National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program (2003)

Chapter: 5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies

« Previous: 4. Report of the Panel on Engineering for Complex Systems
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"5. Report of the Panel on Enabling Concepts and Technologies." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10810.
×
Page 98

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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-

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

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-

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,

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.

64 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Finding: The ECT panel observed a general lack of integration of Cross-Enterprise NRA research with NASA programs and centers, limiting the overall return on investment. Finding: The NRA structure in which NASA cen- ters compete with universities, industry, other agen- cies, and with one another has put NASA in a com- petitive position from which it can no longer freely share technical information with other researchers. This significantly reduces the payoff from the NASA investment in research at a low TRL. Recommendation: The research performed under Cross-Enterprise NRA contracts should be man- aged as an integral part of in-house PRT research activities, with individual program elements being responsible for the performance of the contract, in- cluding contract deliverables and milestone moni- toring. Element managers should participate in de- fining technical objectives for the NRAs, which should also be released on a more regular basis. El- ement managers most closely related to the subject matter should also participate directly in the selec- tion of proposals along with outside experts. Ele- ment managers should be responsible for ensuring that NRA contracts further the NASA mission, but NASA centers should not be allowed to compete for NRA funds. ADVANCED SYSTEMS CONCEPTS PROJECT The Advanced Systems Concepts project of the ECT program consists of three elements: the Technol- ogy Assessment Analysis (TAA) element, the Revolu- tionary Aerospace Systems Concepts (RASC) element, and the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts (NIAC). The first is meant to develop a tool to evaluate the ECT technology portfolio, while the last two elements are focused on creating new system concepts. The follow- ing sections discuss specific issues in the three elements and overarching systems analysis issues. General Observations It is difficult for the ECT panel to apply the same review criteria and the same review process to the Ad- vanced Systems Concepts project as to the other ECT projects and elements. As a fundamental research project, Advanced Systems Concepts does not meet many of the standards and expectations of the other PRT projects for example, refereed journal publica- tions, patents, and insertion directly into flight pro- grams. The RASC and NIAC elements are meant to incubate new concepts, and some have indeed served this purpose. The incubator analogy is used because, as in business start-up incubators, many ideas are sup- ported but only a few are successful. The TAA element is at an early stage of development, making it challeng- ing to effectively judge its merits. However, the panel does highlight areas of concern that should be ad- dressed as the project continues. Because of its nature, Advanced Systems Concepts is judged more on how it develops concepts and how it evaluates technology portfolios. This, however, does not diminish the importance of the Advanced Systems Concepts project to the PRT program and to NASA as a whole. As noted earlier in the report, the PRT committee observed gaps in sys- tems analysis capability throughout the PRT program, from top (management) to bottom (individual research team). Systems analysis was judged to be a NASA weakness in two previous National Research Council reports (NRC, 1997, 2001~. Even further back, the Re- port of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program (the Augustine report) recom- mended that "a systems concept and analysis group reporting to the Administrator of NASA be estab- lished" (Augustine et al., 1990~. Currently, many enti- ties within NASA are trying to fulfill such a need, but they lack coordination. The Advanced Systems Con- cepts project suffers from this same lack of coordina- tion and communication in terms of coordination within Code R itself and within NASA as a whole. However, this flaw should be viewed not as a reason to eliminate an area but rather as an opportunity to pro- vide a much-needed capability for NASA. During the course of this review, NASA created the position of Space Architect reporting to the NASA Administrator. One primary role of this position is to direct long-term strategic planning for space technol- ogy research at NASA (NASA, 2002~. Systems analy- sis should be a key part of this endeavor. The latest budget of the Advanced Systems Concepts project within the ECT program earmarks $20 million to the Space Architect for FY2003 (Moore, 2003b). It is the panel's understanding that this money will not be used by the ECT program but solely at the discretion of the Space Architect. However, the panel did not have the opportunity to review this new effort within the pro-

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES gram and cannot comment on whether it will provide the needed systems analysis capability. Recommendation: NASA should support a well-de- fined, coordinated, centralized systems analysis ca- pability that will work toward an agency strategy for technology development. The diversity of projects in the Code R program and within the PRT program specifically makes it a challenge to create common metrics for comparison of technologies. NASA's Space Science Enterprise (Code S) suggested a set of criteria (Thronson et al., 2002) that have uniform applicability: revolutionary aspect, cred- ibility of technology infusion plans, applicability to several missions, and criticality and relevance to mis- sion set. These criteria may be an appropriate starting point for Code R's metrics. In addition to this set of criteria, it is important that performance metrics also be established for similar types of technologies. For example, in power perfor- mance, metrics typically include expected mass sav- ings and improved efficiencies. Expected development time and cost should also be considered metrics. It was evident to the panel that while metrics are being used in some areas, there is little uniformity and consistency across similar technology areas. Often metrics are cre- ated by the technologists themselves, with limited re- view of their credibility by both internal and external parties. The TAA tool could provide this independent verification capability, but since it is not yet ready for use in this manner, it is difficult to determine if this independent verification capability will be achieved. It is also important to consider the full impact of a tech- nology on the performance of the entire system, not just the individual subsystem. For example, if a new power technology leads to greater efficiency but cre- ates higher thermal loads it must be determined whether this power advantage outweighs the potential thermal issues. So, rather than prescribing an exact set of gen- eral and specific metrics, TAA should work with each of the technology areas to determine the best metrics. Recommendation: A common set of technology metrics at the system or mission level, used to judge all technologies, and metrics specific to each tech- nology should be determined. An independent as- sessment must be conducted to verify a tech- nologist's claims against this set of metrics; this should be the job of TAA. The full system impact of 65 a technology should be understood and considered in research portfolio management. While pockets of excellence in systems analysis were observed in areas of ECT, the use of systems analysis to guide decision making and to evaluate tech- nologies was not pervasive. Systems analysis can be an effective tool for technology portfolio management. To illustrate, a very simple systems analysis was applied to the microspacecraft (MS) work in the D&MS ele- ment. The panel assessed the portfolio of MS work by comparing relative cost and mass of basic elements of small satellites. These data were obtained from a sur- vey of satellites weighing less than 500 kg (Bearden, 1999; Sarsfield, 1998), both earth-orbiting and inter- planetary. Figure 5-3 presents a historical cost and mass distribution for small satellites. Although the distribu- tion of cost and mass varies somewhat between sub- systems, the average shows the relative contribution of each subsystem to a generic satellite's cost and mass. The panel then compared these distributions with the relative number of MS tasks, addressing the cost and mass of each spacecraft subsystem (Figure 5-4~. The portfolio in September 2002 did not develop technolo- gies for some of the high-payoff subsystems and over- emphasizes some lower-payoff subsystems. For ex- ample, the power and structure subsystems are the heaviest and most expensive parts of a spacecraft and yet there are relatively few tasks in the portfolio ad- dressing these areas. Similarly, the thermal subsystem historically has been the least costly and least massive satellite subsystem, and yet there is a relatively large number of tasks in this area. Because of the interdependencies of spacecraft subsystems it is unsound to use the mass and cost con- tributions of the subsystems on their own as the sole basis for choosing a balanced portfolio. Some sub- systems will have a multiplying effect on cost and mass. For example, a reduction in the mass of a subsystem's components will also allow a reduction in mass of supporting structure and propellant, which needs to be accounted for in these assessments. An ex- ample of how these considerations might lead to a dif- ferent investment strategy is the thermal control prob- lem. Smaller satellites with higher performance will likely have to contend with thermal control problems owing to the reduction in radiator area. One might con- clude that the solution is to develop more capable ther- mal control technologies. On the contrary, it may be more effective to develop low-power-dissipation elec-

66 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 0.01 Mass Fraction 0.1 O0.1 - 0.01 · Thermal Propulsion Structures Telemetry, Tracking, and Command/Data Management (TT&C/DM) ~ Attitude Determination and Control · Power Cost Fraction FIGURE 5-3 Historical cost and mass distribution of small satellites. SOURCE: Adapted in part from Bearden (1999) and Sarsfield (1998~. Structure Thermal o% 17% ADACS 27% Avionics, C&DH 22% Propulsion 11% Power 17% FIGURE 5-4 Distribution of NASA ECT microspacecraft technology projects. Communications 6%

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES tropics that reduce the thermal problem and also pay dividends by reducing the power subsystem require- ments. This illustrates the need for higher-fidelity sys- tems analysis of technologies so one can decide if ther- mal subsystem investments make sense even though, as pointed out, they contribute little to cost and mass at the gross subsystem level. Second-order multiplier ef- fects not seen at the basic analysis level will be uncov- ered only if a more detailed systems analysis is per- formed. Some efforts have been made to develop the tools needed to improve the assessment of technology port- folios (Feingold, 2002; Weisbin, 2003; Bearden, 1999; Sarsfield, 1998), but further work is needed. This should be a focused effort of TAA, as discussed in a subsequent section. A similar survey, performed nearly a decade ago by NASA Langley (Ferebee et al., 1994), could be used as a starting point. Recommendation: To understand the state of the art in systems analysis and technology assessment tools, TAA should perform a survey of tools and processes both within and outside NASA. During review panel activities, it became clear that it would be difficult to get a complete handle not only on the technologies within PRT but also across NASA as a whole. As the NASA enterprise responsible for technology, it makes sense that Code R should have an integrated database that would give users the informa- tion they need on technologies in the PRT program and preferably for NASA as a whole. Not only is informa- tion on the technology itself important, but there must also be information on how to contact the technologists performing the work. The NASA Technology Inven- tory is supposed to serve this purpose, but it was clear to the panel that this database is not meeting that pur- pose nor is it widely used. As a result, many other areas of the agency have created their own technology data- bases, which inevitably leads to a lack of integration. Lessons can be learned from NIAC's virtual institute approach as well as the Office of Biological and Physi- cal Research's (Code U) separate online database.5 It is also important that NASA be able to understand re- lated technology being created by other government agencies. NASA databases should be coordinated with other government databases where appropriate. ssee <http://research.hq.nasa.gov/taskbook.cfm>. 67 Recommendation: NASA should develop a com- plete, integrated, online, public database of technol- ogy projects. This database should include not only Code R PRT projects, but also NASA-wide projects. It should be integrated with other government da- tabases as appropriate. Implied in these suggested improvements is im- proved coordination with the other parts of NASA. In order to understand how this technology portfolio re- lates to the missions of the other codes, ATE must work hard to improve communication. It was suggested by many of the enterprises (Thronson et al., 2002) that ATE fails to coordinate and involve the other parts of NASA in its initial planning. It was said that Code R often waits until after plans are created and then asks the other enterprises to help with justification (Thronson et al., 2002~. Recommendation: The Aerospace Technology En- terprise should strive to improve communication and coordination with the other codes. It is espe- cially important to involve the other codes in initial planning activities. Technology Assessment Analysis Element TAA's purpose is to strategically assess the Office of Aerospace Technology' s ECT technology portfolio, quantifying the value and progress of product lines and their potential benefit to future missions (Ferebee, 2002). The TAA activity solicits study topics from the Earth Science, Space Science, Space Flight, and Bio- logical and Physical Research Enterprises of NASA. TAA is led and integrated by NASA Langley Research Center and owing to its early emphasis on space and earth science, also involves JPL and Goddard Space Flight Center. It hopes to leverage the existing Code R Technology Inventory database as well as the mission design efforts of Goddard and JPL. TAA, a new activ- ity for FY2003, was originally funded at $3 million, with plans to increase funding to $4 million per year; however, its funding was scaled back to $1.6 million for FY2003. Throughout the review, TAA was an undefined process set to officially begin in FY2003, yet many areas of ECT looked to it for direction and prioritization during the summer of 2002. It is a capability that does not yet exist. The panel recognizes that TAA has been in a state of flux and the project is just now becoming

