
tional laboratories, or large research centers in indus-
try. For example, the majority (about 80 percent) of the
publications, presentations, and patent disclosures for
the element come from two very successful tasks,
Space Durable Polymers and Experimental Methods
for Shape/Dynamic Characterization of Gossamer
Structures. Other tasks focused more on user-driven
research and were less productive in terms of scholarly
publications and presentations, but in many cases they
had greater relevance to specific NASA missions or
applications. The research under these user-driven
tasks would also be comparable to that conducted by
similar applied research pro crams in industry and at
DOD laboratories.
r- -~-
Most of the tasks in the RMS research portfolio are
relevant for future space technology and NASA mis-
sion needs. In particular, the ultralightweight, space-
durable materials and membrane structure technologies
under investigation have the potential to satisfy the
technology requirements for missions described in the
Space Science Enterprise and Earth Science Enterprise
mission sets, as defined in their long-term strategic
plans (NASA, 2000b,2001c). It appears, however, that
no relevant systems analysis has been done to quantify
the potential payoff.
Research Plans
The RMS element objectives are clearly defined
and are connected to the NASA mission and the PRT
goal of developing "revolutionary technologies and
technology solutions to enable fundamentally new
aerospace systems capabilities and missions" (Moore,
2002~. The development of space-durable materials,
multifunctional and adaptive structures, and large
deployable and inflatable structures to reduce space-
craft mass and launch volume and to improve space-
craft performance and reliability in extreme environ-
ments are the main objectives of the resilient materials
and structures element. These objectives are stated well
in NASA's Strategic Plan and its Vision (Goldin, 2000;
O'Keefe, 2002~. New research goals should be set
within the element, focusing on multifunctional mate-
rial systems, active controls, advanced vehicle struc-
tural concepts, and radiation shielding materials, which
will move the program from lower precision structures
to higher precision structures.
The task deliverables are clearly stated for most
components of the RMS element. The element should
OCR for page 89
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
consider whether the guiding technical metrics of the
deliverables are consistent with basic structure stiff-
ness requirements. For example, is a "reduction in mass
by a factor of 3" realistic in view of material specific
stiffness and deployed structure stability requirements?
Is there a fundamental limit to mass reduction given
known material properties? Also, a "reduction of the
package volume by a factor of 10" is meaningful only
if further constrained by the volume of the deployed
structural system, which also flows from the deployed
structure stability requirements.
The RMS element's key metrics for progress and
accomplishments were publications and the mentoring
of students. Metrics for quality of research should also
include patents, new analysis tools, and innovative ex-
periments. The funding for this element exhibited a
flexibility that is very positive for the health of the
whole effort. The element portfolio was refocused af-
ter the first year, consolidated during the second year,
and then expanded in the third year, with an emphasis
on the analysis that was needed for the research effort.
The analysis group that was added during the third year
provided a mechanism by which increased funding
could be wedged into the element. The quality of RMS
managers has been shown by the way they selectively
emphasize some tasks, eliminate others, and introduce
new ones. This flexibility was a positive aspect of RMS
that should be considered for other ECT projects and
elements. Because some tasks are not performing or do
not seem to map to RMS goals as well as others, the
panel believes they should be consolidated to achieve a
more focused RMS program.
Recommendation: RMS management should con-
tinue to reevaluate the research portfolio each year
in order to most effectively focus the research un-
der the current program's available resources.
There is adequate internal review of the element.
RMS program managers evaluate the element yearly,
refocusing it as necessary. The recent restructuring is a
strong indicator that the review process brings needed
reorganization in a timely manner. However, no exter-
nal review of the element' s portfolio is apparent.
The critical personnel and facilities were defined
clearly. The experimental facilities are certainly avail-
able and adequate. Critical personnel are available for
most of the efforts, even though external expertise (out-
side NASA) is, appropriately, sought in a few areas as
required.
89
Methodology and Scientific Hypotheses
Most of the research plans for individual tasks were
well formulated and comparable to work done else-
where within the government. Little RMS work could
be accurately called "academic" or basic research, so
such a comparison would be inappropriate. Most of the
plans were focused on the application of basic technol-
ogy to particular structural architectures or materials.
