|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 116
B
Statement of Task
The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of
the National Research Council (NRC) will form a com-
mittee and three subordinate panels to assess the over-
all scientific and technical quality of the Revolutionize
Aviation (RA) goal area of NASA's Aerospace Tech-
nology Enterprise. The committee's assessment will
include findings and recommendations related to the
quality and appropriateness of all NASA research in
the RA goal area. This includes internal, collaborative
and competitively sourced research, development,
analysis, etc. While the primary objective is to conduct
peer assessments that provide scientific and technical
advice, the committee may offer programmatic advice
when it follows naturally from technical considerations
or is requested by the NASA Associate Administrator
for Aerospace Technology.
The committee will be assisted by the three pan-
els, each of which will assess the scientific and tech-
nical quality of one of the programs in the RA goal
area. Each panel will provide inputs to the commit-
tee report via internal working documents to the
committee.
Panels will meet as required during the study to
receive technical presentations about the projects un-
der review by their group and formulate final findings
and recommendations. Panel members will also make
site visits as deemed necessary in formulating the as-
116
sessment. Portions of each meeting will be highly in-
teractive with NASA personnel. After completion of
its deliberations and investigation, the panels will re-
port to the committee on findings via internal privi-
leged correspondence and working papers.
1-
The committee will meet as required during the
review period to plan the review process, meet with the
panel members, and discuss the charge to the commit-
tee and panels and to discuss panel working papers,
findings, and recommendations. Meetings will involve
interactive discussions with NASA personnel from the
programs. The committee will develop a final report
developed from panel inputs and discussions at the
committee meetings.
The committee's observations will follow broad
themes concerning technical and scientific quality and
appropriateness of research, the research performers,
and the research plan. The committee and panels will
evaluate the following themes: research portfolio; for-
mulation of the research plan; connections to the
broader community; methodology; and overall capa-
bilities. Examples of specific criteria for the panels to
use as appropriate are found in the Appendix.
Neither the committee nor panels will make ex-
plicit budget recommendations to NASA, but will in-
stead comment on program content, gaps in technol-
ogy, and other issues outlined above.
OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX
Where appropriate, the panel assessments shout
use specific criteria, such as the following:
Research Portfolio
Is the balance between fundamental and user
driven research proper?
Is research being conducted in the proper
areas?
· Are there plausible hypotheses supporting each
of the research plans?
Is far-term research at the forefront of science
and determined to be a world-class endeavor?
Is the proper amount of high-risk, high-payoff
research being pursued?
Is the application of fundamental science to
solve real-world problems adequate?
Formulation of the Research Plan
~7
gram goals, NASA's strengths, and the time
horizon for the project? Are critical personnel
and facilities required to support the program
well defined?
Connections to the Broader Community
.
.
.
Are the program's goals and objectives clearly
defined and consistent with relevant documents
such as NASA's Strategic Plan?
Is there evidence of a clear understanding of the
need by NASA's enterprises, other organizations
(i.e., the FAA, DoD, etc.), or the aerospace com- Methodology
munity at large for the R&D or analysis, and the
potential benefits? Are the program's deliv-
erables to those organizations clearly articulated
and are those organizations adequately involved
in the planning and review process?
Can the expected benefits be accomplished by
the proposed research? If not, is the path to ad-
equately maturing the research clear? Is this
planning well supported by sufficient decision
points, downselects, customer agreements, and/
or unallocated outyear funding?
Are there sufficient near-term deliverables or
progress metrics from which the program can
be regularly assessed? Are there sufficient off-
ramps or sunsets to ensure that funding is real- Overall Capabilities
located within the program or to other programs
if the program does not make adequate progress
towards one or more of its goals and objectives?
Are the program' s plans for independent and/or
external reviews adequate and appropriate?
Are appropriate scientific and technical objec-
tives being posed, taking into consideration pro-
Is the research being accomplished with a proper
mix of personnel from NASA, academia, indus-
try, and other government agencies? Is the pro-
gram using high-quality research performers or
is there untapped talent outside the program that
can be brought to bear?
Is there evidence that the research plan for the
area under review reflects a broad understand-
ing of the underlying science and technology
and of comparable work within other NASA
units as well as industry, academia, and other
federal laboratories?
Is there evidence that the research builds appro-
priately on work already done elsewhere? Does
it leverage the work of leaders in the field? Is
the strategy for out-of-house work (competi-
tions, partnerships, etc.) well chosen and man-
aged?
How well crafted are the research plans for the
areas under review? In general, is the use of
laboratory experiment, modeling, simulation,
and/or field test appropriate? How well are
these methods integrated?
Have the appropriate supporting system-level
assessments been conclucted?
Do both the researchers and managers under-
stand and manage the risks involved to an ap-
propriate level?
Are the plans for further study reasonable and
justifiable?
· Is the scientific or engineering quality of the
work (including work performed in academia
and industry) comparable to similar world-class
efforts at other institutions, and is it appropriate
for the goal?
· Are the qualifications of the scientific and engi-
neering staff (including researchers in aca-
OCR for page 118
118
/
r
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S AERONA UTICS TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
demia and industry) sufficient to achieve pro-
gram goals?
Are the capabilities, quantity, and state of readi-
ness of equipment and facilities sufficient to
achieve program goals?
Are personnel, equipment, and facilities sup-
plied by support contractors used efficiently; do
they fill gaps in government capabilities with-
out duplication?
The selection of criteria for each assessment and
the relative weights given to each criterion are within
each panel's discretion and can vary from program to
program.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
research performers