68 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM defined. Despite this serious lack of definition during formulation, the importance of this area is significant to the PRT program, Code R. and NASA as a whole. It merits much stronger consideration than it has received to date. Finding: The Technology Assessment Analysis ele- ment within the ECT program is an important area for NASA to continue investment. However, the panel feels that the area has not been given the em- phasis it needs. Recommendation: TAA must go beyond the early planning stages and become an actual capability. It should receive the attention and support that this critical capability merits. Throughout the course of the review, it was un- clear how the TAA studies would be performed. Some utilization of existing capabilities and tools at JPL and Goddard was alluded to by the ECT management, but it was uncertain how they would be used. As a whole it was unclear exactly who would perform the work and how any of the TAA effort would be completed in light of the changing definition of this proposed new area for FY2003. In March 2003, panel members received an update on plans for the TAA. It is now focused on four pilot mission studies actually selected by and per- formed in conjunction with personnel associated with different NASA enterprises: (1) large telescope systems (Code S), (2) lidar observatories (Code Y), (3) space power systems (Code M), and (4) automation of microgravity research (Code U) (Moore, 2003a). TAA's focus is currently on mission scenarios cho- sen by other NASA enterprises and staffed by individu- als associated with those enterprises. Each pilot study uses tools already developed and utilized by other NASA enterprises. Each pilot study is scheduled 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 presented for TAA (i.e., progressing from desired science goals and capa- bilities 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. How- ever, there was no clear indication that TAA, as struc- tured for FY2003 with pilot studies, will ever develop a true portfolio analysis tool 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 should focus more broadly on how technologies support the NASA mission set and on evaluating competing technologies. Code R's mission is to develop 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 de- velopment resources. However, Code R's basic re- search should be funding cross-agency enabling tech- nology and the tools needed to evaluate its applicability across the agency. One example of technology assessment and prioritization is the recent work done for the NASA Integrated In-Space Transportation Planning (IISTP) Phase I activity (Ferris et al.,2001~. Conducted in 2001, the IISTP activity involved a NASA-wide team of more than 100 engineers and scientists assessing and priori- tizing 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 included the Earth Science Enterprise, Space Science Enterprise, and Space Flight Enterprise missions. Seventeen propulsion architec- tures were evaluated and priorities assigned to the tech- nologies according to their ability to meet mission re- quirements, schedule, 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 performed and used 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 broad view across the NASA mission set, a review of a technology type with a com- mon 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 completed. This is strongly preferred over the mission and enter- prise focus currently proposed. Recommendation: To develop TAA capability, the proposed pilot studies should focus on specific tech- nology types rather than on missions or enterprises,

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES as currently planned. TAA's process should also be characterized by a broad view across the NASA mission set, a review of a technology type with a common set of merits, and the performance of cost- benefit analysis. Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts Element The RASC element, formed in 2001, is largely op- erated at NASA Langley Research Center, where 60 percent of the $8 million annual funds in FY2002 were spent. Funds ranging in magnitude from $375,000 to $700,000 were distributed to several of NASA' s other centers, including Glenn, Goddard, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Johnson, and Marshall. Allocation to centers is a function of the specific studies selected every year. RASC is largely an internal NASA activity but does include some universities in its work. During 2002, the purpose of RASC was to formulate revolu- tionary mission approaches, develop revolutionary aerospace systems architectures/concepts, and provide related technology requirements that would enable these missions to be implemented to enhance NASA's technology investment strategy (Troutman, 2002~. Its focus was on helping to develop approaches and sce- narios that will achieve NASA's science objectives 20+ years in the future. In early 2003, RASC was reformulated and inte- grated with the Agency Aerospace Systems Analysis (AASA) project to consider alternative (instead of revolutionary) approaches and systems (Troutman, 2003~. The 20+ year time frame was dropped as an objective and the aeronautics portion of the effort was removed. The newly appointed NASA space architect plans to use the capability to develop technology roadmaps and gap analysis to guide strategic planning. Many FY2002 activities and planned FY2003 selec- tions were modified, transitioned to other programs, or canceled. RASC is in many ways similar to NIAC, but for NASA internal competition. It solicits internal ideas via a request for information. Forty-five ideas for pos- sible projects were submitted for FY2003; however, these projects have been greatly modified due to the project's reformulation. Three of the 17 total projects originally funded between FY2001 and FY2002 are undergoing further study and funding by NASA. Panel members disagreed on whether this number of transi- tions constitutes success. NASA should evaluate this 3 in 17 success rate to determine if it is acceptable. 69 The RASC Academic Linkage (RASCAL) pro- gram has been created to enable university participa- tion (RASCAL, 2002~. A forum to discuss various project ideas was held in May 2003. As originally for- mulated, RASC intentionally included both aeronau- tics and space themes; however, this did not guarantee that all enterprises were represented. During the 2003 reformulation, the aeronautics portion of the activity was dropped. As a result, NASA will now depend upon Code R's Intercenter Systems Analysis Team (ISAT) for concept development related to aeronautics. Efforts need to be made to have RASC viewed as a NASA- wide activity, but it is not suggested that the RASC budget simply be evenly distributed among NASA cen- ters. In summary, RASC originally focused on the fol- lowing: (1) concepts that relate to long-term mission themes, (2) concepts that create critical pulls on tech- nologies, (3) space and aeronautical themes and sce- narios provided in the NASA request for information, and (4) new and wide-ranging concepts. Another im- portant criterion, which should go without saying, is that the concept does not violate the laws of physics (Troutman, 2002~. While the technology pull criterion attempts to relate RASC concepts to the NASA tech- nology portfolio, it could be strengthened by overtly specifying its direct relationship to the NASA technol- ogy database. No criteria for the revised project had been presented to the panel by time of publication of this report. Recommendation: RASC should improve its rela- tionship to the NASA technology database. Better integration is necessary to ensure an actual connec- tion exists between RASC and the NASA technol- ogy database. RASC studies tend to be concept studies within a certain NASA enterprise area. The panel notes that al- though efforts have been made to distinguish current studies from past work, further effort is necessary. The panel suggests that RASC should emphasize work that crosses enterprise lines to strengthen the idea that it is wide ranging. Examples of such work might include understanding the synergy between human and robotic missions, NASA-wide future communication needs, and the synergy between high-speed aeronautics and launch vehicle technology. The panel felt that NASA should revisit its 20+ year time frame since in some cases this criterion might have unintentionally directed

70 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ideas too far into the future. Almost all projections tend to underestimate how soon a project will begin. If this change is adopted, it may address some minor criticism about RASC relevance. The panel notes that the 20- year time frame was subsequently dropped during pro- gram reformulation in early 2003. Recommendation: RASC should reconsider the cri- teria it uses to select studies, giving more weight to cross-enterprise studies. Care should be taken with the long-term focus so as not to make RASC projects so far off that they become irrelevant. NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Element NIAC' s purpose is to be an independent source of revolutionary aeronautical and space concepts that could dramatically impact how NASA develops and conducts its mission (NIAC, 2001~. Its ultimate goal is to infuse NIAC-funded concepts into future NASA plans and programs. NIAC is operated by the Universi- ties Space Research Association (USRA) as a virtual institute using Internet technology to distribute its so- licitations, receive proposals and reports, and review proposed projects. In 2002, NIAC's fifth year of exist- ence, funding was provided at a level of $4 million per year. NIAC solicits proposals only from non-NASA sources and strives to use non-NASA reviewers to maintain independence. The panel was impressed by the diversity and experience of the reviewers as ex- pressed in general statistics.6 If one agrees with the purpose and premise of NIAC namely, to be a technology incubator then NIAC has had some success infusing interesting new ideas into NASA. In its 2000 annual report (NIAC, 2001), NIAC identified 12 projects out of the approxi- mately 100 it has funded as having been infused into NASA. (NIAC's definition of infusion is having other NASA sources provide funding for concepts developed by NIAC projects.) There is evidence that NIAC-funded work is dis- connected from the NASA centers. In addition, NIAC reviews and awards contracts without involving the NASA centers. Conversely, NASA centers do not al- ways consider NIAC results in choosing their new re- 6Reviewer names and specific affiliations are held in confidence by USRA and were unavailable to the review panel. Information on general affiliations and experience was provided to the panel. search directions. For example, NIAC-funded research that should have been relevant to the mission of the Energetics project, such as antimatter propulsion, spin- ning tethers, high-acceleration laser sails, magnetic sails, electron-spiral toroid propulsion, and space el- evators, was not considered by Energetics manage- ment. Although NIAC's continued independence from NASA is important if it is truly to act as an external incubator, research funded under the program should be considered in light of NASA needs and current in- vestments. Finding: While striving to maintain some indepen- dence, NIAC needs to become better connected to the NASA researchers and centers. A majority of the proposals for NIAC projects come from the university and small business commu- nities (64 and 90, respectively, of the 172 received in the 2001 call for Phase I proposals). Thus a majority of the awards go to these same institutions (11 of the 18 Phase I grants awarded in 2001 went to universities, with small business receiving 5 of the remaining 7~. Initially many of the projects in NIAC emphasized hu- man exploration and development of space or space science. In recent years, however, NIAC has actively solicited proposals in other topic areas related to Earth science and physical and biological research. While the effort is still not balanced, all areas are now repre- sented. NIAC should be encouraged to continue this positive trend toward proposals representative of all of the NASA enterprises. Recommendation: NIAC should continue its efforts to solicit quality proposals from all NASA enter- prises to better provide funding to a diverse set of technologies. However, if quality proposals are not submitted in a given area, NIAC should not feel ob- ligated to select proposals simply for the sake of bal- ance. The current criteria for Phase I NIAC selection in- clude three questions (Hirschbein, 2002; Cassanova, 2002~: (1) Is the concept revolutionary or evolution- ary? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? (2) Is the concept for an architecture or system, and have the ben- efits been qualified in the context of a future NASA mission? (3) Is the concept substantiated with a de- scription of applicable scientific and technical disci-