The panel did not observe any scientific hypoth-
eses to specifically support the experiments that were
under way. Most were "tests" or "demonstrations"
rather than experiments in the strictest sense. In one
case (Experimental Methods for ShapelDynamic Char-
acterization of Gossamer Structures), this was appro-
priate, because the activities involved sensor and meth-
odology development efforts. However, one might
expect that the work on sensor technology should con-
sider specific experimental hypotheses in future activi-
ties for example, a hypothesis on critical load levels
leading to particular wrinkle patterns. Experiments
should be devised that focus on such an issue rather
than on a system-level demonstration.
One of the strong points of the RMS element was
the integration of lab equipment, modeling and simula-
tion, and field testing. The element is close to provid-
ing a direct correlation between the buckled thin-mem-
brane wrinkle patterns observed in the laboratory and
those predicted from analysis with a commercial finite-
element model code. However, this comparison will
only validate the nominal static stiffness of membrane
structures. The research should also address the predic-
tion of dynamic response.
One weak point in the RMS element was the lack
of system-level assessments of the research. It seemed
that most of the work was directed at membrane struc-
tures, but the design goals or performance breakpoints
were not quantified. In fact, such structures may be
useful only to particular missions, such as solar sails,
unless the effects of structural instability and low fiber-
volume fraction can be mitigated. When goals were
identified, they were generally not linked to system-
level impacts. The importance of evaluating system-
level impacts applies to all areas of the ECT program
and is a major recommendation of the panel. NASA
should undertake a series of mission studies that use
system-level sensitivities to guide research directions.
The element is largely a bottom-up portfolio, based on
the local interests of the researchers. A balance of top-
down and bottom-up research should be sought.
OCR for page 90
9o
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
The RMS element intends to redirect the portfolio
into higher precision structural technology over the
next 3 to 5 years. This should be augmented to include
more aggressively visionary technologies, such as
smart materials and multifunctional structural compo-
nents and systems.
Technica/ Community Connections
1
The membrane structures research in RMS over-
laps with similar efforts at AFRL. However, the NASA
activity in basic test instrumentation for membrane
structures appears to be a unique capability. The rela-
tively low level of activity on smart materials appeared
to duplicate some of the work being done for the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) and
AFRL.
The tasks showed an appropriate interaction with
non-NASA experts, particularly those from other gov-
ernment laboratories and industry. Most of the indus-
trial interaction consisted of leveraging NASA Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards or coop-
erating with a DARPA program. The use of academic
researchers was noticeably lacking, with such funding
accounting for less than 2 percent of the total RMS
budget. The RMS element's outside work is Primarily
in the Cross-Enterprise NRAs, the Small Business In-
novative Research program, and a few unsolicited
small university grants. There was some commendable
leveraging of SBIR and NRA activities to complement
the in-house work.
Researchers are in large part widely published in
conference proceedings. They should increase their
publication in peer-reviewed journals to enhance their
interaction with the broader research community.
NASA management should support and encourage this
publication and interaction. Also, in the past, travel
funds were linked to salary line items. As a result,
NASA personnel had difficulty traveling to visit other
researchers or to attend conferences. This situation can
only be addressed at the highest levels within NASA.
In the past year, NASA has moved to a full-cost ac-
counting method, which may change the way travel
funds are allocated.
Faci/ities, Personne/, and Equipment
The RMS element benefits from well-qualified
NASA personnel to carry out the necessary research
tasks. There is a complementary mix of personnel spe-
cializing in experimental and analytical work as well
as a broad range of disciplines including materials sci-
ence, physics, mechanics, and structural engineering.
The program also has strong interaction with academia
and industry through the Cross-Enterprise NRAs,
which have been heavily leveraged by several research
efforts.
The equipment that was viewed during the labora-
tory tours was in good working order and provided the
necessary capabilities for the research at hand. NASA
Langley clearly has unique capabilities for the testing
of large space structures. Its high bay and large vacuum
chambers are national resources that should be main-
tained and possibly enhanced. The state-of-the-art
equipment used for the photogrammetric dynamic/
shape measurements of gossamer structures is particu-
larly noteworthy and provides a unique measurement
capability. The facilities and work environment were
also well suited for the research tasks. The facilities at
NASA Langley enabled several unique capabilities
such as the ability to test 30-m rigidizable columns in
compression and 10-m solar sail panels in vacuum.
