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 41
5 Concluding Remarks NASA is an investment in America’s future. As explorers, pioneers, and innovators, we boldly expand frontiers in air and space to inspire and serve America and to benefit the quality of life on Earth.1 VALUE TO NASA AND THE NATION The committee found that the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program met its mission and accomplished its stated goals. Funded at approximately $4 million per year, NIAC received a total of $36.2 million in NASA funding and expended more than 75 percent of these funds directly for its grants. At present, there is no NASA organization responsible for solicitation and evaluation of advanced concepts (defined as technology readiness level 1 or 2) and subsequent infusion of worthy candidates into NASA planning and development activities. Testimony from several sectors confirmed that NASA and the nation must maintain some mechanism to investigate visionary, far-reaching advanced concepts in order to achieve NASA’s mission. As such, the committee recommends that NASA should reestablish a NIAC-like entity (NIAC2) to seek out visionary, far-reaching advanced concepts relevant to NASA’s charter and to begin the process of maturing these advanced concepts for infusion into NASA’s missions. The committee found that NIAC was most successful when it was sponsored at the highest level of the agency, enjoying a cross-cutting applicability to NASA enterprises and missions. To allow for sustained implementation of NIAC2 infusion objectives, the committee recommends that NIAC2 should report directly to the Office of the Administrator, be outside the mission directorates, and be chartered to address NASA-wide mission and technology needs. To increase NIAC2’s relevance, NASA mission directorates should contribute thematic areas for consideration. The committee also recommends that NIAC2 should be funded and administered separately from the NASA development programs, mission directorates, and institutional constraints. Future NIAC proposal opportunities should continue to be managed and peer-reviewed outside the agency. While the NIAC Internet-based, technical review and management processes were found to be effective and should be continued in NIAC2, the committee found a few NIAC practices that may have had unintended negative consequences for NIAC. Key among these was (1) the complete focus on revolutionary advanced concepts and (2) the exclusion of NASA participants from NIAC awards or research teams. The committee recommends that NIAC2 alter its scope to focus on concepts that are scientifically and/or technically innovative and have the potential to provide major benefits to a future NASA mission in 10 years and beyond. The committee also recommends that future NIAC2 proposal opportunities be open to principal investigators or teams that are both internal and external to NASA. One important NIAC performance metric assessed by the committee was achievement of 5 to 10 percent infusion of NIAC-developed advanced concepts into NASA’s long-term plans. One way to measure this infusion is by studying post-NIAC funding from NASA for the continued development of 1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Strategic Plan: 1998 Policy Directive (NPD)-1000.1, Washington, D.C., 1998. Available at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/nsp/. 41
OCR for page 41
the advanced concept. Initially funded by NIAC at a level of $7 million, 14 of the NIAC Phase I and Phase II advanced concepts garnered at least $23.8 million in additional support from NASA, other agencies, or the private sector, proving their value. Over the long term, the ultimate criterion for NIAC success is the number of funded projects that eventually make their way into the relevant NASA mission directorate decadal survey, strategic plan, or mission stream. Three NIAC efforts (7 percent of the Phase II awards) appear to have had an impact on NASA’s long-term plans, and two of these efforts either have already been incorporated or are presently under consideration by the National Research Council’s Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey as future NASA missions. Given the 40-year planning horizon of NIAC activities, coupled with the 9-year existence of NIAC, the committee considers it likely that the number of NIAC Phase II projects considered for NASA missions will continue to increase over time. A persistent challenge has been the lack of a NASA interface to facilitate transition of promising NIAC projects. The committee recommends identification of NASA field center technical champions and a provision for the technical participation of center personnel in NIAC2 efforts. The degree of participation of NASA personnel may be expected to increase as NIAC2 projects mature. In addition, the committee recommends that future NIAC proposal opportunities include the potential selection of a small number of Phase III proof-of-concept awards for up to $5 million/4 years to demonstrate support and resolve fundamental feasibility issues, and that their selection be made jointly by NIAC and NASA management. The termination of NIAC in 2007 reflects a larger issue within NASA related to the demise of programs throughout the agency for advanced concepts and technology development. To effectively infuse advanced concepts into its future systems, NASA needs to become an organization that values and nurtures the creation and maturation of advanced aeronautics and space concepts. Working for NASA, NIAC helped for almost 10 years to serve NASA’s need for advanced concepts, and NIAC demonstrated its success in creating a community of innovators focused on advanced concepts that might impact future NASA missions. A NIAC2 can look out for advanced concepts beyond the current development programs. It can work on the edges where requirements are not yet known, focused on what program managers would want if they knew that they needed it. However, an independent organization that nurtures technology “push” must also be balanced by a meaningful program of technology “pull” from the mission directorates⎯running in parallel and focused on nearer-term phased activities. Toward this objective, the committee recommends that NASA consider reestablishing an aeronautics and space systems technology development enterprise. Its purpose would be to provide maturation opportunities and agency expertise for visionary, far-reaching concepts and technologies. NASA’s considerations should include implications for the agency’s strategic plan, organizations, resource distribution, field center foci, and mission selection process. The technology development approaches used by other federal agencies can serve as a benchmark in this examination. 42
OCR for page 41
OCR for page 41