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES plines necessary for development? Individual review- ers evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed concept study in terms of these three Phase I criteria. The panel suggests that a criterion be added to the NIAC review process that addresses the relationship between the proposed concept and the NASA technol- ogy portfolio. Such a criterion might improve the infu- sion of ideas into NASA. In Phase II, selection criteria addressing the pathway to development and benefit versus cost are added. In the past, information on the NASA technology portfolio was not readily available to the external research community. An improved tech- nology database would help make this possible, and use of this database in future proposal solicitations should be a requirement. Recommendation: NIAC should improve its rela- tionship to the NASA technology database and with NASA researchers. It is suggested that this be imple- mented by adding a technology criterion to the NIAC proposal selection process. ENERGETICS PROJECT Introduction The NASA Energetics project consists of two ele- ments: Advanced Energy Systems and On-Board Pro- pulsion. The Advanced Energy Systems element re- ceived $13.1 million in FY2002 to explore spacecraft power generation (photovoltaics, advanced radioiso- topes), energy storage (advanced batteries, flywheels, fuel cells), power systems materials and environmental interactions, and advanced power management and dis- tribution (PMAD) technologies. The On-Board Propul- sion element received $4.6 million in FY2002 to ex- plore primarily advanced electric propulsion systems, with a lesser emphasis on chemical propulsion systems. Each element is organized into several areas called product lines,7 each of which may contain several in- dividual research tasks. General Observations Overall the panel found the Energetics project to be very excellent and essential to the advancement of 7The Energetics Project is unique in its use of product lines to further organize its research. 71 important spacecraft technology. The photovoltaics, energy storage, and electric propulsion work were deemed to be world-class efforts and core competen- cies for NASA. A few tasks were found deficient in important areas; however, these were at very low fund- ing levels compared with the flagship efforts. Research Portfolio and System Analysis The Energetics project focuses on advanced energy systems and onboard propulsion. Excellent quality fun- damental research in these areas will inevitably have a significant impact on space mission technology needs. The Energetics project is home to three world-class research areas: photovoltaics, energy storage, and elec- tric propulsion. Each of these areas combines cutting- edge basic research, advanced engineering, system- level analysis, and on-site testing and evaluation capability to produce the highest-quality and most well- rounded research and development programs. Each product line can claim major historical success and payoffs (Deep Space 1 Ion Thruster, Mars Lander Bat- teries, Solar Concentrator Array with Refractive Lin- ear Element Test (SCARLET)), and new, cutting-edge technology with a high probability of future payoff (50-kW Hall thruster, thin-film solar arrays and struc- lures, polymer energy rechargeable systems). The balance between fundamental and user-driven research is better defined as a balance between near- term, moderate-payoff research and long-term, high- payoff research. A good balance between near-term and far-term research was generally observed throughout the Energetics project, which might be better charac- terized as a medium-risk, high-payoff research effort. The quantum dot solar cell research stands out as an example of high-risk, high-payoff work (the risk in this case is that the research investment might not yield a scientific or engineering advance that results in new space capability). In spite of the lack of extremely high- risk research, the review panel feels that the balance is correct and commendable. A plethora of high-risk projects in space systems might result in little or no technology ever being transitioned to operational use because of difficulties encountered at the system level. The panel recognizes that the highest risk for a product occurs in the flight qualification stage, and that the pay- offs for a successful technology transition can be revo- lutionary. The Energetics project does an excellent job of choosing technologies that can be flight qualified and have revolutionary impacts to NASA missions. The

72 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM success of the Advanced Measurement and Detection element demonstrates how frequent interaction with user programs promotes transition. The complicated systems encountered in space en- ergetics research require robust analysis to determine the optimal research balance among the various tasks. The NASA Energetics project does very well on top- level systems analysis. The coloration of power gen- eration, energy storage, and a primary energy user (electric propulsion) within one organization is a clear benefit. Mission analysis has been used to explore a plethora of potential NASA missions and has obviously been used to define research directions within the indi- vidual groups. The analysis personnel are clearly world leaders in their field. They interact to a significant degree with their counterparts in industry and other government agencies. All potential solutions appear to be consid- ered. As a result, their analyses are well respected in the field and carry a great deal of weight with NASA, industry, and Department of Defense programs. The Energetics project does an excellent job of mission and systems analysis to balance research be- tween power generation, storage, and electric propul- sion. However, balance on the subsystem level could be improved. Specifically, electric propulsion systems research must place more emphasis in the power-pro- cessing unit (PPU), the dominant cost-driver in electric propulsion systems. Conversely, the Energetics project is the undisputed world leader in hollow cathode de- velopment, another major cost driver. Hollow cathodes are used in both ion and Hall thrusters to produce a source of electrons to ionize the xenon propellant and to charge-neutralize the plasma exhaust. In addition, the coloration of the power genera- tion, energy storage, power conditioning, and power consumption in electric thrusters provides excellent synergy, whereby each product line can stay in tune with its technology neighbor. A striking exception to synergy occurs in the area of high-power electric pro- pulsion research. Thrusters are in development for op- eration at the 500-kW power level without a well- defined source for the power or facilities to test them. The program is loosely dependent on NASA's Nuclear Systems Initiatives (NSI) effort (not reviewed within During the course of this review, the NSI effort was replaced by the Project Prometheus effort to research nuclear power and pro- pulsion options for NASA. This program name change does not affect the findings of this panel. PRT); however, that program has not yet defined its design goals in terms of power. Based on the experiments and accomplishments observed by panel members during a site visit, funda- mental science is clearly being applied to solve prob- lems. Researchers in the ion propulsion product line are developing a totally new laser diagnostic capability for use in near-field density measurements of energy and propellant losses due to the hollow cathodes used by ion and Hall thrusters as an electron neutralization source. The thin-film photovoltaic group can rightfully brag about developing single-source precursors lead- ing to deposition at low temperature onto plastic sub- strates. While not within the scope of this review, related propulsion projects at other NASA centers clearly cast a significant shadow over the ECT Energetics project. Four other NASA centers are currently performing re- search in onboard propulsion. Examples of such re- search, not including the research on nuclear power and propulsion proposed for Project Prometheus, include the following: · Marshall Space Flight Center. Tethers, ploding-liner fusion devices, pulsed plasma thrusters; Johnson Space Center. Magnetoplasma rock- ets; · Goddard Space Flight Center. Micropropul- sion for formation flying constellations; and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Ion and Hall thrust- ers, micropropulsion, vaporizing liquid, col- loids, etc. The panel is concerned that this structure of mul- tiple programs supporting onboard propulsion could lead to duplication of effort. If we define as revolutionary those technologies farthest beyond the state of the art, then the Energetics project seems to be the least "pioneering." However, in the view of the panel, the project is indeed revolution- ary because it is having and will continue to have a significant impact on spacecraft systems. The present advocacy system emphasizes glamorous new concepts at the expense of essential system components and technologies. The result is that programs for mission enabling systems are reduced to a subcritical funding level, while funding accelerates on unproven or high- · · - risk concepts. Concept development that ignores sys- tem development provides NASA with no new capa-

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES bility. Systems analysis must be used to balance the research investment across the entire propulsion sys- tem in order for NASA to gain from the investment. The panel considers the Energetics project world-class, not only because the majority of its research meets the set of criteria described in Chapter 2, but also because of its previous accomplishments and because its cur- rent systems analysis has shown the possible revolu- tionary impact of its research on future space systems. The Revolutionary Propulsion Element at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was funded un- der PRT in FY2002 but was removed from the portfo- lio for FY2003. As such it was not reviewed by the ECT panel. This research portfolio contained several highly publicized propulsion options that are very ef- fective at accelerating laboratory plasmas; however, it is not clear that they would compare well against ion and Hall thrusters at the system level. These propul- sion options have been moved to the Space Science Enterprise (Code S) under the Integrated Space Trans- portation Plan (ISTP). The Energetics project also in- cludes 500-kW-class electric propulsion that is moti- vated by the NSI. The panel was not briefed on the specifics of the NSI program (i.e., on power levels and time frame for power availability), so it is difficult to assess this portion of the Energetics project. The Energetics project researches both low- and high-power generation at inner orbits where photovol- taics are applicable and low-power generation using the Stirling engines and radioisotope power sources (RPSs) needed farther from the sun. A gap exists in the Energetics portfolio for high-power generation (10 kW to 1 MW) at distances far from the sun, presuming this is in NASA's mission. Use of RPSs at these power lev- els will probably require the use of nuclear fuel, which is not a popular option with the public. Basic research in this area is being conducted at NASA MSFC under a different program and therefore is not in the panel's purview. Recommendation: NASA should better coordinate its portfolio development among the five different NASA centers working on onboard propulsion re- search. Each portfolio should undergo a common systems analysis by a nonbiased group to help NASA optimally invest research funding in this area. The NASA Energetics project has experienced a decrease in funding for the more basic or low-TRL re- 73 search needed to explore the core physics issues of ad- vanced new concepts. As mentioned previously, the Cross-Enterprise NRAs, which fund the low-TRL ex- ternal research, do not adequately involve the centers. In a similar way, concepts investigated in the propul- sion area under NIAC are not considered by NASA when developing research portfolios for the Energetics project. Further discussion of this topic can be found in the NIAC section of the report. Research Plans and Mission Direction The Energetics portfolio tries to address the tech- nology needs of as many future missions as possible and attempts to focus research on generic spacecraft subsystems where improvements will have an impact regardless of the NASA mission chosen. Energetics generally does a goodiob of avoiding narrow concepts that address very few missions. The electric propulsion research emphasized by onboard propulsion optimizes, or is competitive with, all of the mission concepts ana- 1yzed by the IISTP study. For low-power missions far- ther from the sun, the Energetics project has a strong program in Stirling engines that is projected to decrease RPS plutonium fuel mass by a factor of as much as 4. Planning in the Energetics project is clearly sup- ported well by various planning processes, and the re- sulting benefits for the research are clear. The space technologies under development within the Energetics project typically require 10 or more years of research, engineering, and flight qualification prior to becoming available for space applications. However, in the past 10 years the Energetics project has been managed un- der five different NASA Enterprises. The overall Ener- getics project deserves hearty accolades for a history of delivering advanced technology that requires 10 years of development despite the turbulent management at- mosphere. In addition, NASA does not identify spe- cific future missions in its Vision (O'Keefe, 2002) or its Strategic Plan (Goldin, 2000~. Since it is difficult to develop progress metrics in this situation, NASA man- agement needs to provide more focused direction by identifying specific goals. While the NASA Aerospace Technology strategic plan (Venneri, 2001) provides some guidance, it is vague in comparison with other government agencies' plans. This vagueness will in- evitably filter down to the project and task level. Finding: The NASA Energetics project does an ex- cellent job of maintaining a research direction with