NASA should consider component and subsystem test-
ing of parts of the Webb Observatory as a mechanism
for improving in-house test and analysis capability.
Contracts are well integrated with the stated goals
and objectives of the RMS element. Based on the lim-
ited information available, there appears to be little
duplication with other government capabilities. As
stated previously, several of the capabilities and facili-
ties used in this program are unique.
Recommendation: NASA Langley Research Center
should maintain its unique ability to test large space
structures in its high bay and large vacuum cham-
bers, which are national resources.
Space Environmental Effects Element
/ntroduction
The Space Environmental Effects (SEE) element
within the ECT program develops engineering tech-
nology products in the areas of electromagnetic effects
and space charging, ionizing radiation, meteoroid and
orbital debris, and neutral external contamination,
among others (Kauffman, 2002). The element is mod-
estly funded at $1.5 million for both FY2002 and
FY2003.
OCR for page 91
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
Genera/ Observations
The Space Environments and Effects (SEE) ele-
ment, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center
(MSFC), is unique within NASA in that it is the only
activity that develops and distributes computer codes,
models, tools, and guidelines for dealing with space
environment effects on the design of spacecraft sys-
tems. The spacecraft design community across the na-
tion extensively uses the deliverables issued by the SEE
project to improve the reliability and survivability of
future space missions.
The SEE element is currently conducting research
and developing codes to predict outgassed material
contamination, space plasma interactions with space-
craft, the size distribution and damage impact of space
projectiles, deep charge storage in insulators, and risk
assessment of solar particle events. The element is com-
pleting a highly collaborative 5-year effort with the
AFRL Hanscom laboratory to develop a comprehen-
sive revision to NASA's spacecraft charging analysis
codes (NASCAP-2K).
The project heavily leverages the activities of over
100 scientists and engineers from industry, academia,
NASA, and other government agencies through the
SEE Technical Working Group. The scientists and in-
stitutions selected to work on the SEE-funded projects
are all highly respected within the space science com-
munity.
The SEE element is an engineering technology de-
velopment activity (TRL 4-6) and does not involve a
lot of risk. Because it is neither a fundamental research
project nor an applied research project, it will not lead
to breakthrough results. Rather, the SEE project is a
pragmatic and necessary activity that produces reliable,
standard design codes needed and used by the entire
spacecraft design community. The SEE project is ac-
complishing its goals. Priorities for future activities are
determined by a steering group of NASA/AFRL senior
technical and program personnel. The panel does note
that the high TRL of this activity means that its goals
do not necessarily fit in with the more revolutionary
goals of the ECT program. This project should con-
tinue to be funded and supported by NASA owing to
its importance to the nation; however, it should be con-
sidered for placement within another element of NASA
funding.
Finding: The SEE element is a unique, pragmatic,
and much-needed technology development activity
91
that produces standard design codes, models, tools,
and guidelines for dealing with the effects of the
space environment on the design of spacecraft sys-
tems that are used by the entire U.S. space commu-
nity. The SEE element demonstrates good coopera-
tion with the AFRL in selecting relevant topics and
makes excellent use of NRA opportunities to select
the best scientists and engineers in the nation to con-
duct research. The SEE element is accomplishing
its goals and widely distributes the results to the
space science and design communities through re-
ports, publications, and symposia.
Recommendation: The SEE element's technology
development activity should be continued but
should be considered for placement within another
funding element of NASA. The concept of technical
working groups used by the element's management
should be considered for other areas of the PRT
program.
Research Portfolio
The SEE research portfolio currently consists of
nine tasks that are performed at various institutions by
respected scientists in the space science community.
All tasks were selected from responses to a NASA Re-
search Announcement (NRA8-31) using a peer review
selection process. All tasks are funded yearly starting
in FY2002, with options for additional funding up to a
maximum of 3 years, i.e., through FY2004. In addi-
tion, the SEE project was directly funding the comple-
tion in FY2002 of three tasks: Satellite Contamination
and Materials Outgassing Knowledge Base, a physics-
based Integrated Environments Tool that models mi-
crometeorite environments in interplanetary space, and
the collaborative NASCAP-2K code described above.