74 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM a high probability of payoff on future missions de- spite sparse mission-specific direction from NASA headquarters and having been moved between five NASA enterprises in 10 years. High probability of payoff is maintained by developing improved sub- systems that will impact spacecraft in general. Recommendation: NASA management should strive for increased stability in their organizational structure. In addition, NASA should adopt a mecha- nism for identifying and ranking future flight pro- grams in the near term and the far term to provide guidance for NASA research programs. Program goals and objectives were well defined and quantified for most of the groups. However, clear definitions of baselines were not always evident. A twofold improvement over what? was a common ques- tion during panel discussions. Improvements are typi- cally quantified. The impact of the research on NASA enterprises is not clear; however, this may be due more to a lack of mission definition by the NASA enterprises than to a lack of understanding by the Energetics project. The Energetics project should also be com- mended for its strong analysis capability, which has considered a wide range of potential missions to quan- tify expected payoffs from the research programs. Program deliverables in the On-Board Propulsion element were clearly defined. The Earth Observation One (EO-1) pulsed plasma thruster (PPT) is an element of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) portion of the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Tech- nology (IHPRPT) Phase I demonstrator for electromag- netic spacecraft propulsion. Component development from that program has fed directly into Phase II PPT development at AFRL. Regular IHPRPT steering com- mittee meetings ensure the involvement of DOD, NASA, and industry in the planning process. Con- versely, coordination and deliverables to NASA enter- prises or other organizations were not clearly defined in the Advanced Energy Systems element. Methodology Three product lines within the Energetics project have basic research, engineering, test and evaluation, and systems analysis together in one group (photonics, energy storage, and electric propulsion). In addition, the analysis is also performed across product lines to ensure, for example, that electric propulsion power lev- els are coordinated with the goals of the product lines developing advanced power generation. A disconnect does occur for high-power electric propulsion, which relies on power levels to be researched under the NSI program. Excellent systems-level assessments of photovol- taics coupled with electric propulsion have been per- formed. The panel members felt, however, that risk management should be undertaken at the level of indi- vidual projects, not at the PRT program level. Regarding plans for future work, both the photo- voltaics and electric propulsion product lines have an- nounced near- and far-term goals and assessed the mis- sion impact of their product advances. Personnel and Technical Community Connections Research in the Energetics project is performed by an enthusiastic group of top-notch U.S. researchers. The researchers were clearly excited and proud of their work, their laboratory, and their project. The Energet- ics project also retains a good number of researchers who are considered world leaders in their fields. There were several instances of researchers pursu- ing 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 should have been moved to another NASA center. However, the panel found this to be an excellent means of developing and retaining top researchers. Scientists need the flexibility to pursue their new ideas. Good managers provide these scientists with a reasonable amount of time and funding to encourage innovative concepts that can lead to pioneering, revolutionary technology. Photovoltaics, energy storage, and electric propul- sion researchers have an excellent understanding of the underlying science and technology and of comparable work within other organizations and NASA units. On other tasks the panel was left wondering what specific role NASA was performing in an effort that clearly in- cluded a larger research community. Sometimes it was not clear if the work was being performed in-house by NASA researchers or under contract to an outside com- pany. Even for excellent in-house basic research such as the photovoltaics effort, it was difficult to identify

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES how the NASA contribution fit into research and de- velopment efforts at other government laboratories or industry. Research efforts today commonly involve multiple researchers and multiple government agencies funding the effort. An exception was the electric pro- pulsion work, which showed a strong and well-defined involvement with AFRL through the IHPRPT program. Photovoltaics seem to show a similar level of coordi- nation, although it was not explicitly described. The practice of presenting NASA efforts from a NASA-centric viewpoint is archaic and detrimental to the agency's programs. Presenting only the NASA role where NASA plays a small but critical role in a larger effort makes the entire joint research effort appear in- significant. Based on its presentations, NASA appears to hardly leverage its previous research or research per- formed by another agency. The review panel would be far more receptive to a small research effort that, for example, took solar arrays developed by another agency and worked to modify them for the extended temperature range required for NASA missions. This type of leveraging is common in other agencies and a necessity in the face of today's economic realities. To be frank, based on their personal broader knowledge of the energetics field, panel members recognize that NASA does participate in many strong collaborations with other researchers and agencies. Their concern is that NASA's practice of presenting its programs from a NASA-centric viewpoint will eventually damage it at higher government funding levels, where appropriate cross-agency leveraging of funds and resources is ex- pected. Facilities and Equipment The Energetics facilities at NASA Glenn Research Center were found to be excellent. The facilities are well designed to promote interdisciplinary experi- ments. The coloration of basic research, systems analy- sis, engineering, test and evaluation, and flight qualifi- cation improves the quality of the research and keeps the research focused on critical issues. The electric pro- pulsion, photovoltaics, and polymer batteries laborato- ries are world-class facilities. Such facilities are expen- sive to design, fabricate, staff, and maintain. As such they are beyond the means of all but the largest aero- space companies and government laboratories. The Energetics test facilities are a very strong asset for the PRT program and the United States. 75 Testing facilities for space technologies can be a driving cost in a development program. Photovoltaics, energy storage, and electric propulsion all require ad- vanced, expensive, high-fidelity testing capabilities to support basic research. Excellent-quality electric pro- pulsion test facilities are very expensive (between $1 million and $20 million). The most-used government electric propulsion life test facility is currently at JPL; however, that facility is limited in thruster power to about 3 kW. The NASA Glenn Chamber No. 6 is a critical test facility for the United States its physical size, low back-pressure, and high pumping speed are far superior to those found in competing government or industry laboratories. The capability is unique and needed to test the next generation of high-power elec- tric thrusters. Similarly, testing of photovoltaics, space environmental effects, and energy storage devices all require well-equipped laboratories with special capa- bilities. Finding: The Energetics project test facilities and personnel are a valuable, critical asset for the U.S. government. For PRT programs they have a signifi- cant synergistic benefit to the basic research. The Energetics project also makes these test facilities available to industry, which helps balance the com- petition between small and large contractors. For future NASA flight programs, this increases com- petition, lowers risk, and reduces cost. Recommendation: NASA should strive to maintain the Energetics project's world-class testing capabil- ity. This includes maintaining both the facilities and the expertise. Advanced Energy Systems Element The Advanced Energy Systems element comprises seven product lines: Advanced Photovoltaics Technol- ogy; Advanced Chemical Storage Technology; Power Management and Distribution; Flywheel Energy Stor- age Technology; Radioisotope Power System Technol- ogy; Power System Environmental Durability, Reli- ability, and Survivability; and Power System Thermal Control Technology. For ease of discussion the prod- uct lines have been grouped into three main catego- ries advanced Photovoltaics technology, advanced energy storage, and advanced energy systems.

76 Advanced Pholovo/taics Technology AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM The Advanced Photovoltaics (PV) Technology product line was found to be a world-class and revolu- tionary research effort. The researchers were perform- ing cutting-edge and competitive basic research on both crystalline and thin-film solar array cells. Advance- ments with potential for revolutionary impact in the near term (from a basic research perspective) included the growing of lattice mismatched crystalline cells for deposition on silicon, the development of liquid single- source precursors, and the deposition of thin-film PVs on polymers. In the very far term, research in quantum dots is exploring more revolutionary advances in solar cell technology. PV testing at NASA Glenn is led by recognized leaders in the field and is clearly world- class. Data from the PV testing are used to help de- velop computer codes in the SEE element. NASA Glenn PV testing facilities are regularly used by indus- try, as expected for a facility of this caliber. The program displayed an excellent consideration of system- and subsystem-level issues, trade studies, and in-house test and evaluation to enhance and focus the basic research efforts. Subsystem analysis is used very effectively to help researchers direct research to- ward optimal solar cell and blanket technologies for various power levels. The research on PV blankets can claim demonstrated success in the SCARLET used on Deep Space 1, and the effort continues to explore new blanket configurations. Advances in the photovoltaics effort will have a major impact on NASA, commercial, and DOD spacecraft operating up to 100 kW. Advanced Energy Storage (E/ectrochemica/ and F/ywhee/sJ The Advanced Energy Storage product area of work within the Advanced Energy Systems element was also found to be a world-class and revolutionary program expected to have a major impact on all NASA, DOD, and commercial spacecraft. The researchers have demonstrated innovation in lithium-ion electrolytes and chalcogenide-based fast lithium-ion conducting glass. The NASA Aerospace Flight Battery Systems task currently funded under the Energetics project is an es- sential and excellent-quality national facility and capa- bility. However, the effort is not necessarily a basic research effort and should be transitioned into the mis- sion codes at NASA in the near future. The Polymer Energy Rechargeable Systems task has an excellent new high-tech facility and displays the patents and ref- ereed publications indicative of excellent research. The flywheel product line showed a well-designed experimental setup and laboratory diagnostics. Experi- ments were correctly focused on the critical issues of vibrations and energy losses. The analysis group per- formed good subsystems-level analysis to compare the flywheel with batteries and conventional attitude con- trol systems. Lacking from the presentations on fly- wheels, however, was an adequate picture of how the program fit into other, potentially larger U.S. efforts. The Regenerative Fuel Cell Systems Technology task focused on ancillary system technology instead of on the actual fuel cell stack technology, where the fo- cus should be. Once the fuel cell stack is optimized, the ancillary technology should follow. Advanced Energy Systems (Power Management and Distribution, Stirling, Environment, Materia/sJ The advanced energy systems area of research was considered to be a good research effort overall. The effort to develop a next-generation Stirling engine was excellent work with clear goals, technical challenges, and payoffs. The MEMS Stirling cooler task, invented by a NASA Glenn researcher, demonstrates an innova- tive idea with clear advantages over thermoelectrics. However, the Stirling cycle team should also perform a systems analysis to determine the effects of vibration (from the reciprocating motion) on the entire system. The Micro-Loop Heat Pipe in Silicon task is cur- rently performed by contractors. NASA plans to test and evaluate the technology. Since the technology pro- poses to add mass to the system, NASA should per- form subsystem analysis and trade studies to show the expected payoff before much further work is per- formed. In addition, the NASA Glenn heat-pipe devices must be compared with those of other organizations. The Power Management and Distribution (PMAD ) task on fault detection and intelligent systems addresses a critical need for NASA, DOD, and commercial satel- lites; however, it was not clear how the NASA effort complemented, fit into, or duplicated other U.S. efforts. The testing capability is adequate for present research. The Environmental Durability, Reliability, and Survivability product line possesses an enthusiastic group of researchers working on a project critical to all spacecraft. The group shows a strong record of publi- cations and patents. Since the proposed Polymer Ero- sion and Contamination Experiment (PEACE) cannot

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES return usable data from NASA' s Small Self-contained Payload program (Get-Away-Special program), NASA should strive to find the flight opportunity it needs to collect quality data. Onboard Propulsion Element The Onboard Propulsion element is composed of five product lines that can be grouped in two main cat- egories: (1) ion, Hall, and pulsed plasma thrusters and (2) high-power electric propulsion and chemical and micropropulsion. Each is discussed below. /on, Ha//, and Pulsed Plasma Thrusters The ion, Hall, and pulsed plasma thruster (PPT) product lines within the On-Board Propulsion element clearly entail world-class and revolutionary research. The group can claim many successful products and re- search highlights. The Energetics electric propulsion research effort is a flagship international effort with world-class re- searchers and facilities. A significant fraction of the world leaders in electric propulsion are currently em- ployed at NASA Glenn. NASA Glenn is the leading international capability for electric thruster testing and currently the only U.S. facility capable of accurately testing thrusters over 10 kW. The Energetics project maintains research in two high-specific-impulse thrust- ers (Hall, ion). Both product lines have well-defined goals, and there is no overlap in applicability. Histori- cally the laboratory has had strong research successes with the arcjet and ion thruster system development. Today the trend continues, with the recent functional- ity demonstration of a 50-kW Hall thruster. The PPT task is currently performing a flight dem- onstration of the first PPT to be flight qualified in 25 years. The flight is returning information on the use of low-power thrusters for attitude control systems that will be referenced by researchers for many years. The product line maintains an excellent mix of ba- sic research, advanced engineering, in-house test and evaluation, and mission analysis to support an excel- lent research program. Compared with the other Ener- getics product lines, the electric propulsion group has the strongest interaction with other agencies, industry, and universities. On the subsystem level, the panel expected stron- ger emphasis from the electric propulsion group on sub- 77 systems such as the power-processing unit (PPU) and the propellant feed systems (PFS). Historically the PPU has been the dominant cost driver for electric propul- sion systems and was the reason NASA failed to vali- date a 4.5-kW Hall thruster system on a Russian Ex- press satellite. The NASA Energetics project is also in the best position to stress PPU development, because power electronics research is colocated in the Energet- ics project. It is likely that PPU and PFS efforts are funded under Code S funds at NASA Glenn, so they are not presented as part of the PRT program. NASA Glenn does provide funding through an NRA to inves- tigate the possibility of direct-drive PPU work, but the panel suggests that the system payoff of this work be looked at. High-Power E/e ctric Propu/sion, Chemica/ Propu/sion, and Micropropu/sion Whereas the Hall, ion, and PPT efforts within the On-Board Propulsion element were among the stron- gest Energetics efforts at NASA Glenn, some of the less generously funded onboard propulsion efforts were not judged as favorably by the panel. These include high-power electric propulsion pulsed inductive thruster (PIT) and magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster chemical propulsion, and micropropulsion. The high-power electric propulsion efforts are fo- cused on the PIT and MPD thrusters for power levels of 500 kW and greater. The PIT and the MPD thruster were chosen for development based on a 1992 work- shop. NASA Glenn should have considered the NIAC research projects for new high-power propulsion con- cepts as well. The PIT and the MPD thruster efforts were most severely lacking in systems analysis, whereas current research is focused on modeling the thruster to improve performance with little or no atten- tion paid to system mass and reliability. The PIT re- quires high-voltage, high-power operation. Even if thruster performance is optimized, PPU requirements at the system level may make the thruster impractical for use on a spacecraft. MPD thruster research has been funded for over 40 years. NASA needs to make a strong case for continued funding in light of the considerable effort and absence of significant results. The intent of the panel is not to conclude that the PIT and MPD thruster are poor choices for high-power electric pro- pulsion but rather to question whether the Energetics project fully used its analysis capability before initiat- ing the PIT and MPD thruster research.

78 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Recommendation: Both a systems and subsystems analysis should be performed to compare the PIT and MPD thruster against the high-power Hall thruster used in clusters and other high-power op- tions to ensure that the devices can eventually be made practical and competitive for spacecraft when considered on the systems level. The GRC Energetic project is attempting to main- tain a core capability in chemical rocketry for onboard propulsion. The applications are typically auxiliary propulsion for planetary maneuvers, braking, station keeping, etc. However, the environmental (and perhaps the safety) regulations enforced at NASA Glenn by lo- cal and state government prohibit the testing of all com- petitive and modern propellants. In spite of these local limitations, the Energetics project plans continue re- search using bipropellant combinations that can only be tested in select locations (such as the White Sands Test Facility) and that pose a potential hazard during launch. Engineering design, safety analysis, and test- ing of systems utilizing these propellants would need to be extensive. For example, cryogenic oxygen (LOX) and hydrogen (LOH) propulsion systems cannot be launched in the shuttle bay. However, NASA Glenn is considering cryogenic fluorine, which is notoriously more difficult and hazardous to handle than LOX/LOH systems. Another example is the candidate propellant oxygen difluoride (OFT. It is also a deep cryogen and was developed in World War II by the Canadians as a nerve agent; it is more lethal than cyanide gas. The intrinsic hazards and cost of these candidate bipropel- lants must be evaluated to judge their mission benefits relative to the complexity of the equipment and han- dling procedures. Considering such practical concerns, the product line needs more detailed planning on how to proceed. For decades hydrazine monopropellant thrusters have been used for a wide range of space applications. Now the desire is to replace hydrazine because of its health hazards. This led NASA Glenn to perform research in monopropellants, which are being tested routinely at other facilities. For example, several U.S. laboratories conduct rocket firings using the monopro- pellant hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN). However, HAN cannot be tested at NASA Glenn. Information on overcoming the NASA Glenn propellant-testing limi- tations by working with other organizations was not clear. Perhaps, testing at the White Sands Test Facility or teaming with either the AFRL effort at Edwards Air Force Base or the Navy effort at China Lake, for ex- ample, could bring to the NASA Glenn chemical pro- pulsion effort both the needed testing capability and valuable additional expertise. The panel determined that the propellant combinations of interest to GRC were not central to DOD applications. Areas where NASA could contribute include catalyst bed materials, nozzle design and materials, and propellant feed sys- tems. GRC's specific role in national propellant efforts such as the DOD and NASA IHPRPT was also not clear. Important issues of implementation cost and practicality are barriers to use of such propellants but have not been adequately addressed by the Energetics project. Finding: As presented, the Energetics project ef- forts in chemical propulsion were deemed subcriti- cal with respect to the facilities and scope of other programs. Also presented under chemical propulsion was a GRC micropropulsion device using wafer stacks and laser initiation. This effort elicits a mixed response. On the one hand, the thruster was a NASA Glenn inven- tion, so management there deserves some credit for al- lowing a researcher to pursue his own invention. On the other hand, the program was clearly out of touch and severely deficient compared with strong, aggres- sive micropropulsion efforts at AFRL, JPL, and uni- versities. Adequate systems analysis to determine total mass impact on the spacecraft at the systems level was not performed. The researchers seemed unaware of similar concepts funded and explored at Princeton Uni- versity, Honeywell, and the Aerospace Corporation, where the fundamental technical issues surrounding the device were being investigated. In April 2003, the panel received an update on the Chemical and Micropropulsion work in the Energetics project (Hoffman and Dunning, 2003~. Several areas of the project have been redirected, but the effort has not yet addressed important implementation, cost, and practicality issues surrounding chemical propulsion or the Energetics program's role within a larger national chemical and micropropulsion effort both at NASA and within DOD. Recommendation: The panel recommends that the chemical and micropropulsion research programs within ECT be either terminated or supported at a level where interactions with other groups will keep

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES the research at the forefront of propulsion research. In any event, researchers in this area should inves- tigate more fully the programs extant in other orga- · ~ n~zahons. Overall the panel found the On-Board Propulsion tasks to be of the highest quality. Deficiencies in the chemical propulsion and micropropulsion product lines must be balanced against the fact that over 90 percent of the resources are invested in electric propulsion. It is also important to note that the portfolio is well bal- anced in this regard. Some NASA missions stand to gain the most from advances in electric propulsion and future nuclear-electric propulsion (not within the scope of this review). Chemical propulsion has already real- ized its major improvements in NASA-relevant perfor- mance. Since micropropulsion is also important to fu- ture Air Force programs, NASA can leverage DOD programs for its more modest micropropulsion require- ments. ADVANCED SPACECRAFT AND SCIENCE COMPONENTS PROJECT The Advanced Spacecraft and Science Compo- nents project comprises four elements: (1) Advanced Measurement and Detection (AMD), (2) Distributed and Micro-Spacecraft (D&MS), (3) Resilient Materi- als and Structures (RMS), and (4) Space Environmen- tal Effects (SEE). Each element is discussed in a sepa- rate section below. Advanced Measurement and Detection Element /ntroduction The Advanced Measurement and Detection (AMD) element focuses on the development of minia- turized sensors, advanced active instruments, and nanoscale devices to enable the next generation of re- mote sensing and in situ sensing capabilities. These technologies most closely address the science require- ments of the NASA Earth Science, Space Science, and Biological and Physical Science Enterprises. The sci- entific requirements of these enterprises demand ad- vances in the detection and measurement of radiation across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Without measurement, the desired science cannot be performed. Some of the greatest potential for scientific return lies in the x-ray and terahertz (T-ray) part of the spectrum, 79 where quantum-limited and energy-resolving measure- ments have yet to be attained. For parts of the spectrum where measurement science is relatively mature, re- search thrusts tend toward either improving efficiency to reduce weight and power consumption or increasing the number, resolution, or range of measurement of passive sensors in the ultraviolet to the visible to the long-wave infrared region. Finally, active laser sensing offers access to new methods of detailing and profiling the planetary atmospheres. The AMD element was funded at $10.2 million for FY2002. An additional $14.4 million was awarded by the ECT program for external NRAs in this area under the Cross-Enterprise NRA, as discussed previously. The element included seven thrust areas: Focal Planes, Cryogenics, In Situ, Photonics/Lidar, Optics, Radiofrequency/Terahertz, and Nanotechnology. Genera/ Observations The AMD element is the current incarnation of a long-standing thrust that has succeeded many times and continues to succeed despite the many challenges it faces. A metric of success in this element is the transi- tion of technology to NASA or other agency missions. As stated in the NASA briefings to the panel, "Each task, or group of tasks, has (at least) one target oppor- tunity for future funding in a NASA competitive call for mid-TRL technology" (Krabach, 2002a). There have been a significant number of transitions from ba- sic principles to maturity and integration into instru- ments for major NASA missions. Recent examples in- clude the microshutter array that is now baselined for the future James Webb telescope and the microthermo- pile array for the Mars Climate Sounder (MCS) instru- ment on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO). There are numerous other examples in past history. In addition, targets for the current research activi- ties include these: . Diffractive gratings in the MRO imaging spec- trometer CRISM (Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars), an Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) instrument; · Hybrid imaging technology focal plane array (FPA) in MRO entry camera demonstration; Micromesh halometer array in Herschel and Planck telescopes; · Planar multiplier circuits in Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) and the Herschel Observatory;