The panel did observe that the recent and current
SEE tasks are more focused on near-earth space envi-
ronments. While this is an important area for continued
research, the SEE element should consider expanding
its portfolio to include more basic research in space
environmental effects for deep space missions.
Recommendation: Future SEE element activities
should consider adding to SEE's portfolio more re-
search tasks dealing with future NASA deep space
· ~
mlsslons.
OCR for page 92
92
Research Plans
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
All of the tasks in the current SEE element's port-
folio contain realistic, measurable goals and mile-
stones. Progress is assessed through quarterly techni-
cal reports and reviews. The tasks are all low to medium
risk (TRL 4-6) and performed by experienced scien-
tists, so the probability of completing the stated objec-
tives is high. The computer codes, models, and data-
bases provided as deliverables are needed and used by
the entire spacecraft design community at NASA, the
U.S. Air Force (USAF), and aerospace companies. The
funding levels in general are adequate to accomplish
the tasks, particularly since the element heavily lever-
ages other funding at the performing institutions.
Methodo/ogy and Scientific Hypotheses
The fact that the tasks are competitively selected
from the space science community based on NASA
priorities determined by the NASA/AFRL Technical
and Program Steering Group assures that the right re-
sources and personnel are being applied to the most
relevant challenges. The SEE project is highly collabo-
rative, with research being performed at the various
USAF research laboratories and activities relevant to
NASA priorities being funded and incorporated into
the appropriate space environment databases. One of
the principal challenges is the resolution of conflicting
data obtained from different sources. In these cases
additional tests are conducted to resolve discrepancies
and to increase the accuracy of the resulting models,
codes, and tools. Gaps and weaknesses in current mod-
els are used to guide new space and ground data collec-
tion activities.
Technica/ Community Connections
There are approximately 100 people within the
SEE technical working groups, including 50 from in-
dustry, 12 from academia, 32 from NASA centers, and
6 from other government institutions. Membership and
collaborative activities encourage the exchange of
knowledge and avoid duplication of research. The SEE
element is also collaborating with AFRL Hanscom and
the European Space Agency to sponsor the Eighth
Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, to be
held in October 2003. Topics such as models and com-
puter simulations, ground-testing investigations and
techniques, on-orbit missions and investigations, envi-
ronment specifications, plasma propulsion, and mate-
rials development will be discussed. Participation in
conferences such as this provides an excellent opportu-
nity to discuss and disseminate the end products of the
SEE element and to learn of new results that can be
incorporated in future SEE tasks. The SEE element has
funded work resulting in 33 publications since 1994
and eight new models or tools for distribution. (This
does not include publications of members of the tech-
nical working groups.)
Faci/ities, Personne/, and Equipment
The SEE element does not possess extensive fa-
cilities or equipment but uses instead the resources of
the various institutions conducting the contracted re-
search. Through a competitive process involving sci-
entific peer review, the most capable scientists and in-
stitutions are selected to perform all of the tasks in the
SEE element. This approach assures that the best sci-
entists, test facilities, and equipment are always se-
lected to conduct a task without incurring the overhead
and maintenance costs associated with an in-house ca-
pability.
REFERENCES
Augustine, N., et al. 1990. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future
of the U.S. Space Program, December. Washington, D.C.: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Bearden, D.A. 1999. A Methodology for Spacecraft Technology Insertion
Analysis Balancing Benefit, Cost, and Risk. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Southern California, May.
Beichman, C.A., N.J. Woolf, and C.A. Lindensmith. 1999. The Terrestrial
Planet Finder (TPF). NASA/JPL Publication 99-3.
Cassanova, Robert. 2002. NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Phase I
Evaluation Form.
Chao, C.C., G.E. Peterson, E.T. Campbell, and D.J. Dichmann. 2000. Col-
lection of Code S Mission Profiles for Distributed Spacecraft. Report
TOR-2000(2131)-1. E1 Segundo, Calif.: The Aerospace Corporation.
Farris, Bob, Bill Eberle, Gordon Woodcock, and Bill Negast. 2001. Inte-
grated In-Space Transportation Plan Phase I Final Report, September
14. Huntsville, Ala.: Gray Research, Inc.
Ferebee, Melvin J., Patrick A. Troutman, George G. Ganoe, Jeffrey T.