80 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM . Superconducting mixers in the Herschel and Planck telescopes and the Stratospheric Obser- vatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) Casimir instrument; 20-K sorption cooler for the Planck telescope; Superconducting transition-edge sensor (TES) arrays in Constellation-X; and Cadmium-zinc-telluride hard x-ray focal planes in Constellation-X. There is a well-defined process, described during the panel briefings, that allows a natural transition through mid-TRL instrument development programs such as the Planetary Instrument Definition and Devel- opment Program (PIDDP) and Instrument Incubator Program (IIP). One success occurred in the area of uncooled thermopile broadband detector arrays. Re- search into 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 were funded from FY1999 until FY2003. This focal plane technology was subse- quently used in the Mars Climate Sounder instrument for the Mars '05 mission based on the thermopile linear detector arrays. The AMD program is now funding the next generation of uncooled two-dimensional thermo- pile detector arrays, beginning a new cycle of technol- ogy maturation and technology graduation (Krabach, 2002b, 2002c). The annex to this chapter provides a detailed table of transition mechanisms and technolo- gies and a figure (5-A-1) depicting the various transi- tion paths used by AMD. A second figure (5-A-2) pro- vides a specific representation of the process used in the uncooled thermopile array example. Finding: The AMD element is an effective means of pursuing high-risk, high-return research and is a valuable element of the U.S. technology base. Finding: The AMD element has demonstrated an abil- ity to successfully transition basic research to applica- tions, thus establishing its credibility with the user base and motivating researchers to innovate. Recommendation: The PRT program should use the AMD element's well-defined transition process as an example for transition in other technology areas. Research Portfolio Almost all of the projects in the AMD element are considered good mainstream research, with the truly world-class work making up about 25 percent of the portfolio. The most revolutionary research and devel- opment can be found in the radio frequency/terahertz (RF/THz) and focal plane thrusts in projects that could enable near-quantum-limited detection in the x-ray, long-wave infrared, and millimeter and submillimeter parts of the spectrum. Technologies such as supercon- ducting transition-edge sensors, single-electron transis- tors, hot electron bolometer heterodyne detectors, and monolithic multiplier circuits will most certainly en- able future observatories to better view the structure and complexity of the universe. Important for the advancement of these new sens- ing technologies is the development of infrastructure or supporting technologies. These can be extremely important for enabling missions, because practical so- lutions such as reducing weight and increasing power are a major factor in feasibility and instrument selec- tion. Cryogenics research and development—particu- larly miniature coolers, the adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator, and electrohydrodynamic pumping are examples of the technologies in this class. Less revolutionary are the investigations that push technology further, in some cases giving an order of magnitude or more of improvement. Though perhaps not revolutionary, these investigations are very impor- tant in achieving better efficiencies in system size and cost or in the number of measurements a given mission might attain. Tasks that investigate the use of micro- shutter arrays, complementary metal-oxide-semicon- ductor (CMOS) imagers, quantum well and quantum dot imagers, aluminum foam core optics, and thermo- pile detector arrays all fall in this category. The work in photonics and lidar, by the researchers' own admis- sign, addresses as much the extension of previously demonstrated capabilities as it does new capabilities. These are heritage programs that support multiple ob- jectives (in both earth and space science) and are being matured in preparation for transition to specific NASA . . mlsslons. Finding: The AMD element includes an appropri- ate balance in the portfolio across technology matu- ration levels.

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES Research Plan As technologies mature, there is a potential for them to transition out of NASA laboratories and into industry; such transitions should be encouraged by the AMD element and the ECT program. In some of the technology areas (e.g., lasers), NASA is keeping the research in-house because it was reportedly more cost effective to do so than to utilize equipment outside NASA. Such decisions or recommendations should be made based on the long-term strategic position of the technology and not be dominated by the near-term de- velopment cost. The transitioning of technologies from research to applications and engineering development is an impor- tant factor in the underlying value of the PRT program. Thus, it is not surprising that there are varying levels of technological maturity within the program. While there are a few areas that the panel recommends for near- term transition (such as All-Aluminum Lightweight Optics and Structures, Uncooled Thermopile Broad- band Detector Arrays, and laser tasks), the majority of the tasks should remain within the PRT umbrella. The Optimized STAR Structures task appears to be a study of options for deployable structures for a specific mis- sion and not a fundamental research task. As mentioned previously, the AMD element has been very successful in identifying new sensing mo- dalities, maturing these technologies, and finally mi- grating them to a mission instrument. The panel be- lieves that the conduct and management of the element were primarily responsible for this success. The other NASA enterprises had taken proactive steps to ensure that they communicated their vision, and the NASA centers helped define the fundamental measurement capabilities necessary to achieve these goals. On both sides, the panel found a strong sense of mission owner- ship. The fact that NASA has experienced this cycle of requirements definition and development in remote sensing many times in its history has meant that remote sensing technology is one of NASA's key core compe- tencies. The demands on measurement have become so great as to stretch the limits of detection technologies across the electromagnetic spectrum. This has resulted in a balance between technology push on the part of the researchers and technology pull on the part of the en- terprises. The transition opportunities between well- defined missions were obvious and were fully pursued by AMD researchers; however, longer term and unde- fined areas of opportunity both internal and external to NASA were not always acknowledged. 81 Detectors have applicability well beyond NASA and space applications. Currently important areas of research include the use of quantum dots in computing and terahertz detection for chemical and biological weapons. Such detection technologies are also prime candidates for transition to industry. These are areas where the AMD element could pursue additional lever- aging opportunities. Finding: The AMD element uses a well-defined pro- cess that allows a natural transition from basic re- search through mid-TRL instrument development programs such as the Planetary Instrument Defini- tion and Development Program (PIDDP) and the Instrument Incubator Program (IIP). Finding: While the process of transitioning technol- ogy to missions was well thought out and imple- mented by the AMD element, the transition to long- term and broader applications was not as well addressed. While some of the technologies are so specialized that there is a limited market, others- such as higher power lasers should have broader applications. Recommendation: The transitioning of research to industry should be carefully considered and encour- aged. Necessary to the successful completion of the de- velopment cycle is sufficient stability of funding and commitment to sustain the researchers in their quest despite distractions such as reorganizations, redirec- tion, and reprioritization, which would otherwise de- rail their enthusiasm. The management of the element has done an excellent job of understanding the needs of the other enterprises and engaging the staff so that they understand those needs. They have ensured that the staff supporting the element are highly competent in the appropriate disciplines and have adequate facilities in which to pursue their research. The managers them- selves are knowledgeable and informed. They grew up in the AMD element technology area and they have personally experienced a sufficient number of devel- opment cycles to make this process work effectively. The process of bringing technologies from initial demonstration through incorporation into missions has been well defined, as noted above. However, most tran- sition opportunities are available only through competi- tive calls. By working closely with the science codes,

82 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AMD has been able to offer developers and collabora- tors unique advantages in securing science missions and science payloads in Space Science Enterprise and Earth Science Enterprise announcements of opportu- nity. Management, Faci/ities, Personne/, and Equipment The desire for revolutionary technologies to enable more capable missions at lower cost and risk brings with it certain management responsibilities. This class of research involves multiyear efforts with schedule flexibility. It also requires a strong team with state-of- the-art facilities. The research teams that made presen- tations to the panel were of a high caliber and appropri- ate for the activities. Facilities at both Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and JPL were excellent and ap- propriate for the research. The ability of the ECT pro- gram to provide a stable funding environment over a 3- to 5-year time frame was less clear. A lack of stable funding often introduces substantial inefficiencies into the ECT program. The diversity of technologies in AMD makes it a difficult area to manage. Effective management de- mands an exceptionally broad understanding of the driving science requirements, ranging from cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics to environmental science and human physiology. Because the NASA codes typi- cally focus on the measurement requirements, it is gen- erally left to the researcher and managers in AMD to translate these to the underlying component technol- ogy requirements. These component technologies are diverse and broad in discipline, as a more detailed re- view of the AMD element reveals. Finding: The panel observed a depth in the very capable research staff in the AMD element. This al- lowed staff to be moved around while maintaining research continuity. The management was also ex- perienced in the technology development cycle, which facilitated communication between the tech- nology developers and the enterprise scientists. Finding: The AMD element is well run, and the management has established and embedded a pro- cess that shepherds research along a path from ini- tial conception to insertion into missions. Since this process requires several years to almost a decade in some cases, the stability of the element is critical. Setting and following priorities over the long term, as budgets varied, made it possible to protect high- priority research activities in the AMD area. Finding: Stability of funding over sufficient time to support a critical population of competent staff is crucial. This was a challenge, given the continuing reorganizations at higher levels. (The panel's sense was that the AMD element had been able to main- tain funding stability so far, but that in some areas the element funding was dropping dangerously close to the critical threshold.) Distributed and Micro-Spacecraft Element /ntroduction The Distributed and Micro-Spacecraft (D&MS) element of the ECT program covers the technologies for distributed space systems and microspacecraft. The goal of the element is to develop "technologies to en- able revolutionary science collection capabilities through the coordination of multiple spacecraft, and to enable very small, low-cost spacecraft" (Moore, 2002~. Distributed space systems (DSS) are defined as collections of satellites that cooperate to perform a mis- sion in which the known or controlled relative spatial geometry of the satellites is an essential element. The current Global Positioning System is a simple example of such a system, in which the known but loosely con- trolled relative positions of satellites in the constella- tion allow it to provide navigation data to the user. Po- tential applications of DSS are free-flying satellites that perform long-baseline interferometry for high-resolu- tion imaging (Chao et al., 2000), even at astronomical distances, and clusters of satellites in low earth orbit to serve as a sparse aperture remote-sensing system at ra- dio frequencies (Martin and Stallard, 1999) or even in the optical domain. Further applications include sensor webs and dense orbiting constellations to provide a spatial-temporal picture of the near planetary environ- ment (NASA, 2001a, 2001b). Microspacecraft (MS) are defined as satellites that weigh less than 100 kg.9 By this definition, many of 9This is a broadly recognized definition that is documented in a number of references. Yet, there are other documented uses of the term, which refer to different mass limits, size or volume limits, or a combination of size and mass.

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES the early satellites would be considered microsatellites, and yet they had very little capability. Thus, the mod- ern term also implies performance superior to that of comparably sized spacecraft of yesterday and today and/or lower mission costs than larger satellites of simi- lar capability. In FY2002, the D&MS element comprised 14 in- house research tasks with total funding of approxi- mately $2.8 million per year and 18 tasks that were awarded to outside organizations under the Cross-En- terprise NRA solicitation with total funding of approxi- mately $7 million per year. In addition, some of the in- house tasks receive funding from the NASA missions (about $3 million in FY2002~. Genera/ Observations In the view of the ECT panel, distributed space systems and microspacecraft offer the potential for new ways of business that could revolutionize NASA mis- sions. For example, system studies carried out under the Terrestrial Planet Finder program (Beichman et al., 1999) have indicated the potential of distributed space systems to collect new science data. A Mars micro- mission study (Wilson et al., 1999) and assessments of the Mars micromission architecture (NRC, 1998~° showed that microspacecraft could enable affordable and routine gathering of Mars science data. Micro- spacecraft can also enable new missions that are unten- able or unaffordable using larger spacecraft (Moser et al., 2001~. Finding: The Distributed and Micro-Spacecraft el- ement within the ECT program contains many good individual research tasks that represent cutting- edge research with excellent progress and results and enthusiastic researchers. There are, however, . . loathe National Research Council report states that "micro- m~ss~ons . . . are fundamental to fulfilling scientific objectives of the Mars exploration program because they can enhance the data return, enable new or unique measurements, provide flexibility to respond to new discoveries, and permit the optimization of surface operations based on experience from relevant preflight tests. In addition, the micromissions . . . provide a potential means of ad- dressing scientific goals not currently included in NASA's archi- tecture (e.g., studies of martian climate change)" (NRC, 1998~. 83 opportunities to improve the content of the element, its connection to the mission areas, and the research methodology and management. The detailed assessment of the panel and the rec- ommendations for improvement are contained in the following sections. Research Portfolio The panel agreed that the desired balance in the research portfolio was to have approximately equal numbers of fundamental and applied projects and to have a mix of projects that address the key challenges in each research area, with no gaps. In applying these largely subjective criteria, the panel relied on the ex- pert judgment of its members. To distinguish between fundamental and applied projects, it used the NASA TRL scale, which defines the relative maturity of the technology development. The panel was informed that NASA PRT projects (of which ECT is a component) were intended to develop technology to TRL 4 (Hanks, 2002). The panel found a good mix of applied and fun- damental and evolutionary and revolutionary projects within D&MS since approximately half of the indi- vidual tasks are TRL 1-2 and half are TRL 3-4. To identify gaps in the portfolio, the panel divided the re- search into two key areas, distributed space systems (DSS) and microspacecraft (MS), and compared the research in these areas to the stated goals of the pro- gram. It identified the following areas of fruitful re- search for DSS: · Formation flying control, · Relative metrology, · Intersatellite communications · Data fusion, · Constellation control, · Innovative architectures and concepts, and · Mission and system design tools. In reviewing the DSS portfolio, the panel found a balance of tasks in most of these areas. The intersatellite communications, data fusion, and mission and system design tools areas are the responsibility of the CICT program, not the ECT program. In the view of the panel, this could lead to a lack of cohesion and synergy between closely related technology areas and limit the opportunity for the D&MS element manager to balance the portfolio.

84 AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Recommendation: PRT management should in- clude the CICT tasks related to intersatellite com- munications, data fusion, and mission and system design tools appropriate for distributed space sys- tems in the ECT portfolio to allow the body of re- search in distributed space systems within the PRT program to be managed as an entity. The panel identified the following areas of fruitful research enabling very small, low-cost spacecraft: Miniature subsystems, Multifunctional systems, · Innovative designs and operations, · Manufacturing process, and . Design tools. In reviewing the microspacecraft portfolio, the panel found that the tasks consisted entirely of minia- turizing traditional satellite subsystems. In the view of the panel, this represents a lost opportunity to include nontraditional approaches to satellite subsystems such as multifunctional components and innovative designs. Furthermore, the area of microspacecraft could benefit from research and technology development focused on manufacturing and mass production of microspacecraft and design tools for microspacecraft. There are also opportunities to reduce the operational cost of such sat- ellites by more tightly integrating the functions of com- mand and control, telemetry collection and processing, and ground operations with the spacecraft design and architecture. Recommendation: ECT managers should broaden the portfolio of microspacecraft projects to include alternative approaches to reducing size and cost and to provide effective design tools. Research in multi- functional components, innovative design and op- erations, manufacturing and mass production, and design tools should be considered. The panel also assessed the balance of tasks in the area of miniature subsystems, as described previously in the Advanced Systems Concepts section of this chap- ter. According to the assessment, the portfolio in Sep- tember 2002 was not adequately balanced, since it did not develop technologies for some of the high-payoff subsystems and overemphasized some lower-payoff subsystems. As recommended elsewhere in the report, system analysis tools would help identify these imbal- ances and would assist in focusing the portfolio on high-payoff projects. Using such an approach, the microspacecraft portfolio could be developed with a solid rationale for which tasks to invest in to achieve the goal, as recommended for the overall ECT program. Another observation of the panel is that NASA has other technology development programs to miniatur- ize satellite components. For example, the NASA X2000 program and its follow-on programs were striv- ing to achieve a "satellite on a chip" by developing miniature and highly integrated satellite avionics. The ECT microspacecraft tasks must also be evaluated in the context of this and other NASA activities. The panel was informed that the MS tasks were selected 3 years ago and took advantage of the Systems on a Chip (SOAC) program by pursuing complementary research and leveraging SOAC's technology developments. Subsequently the SOAC and X2000 programs were canceled, leaving a hole in the technology efforts for microspacecraft. An understanding of these relation- ships and dependencies is important to managing the portfolio. One tool for both insight and advocacy is a roadmap showing how various programs and their planned products can be leveraged. Research Plan Distributed space systems (DSS) research tasks have been organized and structured to address the key challenges of a variety of emerging future NASA mis- sions. A survey of the planned missions using distrib- uted space systems, their programmatic milestones, and their technology needs was performed by the D&MS manager (Leitner, 2002~. This survey pointed out the relevance of the various DSS tasks and the dates by which the technology would be needed. Furthermore, there is a strong connection between the DSS research tasks and missions such as Starlight and Terrestrial Planet Finder, which have augmented the funding of some of the tasks. This close relationship between tech- nology development and emerging missions helps en- sure the applicability of tasks. A number of mission areas within NASA strongly support miniaturization technology, particularly for the planetary missions and planetary probes (NRC, 2000 and 1994~. While microspacecraft technologies gener- ally address this mission need, the connection of some MS tasks to the emerging missions is weak, with little evidence that the tasks are tied closely to mission needs through traceable miniaturization and cost goals or per-

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES formance metrics. All of the research tasks have well- defined performance metrics at the component and sub- system level, but their relation to a larger strategy and systems perspective is unclear. As one example, the Compact Holographic Data Storage (CHDS) task has established power, mass, and performance goals that provide a significant improvement over the state of the art. Clearly such miniaturization is useful to a variety of applications, but the future microspacecraft missions that will require massive data storage and high data transfer rates at low mass and power are not considered by CHDS task researchers to be possible transition op- portunities. However, a number of tasks have identi- fied transition opportunities and have a rational basis for meeting the requirements. Most notable is the Inte- grated Micropropulsion task, which targets some niche requirements for microspacecraft. One measure of the relevance of these tasks to the NASA missions is the degree of cofunding from NASA missions and other areas of NASA. Current micro- spacecraft tasks have no mission funding and are largely funded from Code R. This suggests that ways are needed to more closely align the research tasks with missions. An understanding of why individual tech- nologies are important and how they compare with other technologies is necessary. Recommendation: ECT managers should develop a microspacecraft technology application roadmap that identifies the performance metrics and missions for potential insertion of microspacecraft technol- ogy. This roadmap should help ECT managers and researchers to understand which technologies are important and how they compare with other tech- nologies. A challenge with such pervasive technologies as microspacecraft is to capture the imagination of mis- sion designers and system developers so that they can better understand how the technology could benefit their mission. Often technologies are perceived to be inapplicable based on preconceived notions about the limitations and capability of microspacecraft. One way to counter these challenges comes from the automobile industry, which develops a concept car to showcase new ideas and stimulate the imagination of the con- sumer. A notional design that demonstrates to emerg- ing NASA missions how the pieces will come together to achieve the desired cost and mass reduction could be used in a similar fashion within the D&MS element. 85 This idea is not new to NASA, as it is similar to the idea behind the New Millennium Program and the Small Satellite Technology Initiative. Recommendation: The ECT Distributed and Micro- Spacecraft element should consider a "concept car" approach to stimulate potential applications of microspacecraft technology and to provide cohesion and focus to microspacecraft technology tasks. The Aerospace Technology Enterprise (ATE) goal for PRT (Hanks, 2002; Venneri, 2001) is "to enable a revolution in aerospace systems." The D&MS element tasks are intended to enable "radically new aerospace systems" by focusing on "broad, crosscutting innova- tions" for a number of NASA missions (Venneri, 2001~. The D&MS element tasks have these features: they apply to several mission areas within the NASA enterprise, they offer opportunities to enable new sci- ence capability, and they represent an approach to achieving these new capabilities that is not incremental or evolutionary. In the view of this panel, the D&MS elements are appropriate research areas for Code R. Technica/ Quality The panel was impressed with the individual tasks in the D&MS element. In general the tasks represent excellent work that advances the state of art. For ex- ample, this element has produced significant results by leveraging MEMS technology to develop micro- components such as microgyros, which reduce size and weight by a factor of 5 or so, and micropropulsion, which is developing miniature propulsion modules with precise impulse bits. Another example is the excellent progress toward powerful algorithms for the control of formation flying and relative metrology sensors. Many of the tasks are based on innovative designs and con- cepts and on the use of emerging technologies and de- vices in innovative applications. In particular, the two tasks Formation Flying Control and Formation Flying Sensor are considered world-class efforts. For example, the Alpha-Voltaic Micropower Source task explores the "old" idea of directly converting energetic alpha particles to electrical energy, using new developments in diamondlike materials and advances in material modeling and simulation. Another example of world- class quality is the Modulation Sideband Technology for Absolute Ranging (MSTAR) task, which takes ad- vantage of advances in optical polymer modulators de-

86 veloped for the telecom AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM industry to allow absolute rang- ing between satellites to nanometer accuracy. One objective measure of the productivity and, to some extent, the quality of the D&MS element is the number of publications and patents produced. During the past 2 years, an average of three significant prod- ucts were produced every year by each task an im- pressive accomplishment. However, this ECT element had only a small number of articles in peer-reviewed publications and could benefit from additional atten- tion to publication. Methodo/ogy The panel also evaluated the methodology to mea- sure the quality of the research. It found the tasks have structured research plans with incremental goals and milestones, and most have well-defined deliverables. The research was initiated based on solid hypotheses and, in many cases, was compared with competing technologies at a subsystem or component level, but there is no evidence that relative progress is tracked or that decision points are in place to abandon the effort if other work shows more promise. Furthermore, in many of the tasks there were no system analyses of the tech- nologies and innovations before or during the task to determine if system implications would overshadow the expected benefits, underlining the need for a sys- tems analysis capability. The challenge of implementing distributed space systems has been divided into separate thrusts e.g., metrology, formation control, data fusion each with several tasks. These tasks have worked collaboratively to develop the requisite technologies. However, unex- pected things can happen when technology components are brought together and the interface assumptions are tested. A common methodology in such complex sys- tems is to rely on interface definitions in the early stages. Components are then brought together, physi- cally or virtually, at later stages in the development. DSS tasks could benefit from system-level simulation capability with hardware-in-the-loop testing or a repre- sentative testbed or demonstration. The risk of transitioning these technologies could be mitigated by such a means. The CICT program contains a task en- titled Object Oriented Simulation of Distributed Ob- serving Systems, which is developing a simulation testbed building on a GSFC testbed for the Global Po- sitioning System (GPS), and the Formation Flying Con- trol task is developing software simulation tools; both could be extended to involve end-to-end testing. There are also flight opportunities that could serve as orbital testbeds for these technologies. Recommendation: The ECT program should inves- tigate and develop appropriate testbeds to integrate, test, and validate the various components of distrib- uted space systems research. Flight programs should also be consulted in defining relevant testbeds to improve testbed fidelity and reduce their risk. Technica/ Community Connections Another quality metric is the expertise of the re- searchers and the use of collaborations to build a good research team. The principal investigators (PIs) for these tasks are experienced, and many are recognized experts in their fields. The in-house tasks also include a good number of collaborations with industry and academia, bringing the best expertise to the problem. For example, the formation flying control research tasks have support from professors at four universities known for controls research. The microgyro develop- ment effort has partners from Boeing who have a great deal of experience in satellite navigation and the chal- lenges of integrating new technology in satellites, and it leverages an NRA with Nanopower, Inc., to develop an advanced electronic interface for the microgyro. Researchers are knowledgeable about the develop- ments in their area and appear to have selected partner- ships with leading researchers in the relevant fields. Some of the tasks are partnerships with other research organizations, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Although in some cases there are related efforts at other government laboratories such as the Department of Energy and AFRL, the researchers are aware of and can articulate the differences between their programs. Faci/ities Another measure of excellence is the research fa- cilities. Many of the microspacecraft tasks leverage unique NASA facilities such as the JPL Micro Devices Laboratory, which has capabilities for state-of-the-art microsystems and microelectronics fabrication and space component and systems testing. Some of the tasks are developing dedicated facilities to support their