Farmer, Frederic H. Stillwagen, Washito Sasamoto, Donald W. Monell,
Robert F. Estes, Michael L. Heck, Carolyn C. Thomas, and Paul A.
Garn. 1994. Satellite System Design and Simulation Environment
(SSDSE): A Survey of Space Systems Analysis Software Tools and
Models. Unpublished report. Langley, Va.: NASA Langley Research
Center.
Goldin, Daniel. 2000. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Stra-
tegic Plan 2000, September. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
Martin, R.M., and M.J. Stallard. 1999. Distributed Satellite Missions and
Technologies The TechSat 21 Program. AIAA Paper 99-4479. AIAA
Space Technology Conference, Albuquerque, N.M., September.
OCR for page 93
OCR for page 94
OCR for page 95
OCR for page 96
OCR for page 97
OCR for page 98
Representative terms from entire chapter:
energetics project
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
Moser, R., A. Das, R. Madison, D. Collins, R. Ferber, G. Jaivin, M.J.
Stallard, and J. Smith. 2001. "Novel missions for next generation
microsatellites: The results of a joint AFRL/JPL study." Paper Number
SSC99-VII-1 in Proceedings of the 13th Annual AIAA/USU Confer-
ence on Small Satellites, August 23-26. Logan, Utah: Utah State Uni-
versity.
NASA. 1999. Selection Statement: NASA Cross-Enterprise Technology
Development Program, NRA 99-OSS-05.
NASA.2000a. The Sun-Earth Connection Roadmap: Strategic Planning for
2000-2025. Available online at
94
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
ANNEX: TECHNOLOGY GRADUATION PATHS-
EXAMPLES OF THE MATURATION PROCESS IN
THE ECT ADVANCED MEASUREMENT AND
DETECTION ELEMENT
The Advanced Measurement and Detection
(AMD) element within the ECT program has devel-
oped an excellent process for maturing technologies.
Each technology is examined for possible overlap with
various graduation paths both internal and external to
NASA. Figure 5-A-1 shows how that process works.
Possible paths include (1) direct insertion into a NASA
mission, (2) competitive space and earth science and
biological and physical research instrument programs
(such as PIDDP, SARA, ROSS, IIP, AEMC), (3) fo-
cused technology programs, and (4) non-NASA efforts
in both the federal government and industry. The AMD
element gave the panel many examples of specific tech-
nologies that had followed various graduation paths
successfully. Twenty of those examples are listed in
Table 5-A-1.
One success occurred in the area of uncooled ther-
mopile broadband detector arrays. Figure 5-A-2 pro-
vides a schematic of the technology research funding.
the competitive call used to transition the technology
to a NASA mission area, and the specific NASA mis-
sion on which the technology was baselined. Research
into the uncooled thermopile arrays began in what is
now called the ECT program in FY1995 and lasted
until FY2000. The technology was then transitioned
into the Space Science Enterprise through the PIDDP,
where focal planes for a waveguide spectrometer based
on linear array technology was funded from FY1999
until FY2003. This focal plane technology was subse-
quently used for the Mars Climate Sounder (MCS) in-
strument in the Mars '05 mission based on the thermo-
pile linear detector arrays. The AMD program is now
funding the next generation of uncooled two-dimen-
sional thermopile detector arrays beginning a new cycle
of technology maturation and graduation.
Briefings
Tim Krabach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "Advanced Spacecraft Systems:
Advanced Measurement and Detection," presentation to the ECT panel
on June 11, 2002(a).
Tim Krabach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "Uncooled Thermopile Broad-
band Detector Arrays Graduation Path," material provided to the ECT
panel on November 6, 2002(b).
Tim Krabach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "Graduation Paths for Advanced
Measurement and Detection Development," material provided to the
ECT panel on November 6, 2002(c).
PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
/
l
FIGURE 5-A-1 Graduation paths used by the Advanced Measurement and Detection element. SOURCE: Adapted in part from
Krabach (2002a, 2002c).