PANEL ON ENABLING CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES research, such as the micropropulsion laboratory at JPL. Resilient Materials and Structures Element /ntroduction The Resilient Materials and Structures (RMS) ele- ment within the ECT program is focused on crosscut- ting technologies for materials and structures and the testing of such materials. The element invests in devel- oping component technologies and validation technolo- gies at TRL 1-3 and performs subsystem and system tests at TRL 4-6. The element was funded at $4 million for FY2002, with cofunding of $960,000 from the De- partment of Defense (Belvin, 2002~. Genera/ Observations The key objectives of the RMS element are to (1) develop space-durable materials, multifunctional and adaptive structures, and large deployable and in- flatable structures to reduce spacecraft mass and launch volume and (2) improve spacecraft performance and reliability in extreme environments. The RMS objec- tives are appropriate and relevant to missions involv- ing solar sails and large-aperture systems (NASA, 2000a, 2000b, 2003b). The RMS element objectives are clearly defined, and they are connected to the NASA mission and the PRT goal of developing revo- lutionary technologies and technology solutions to en- able fundamentally new aerospace systems capabili- ties and missions (Hanks, 2002~. The RMS element funds nine tasks. Of these, two were judged world-class: (1) Experimental Methods for Shape/Dynamic Characterization of Gossamer Struc- tures and (2) Analytical Methods for Shape/Dynamic Characterization of Gossamer Structures. The Experi- mental Methods task has resulted in unique experimen- tal capabilities to characterize deployment dynamics and the shape and vibration properties of ultrali~ht- weight, inflatable space structures. This work is complemented by more recent modeling efforts under the Analytical Methods task. The collaboration be- tween these two tasks is excellent and is expected to produce valuable tools for the design of gossamer struc- tures. The Solar Sail Integration and Ground Test task provides a mechanism to validate such design tools. To date, initial dynamic testing of a two-quadrant, 10-m sail has been carried out. 87 The development of new ultralightweight, space- durable materials is another important aspect of the RMS element. Under the Space Durable Polymers task, an electrically conductive polyimide has been devel- oped without significantly sacrificing optical transpar- ency. This unique combination of material properties is accomplished by using carbon nanotubes. Numerous publications, invention disclosures, and patents have resulted from this work. A newer task, Lightweight Multifunctional Space Components, seeks to incorporate sensing and actua- tion capabilities into space-durable membrane struc- tures. The goals of this task are far reaching and could lead to revolutionary materials performance. However, performance metrics for assessing the achievement of goals need to be more clearly defined. The Dual Anamorphic Reflector Telescope (DART) Precision Testbed Development task is a high- profile project to develop the next generation of large, lightweight deployable telescopes for NASA's submil- limeter and infrared missions. A 1.2-m prototype has been constructed and diffraction-limited performance measured. The Membrane Waveguide Antenna task seeks to design a feed network for a large, lightweight, deployable antenna with low electromagnetic losses and bandwidth tailoring. Technology developed in this task could be used by NASA in earth science missions to measure soil moisture. Both tasks could benefit from stronger connections to the materials and modeling re- search efforts in the RMS element. Work is also under way to create a materials data- base for inflatable, rigidizable columns under the Char- acterization and Assembly of Deployable Structures task. While this work will help develop standardized test methods, it is unclear exactly how the database will be used. This task could benefit from analysis to rank and scale the results. There was also concern that the work was more a service to non-NASA customers than a basic research activity. A final task, Large Area Membrane Fabrication/ Deployment, proposes the use of an origami fold de- sign to package and deploy large membranes. This task is largely based on previous work originating in Japan and is very mature, which does not fit within the stated goals of the PRT program. After it had gathered infor- mation for the review, the panel learned that funding for this task has been canceled for FY2003. A new project focusing on fabrication and deployment of in- flatable truss structures is now in the portfolio. Other tasks within the portfolio are in general of good qual-

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 <http://www.lmsal.com/sec/Roadmap/ final_master.pdf >. Accessed on August 4, 2003. NASA. 2000b. The Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan. Available online at <http ://spacescience.nasa. gov/admin/pubs/strategy/2000/ ssesp.pdf>. Accessed on August 4, 2003. NASA. 2001a. The Magnetospheric Constellation Mission Dynamic Re- sponse and Coupling Observatory (DRACO): Understanding the Glo- bal Dynamics of the Structure Magnetotail. Report of the NASA Sci- ence and Technology Definition Team for the Magnetospheric Constel- lation Mission DRACO, NASA/TM-2001-209985, May. NASA. 2001b. Understanding Plasma Interactions with the Atmosphere: The Geospace Electrodynamic Connections Mission. Report of the NASA Science and Technology Definition Team for the GEC Mission. NASA/TM-2001-209980, July. NASA. 2001c. Exploring Our Home Planet: Earth Science Enterprise Stra- tegic Plan. Available online at <http://www.earth.nasa.gov/visions/ stratplan/ese_strategic_plan.pdf>. Accessed on August 4, 2003. NASA.2002. NASA's Future Technology Architect Selected. Press release. October 11. NASA. 2003a. Mission and Science Measurement Technology-2004 (MSMT-2004), NRA 03-OAT-01, August. NASA. 2003b. The Sun-Earth Connection 2003 Roadmap: Understand the Sun, Heliosphere and Planetary Environments as a Single Connected System. Available online at <http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/sec_roadmap. him>. Accessed on August 4, 2003. NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts). 2001. 2000 Annual Re- port: Visions of the Future in Aeronautics and Space, February. Atlanta, Gal: NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. NRC (National Research Council).1994. Technology for Small Spacecraft. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Available online at <http:/ /www.nap.edu/catalog/2351.html>. Accessed on April 29, 2003. NRC.1997. Advanced Technology for Human Support in Space. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Academy Press. Available online at <http:// www.nap.edu/catalog/5826.html>. Accessed on August 11, 2003. NRC.1998. Assessment of NASA's Mars Exploration Architecture, Letter report of the Space Studies Board and the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, November 11. Available online at <http:// www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/marsarchmenu.html>. Accessed on April 29, 2003. NRC. 2000. Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for NASA's Earth and Space Science Missions. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Available online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9796.html>. Accessed on April 29, 2003. NRC.2001. Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power: An Assessment of NASA' s Space Solar Power Investment Strategy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Available online at <http://www.nap.edu/cata- log/10202.html>. Accessed on August 11, 2003. RASCAL. 2002. Statement of Work: Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts Academic Linkage (RASC-AL). November 14. Sarsfield, Liam. 1998. The Cosmos on a Shoestring: Small Spacecraft for Space and Earth Science. RAND Report MR-864-OSTP. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND. Venneri, Sam. 2001. NASA Aerospace Technology Enterprise, Strategic Master Plan, April. Washington, D.C.: NASA. Wilson, G., S. Matousek, D. McCleese, K. Leschly, R. Gershman, and J. Reimer. 1999. Mars Micromissions: Science at Mars and Beyond. Pre- 93 sensation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the Division for Planetary Sci- ences, Padua, Italy. October. BRIEFINGS Keith Belvin, NASA Langley Research Center. "Resilient Materials and Structures Element Overview," briefing to the ECT panel on June 11, 2002. Harvey Feingold, Science Applications International Corporation, "Space Solar Power (SSP) Concept and Technology Maturation (SCTM) Pro- gram: Systems Integration, Analysis, and Modeling Session," briefing to the SCTM Technical Interchange Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, Sep- tember 11 - 12, 2002. Available online at <http ://space- power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/sctm/docs/SCTM_TIM_091002_H_Feingold_ Ovrvw.pdf>. Accessed September 2, 2003. Melvin Ferebee, NASA Langley Research Center, "Technology Assess- ment Analysis," briefing to the ECT panel on June 11, 2002. Brantley Hanks, NASA Headquarters, "Pioneer Revolutionary Technolo- gies: OAT Strategic Program Area Overview," presentation to the Com- mittee and the ECT panel on June 10, 2002. Murray Hirschbein, NASA Headquarters, "NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts," presentation to the ECT panel on June 11, 2002. Dave Hoffman, NASA Glenn Research Center, and John Dunning, NASA Glenn Research Center, "Glenn Research Center (GRC) Response to the NRC Comments on Chemical Propulsion Tasks in the Spacecraft Propulsion Element of the Energetics Project," material provided to the ECT panel on April 7, 2003. Billy Kauffman, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, "NASA Space Envi- ronmental Effects (SEE) Project," presentation to the ECT panel on June 11, 2002. 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). Jesse Leitner, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "ECT Distributed and Micro-Spacecraft Element," presentation to the ECT panel on June 12, 2002. Chris Moore, NASA Headquarters, "Enabling Concepts and Technologies Program Overview," presentation to the committee and the ECT panel on June 11, 2002. Chris Moore, NASA Headquarters, "Technology Assessment Analysis," briefing by teleconference to the ECT panel on March 20, 2003(a). Chris Moore, NASA Headquarters, "ECT Master Task List," material pro- vided to the committee and ECT panel on May 5, 2003(b). Sean O'Keefe, NASA Headquarters, "NASA Vision," briefing to Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs on April 12, 2002. Available online at <http ://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/indepth/nasavision.html>. Ac- cessed September 4, 2003. Harley Thronson, Gary Martin, John Mankins, Guy Fogelman, Grant Paules, and George Komar, personal communication to ECT panel on September 16, 2002. Pat Troutman, NASA Langley Research Center, "Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts (RASC)," briefing to the ECT panel on June 11,2002. Pat Troutman, NASA Langley Research Center, "Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts (RASC) Integration with Agency Aerospace Sys- tems Analysis (ASAA)," briefing by teleconference to the ECT panel on March 20, 2003. Chuck Weisbin, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, personal communication to Todd Mosher, Utah State University, on March 2003.

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

Next: Appendix A: Statement of Task »
Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $46.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Committee for the Review of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology (PRT) Program and its three supporting panels were charged by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with assessing the overall scientific and technical quality of the PRT program and its component programs, along with their associated elements and individual research tasks. Major issues addressed in the review include (1) research portfolios, (2) research plans, (3) technical community connections, (4) methodologies, and (5) overall capabilities. As reflected in the organization of the report, a two-pronged assessment was developed. Each panel provided a detailed assessment of the program under its purview, which was refined and updated over the course of the review. The committee, composed mainly of representatives from each panel, integrated and evaluated the panel results and provided top-level advice on issues cutting across the entire PRT program.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!