NASA Mission Code S
Mars '05 FY2002-FY2003 Focal
planes for MCS instrument based on
thermopile linear detector arrays
Code S Competitive Call
P!DDP FY' 999-FY2003 Focal
planes for waveguide spectrometer
based on linear array technology
ECT Technology Task
FY1995-FY2000: Uncooled thermopile
broadband linear detector arrays
FY2001-FY2005: Next generation of
uncooled 2D thermopile detector arrays
FIGURE 5-A-2 Graduation path for uncoated thermopile broadband detector arrays. SOURCE: Adapted in part from Krabach
(2002b).
95
96
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
TABLE 5-A-1 Graduation Paths for Various AMD Technologies
Direct Transfer Examples
Hybrid Imaging Technology (HIT) task
E-Beam Lithography Development task
Silicon Nitride Micromesh Bolometer task
HIT for Mars '05 Op-Nav camera
Gratings for Hyperion (EO-1), Warfighter,
COMPASS, CRISP (Contour)
Gratings for upcoming CRISM (Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter) and HSIT (SPIRITT)
Herschel and Planck missions
Superconducting Detector and Mixing tasks Herschel, Planck, and SOFIA
Casimir instrument
Insertion in progress (camera will
demonstrate high-accuracy approach
navigation)
Insertion in progress
Insertion in progress
Insertion in progress
Code S Technology Call Transfers
Code R Work Code S Task/Call Relationship
Hybrid Advanced Detector for Space
Physics Instrument task
Lidar for Mars Missions task
Geochronology task and Miniaturized
Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer task
Microfluidics task
PIDDP: compact, low-voltage, high-resolution, Technology development initiated and
robust solar-blind UV imager enabled by Code R
PIDDP: Planetary Microlidar for
Wind and Dust
PIDDP: In Situ Geochronology System Based
on Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
and Noble Gas Mass Spectrometry
ASTEP: AstroBioLab A Mobile In Situ
Subsurface Biotic Detector and Soil Reactivity
Analytical Laboratory
ELXS development task (finished in FY01) ASTID: Electron-Induced Luminescence and
X-Ray Spectrometer (ELXS) System for
Life Detection
Technology development initiated and
enabled by Code R
Technology development initiated and
enabled by Code R
Technology development initiated and
enabled by Code R
Technology development initiated and
enabled by Code R
Miniaturized Quadrupole Mass ASTID: Measurement of Isotopic Composition Technology development initiated and
Spectrometer task of Iron Oxides as a Biosignature on Mars enabled by Code R
Development of Carbon Nanotubes task
Tunable Laser Diodes Development task
ASTID: Detection of Nanoscale Activity
(DNA) with Carbon Nanotubes Used as
Mechanical Transducers
MIDDP: Tunable Laser Spectrometers for
Mars Scout Mission
Technology development initiated and
enabled by Code R
Technology development initiated and
enabled by Code R
PANEL ON COMPUTING, INFORMATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 5-A- 1 (continued)
97
Focused Technology Programs
Status
Tunable Laser Diodes task Mars Focused Technology: Tunable Laser · Development of near-IA tunable laser
Spectrometers for Atmospheric and Subsurface spectrometers (TRL 4-6) for Mars
Gas Measurements on Mars · Measurement: lander, balloon,
cryobot, probe; atmospheric and
subsurface (evolved) gases and their
isotopic ratios
· Science: biogenic signatures, mineral
composition, climate history
· Emphasis on space-qualifying laser
sources and signal processing
electronics
Hybrid Imager task Mars Focused Technology: Optical · Mars Exploration Program is planning
Navigation Camera to use optical navigation for mission-
critical guidance in CNES '07, MSL
'09, and MSR '13
· The accuracy required for optical
navigation is better by a factor of 10
than has ever been demonstrated at
Mars (by Viking Orbiters)
Code U Competitive Call
Code R Work Code U Task Status
Nanotube Based Nanoklystron BSRP: Remotely Coupled DC Power for Proposed technology development
Technology task Driving Nanotubes initiated and enabled by Code R
Antimony Based Lasers task AEMC: Tunable Diode Lasers for Trace Proposed technology development
Gas Monitoring initiated and enabled by Code R
Microfluidic Technology Development task AEMC: Microfluidic Lab-on-a-Chip Ion
Analysis for Water Quality Monitoring
Proposed technology development
initiated and enabled by Code R
Sensors for Electronic Nose task AEMC: Ground Testing of the Second Proposed technology development
(NRA with NIST) Generation Electronic Nose for Air Quality initiated and enabled by Code R
Monitoring in Crew Habitat
Code Y Competitive Call
Code R Work Code Y Task Status
MEMS Transmit/Receive Module for ACT: Ultra-High Efficiency L-Band Proposed technology development
Thin-Film Membrane Antennas task Transmit/Receive Modules for Large-Aperture initiated and enabled by Code R
Scanning Antennas
ACT: T/R Membranes for Large-Aperture
Scanning Antennas
Solar Blind Detectors ACT: Development of Large Format Visible- Proposed technology development
NIR Blind Gallium Nitride UV Imager for initiated and enabled by Code R
Atmospheric Earth Science Applications
NOTE: See Appendix F for the spelled out form of the acronyms in this table.
SOURCE: Adapted in part from Krabach (2002c).
An Assessment of NASA 's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program
allucled to by the ECT management, but it was uncertain how they would be used. As a
whole it was unclear exactly who wouIc! perform the work and how any of the TAA effort
would be completed in light of the changing clefinition of this proposed new area for
FY2003. In March 2003, pane! members received an update on the plans for TAA. It is
now focused on four pilot mission studies actually selected by and performed in
conjunction with personnel associated with different NASA enterprises: (~) large
telescope systems (Code S), (2) Lidar Observatories (Code Y), (3) Space Power Systems
(Cocle M), and (4) Automation of Microgravity Research (Code U) (Moore, 2003a).
TAA's focus is currently on mission scenarios chosen by other NASA enterprises and
staffed by individuals associated with those enterprises. Each pilot study uses tools
aireacly developed and utilized by other NASA enterprises. Each pilot study is scheclulect
to run for 6 months so that results can be used in planning the FY2005 ECT program and
NRA topic selection for future years. The top-level approach presenter! for TAA (i.e.,
progressing from desired science goals ant! capabilities to identifying potential technical
concepts to determining system-level benefits of new technologies and finally using a
prioritization process to optimize the technology portfolio) is sound in concept. However
there was no clear inclication that TAA, as structured for FY2003 with pilot studies, will
ever develop a true portfolio analysis too! set. NRC panelists also saw no plans for the
future development of new tools under TAA.
Rather than perform narrow mission studies, as proposed, TAA shouicl focus more
broadly on how technologies support the NASA mission set and on evaluating competing
technologies. Code R's mission is to clevelop technologies across the entire agency, not to
fund pilot studies for other NASA enterprises. The panel recognizes that knowledge of
mission enterprise needs is key to effectively using scarce technology development
resources. However, Code R's basic research should be funding cross-agency enabling
technology and the tools needed to evaluate its applicability across the agency.
One example of technology assessment and prioritization is the recent work clone for
the NASA Integrated In-Space Transportation Planning (FISTS) Phase ~ activity (Ferris et
al., 2001~. Conductec! in 2001, the IISTP activity involved a NASA-wicle team of more
than 100 engineers and scientists assessing and prioritizing in-space propulsion
technologies. In a 6-month period, the IISTP effort evaluated primary propulsion
systems for transportation between various in-space destinations for nine potential
missions selected from the NASA mission set that inclucled the Earth Science Enterprise,
Space Science Enterprise, and Space Flight Enterprise missions. Seventeen propulsion
architectures were evaluated and priorities assigned to the technologies according to their
ability to meet mission requirements, sche(lule, cost, and other selection criteria. Thirty-
one figures of merit were selected, scored, and balanced using Kepner-Tregoe and
Quality Function Deployment techniques. Cost-benefit analysis was also assessed and
uses! with a figure of merit rating to prioritize these technologies.
While one can debate if this exact process is the proper one, TAA should emulate the
characteristics of a focus on technology, a broact view across the NASA mission set, a
review of a technology type with a common set of merits, and performance of cost-
benefit analysis. If TAA finds itself short of funds to perform a review of the complete
ECT portfolio, pilot studies on a few specific technology types should be complete(l.
This is strongly preferrer! over the mission ant! enterprise focus currently proposed.
98
