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 R1
Steering Committee for NASA Technology Roadmaps Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH10CD04B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. Cover: Design by Tim Warchocki. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-25362-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-25362-4 Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in sci - entific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad com - munity of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the gov - ernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
OTHER REPORTS OF THE AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD An Interim Report on NASA’s Draft Space Technology Roadmaps (Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2011) Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Pro - grams (ASEB, 2011) Preparing for the High Frontier—the Role and Training of NASA Astronauts in the Post-Space Shuttle Era (ASEB, 2011) Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (Space Studies Board [SSB] with ASEB, 2011) Summary of the Workshop to Identify Gaps and Possible Directions for NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (ASEB, 2011) Advancing Aeronautical Safety: A Review of NASA’s Aviation Safety-Related Research Programs (ASEB, 2010) Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research (Laboratory Assessments Board with ASEB, 2010) Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010) Final Report of the Committee to Review Proposals to the 2010 Ohio Third Frontier (OTF) Wright Projects Program (WPP) (ASEB, 2010) America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop (SSB with ASEB, 2009) An Assessment of NASA’s National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (ASEB, 2009) Final Report of the Committee for the Review of Proposals to the 2009 Engineering and Physical Science Research and Commercialization Program of the Ohio Third Frontier Program (ASEB, 2009) Fostering Visions for the Future: A Review of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (ASEB, 2009) Launching Science: Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Assessing the Research and Development Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Summary of a Workshop (ASEB, 2008) A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: A Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Develop - ment Program (ASEB, 2008) Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System (SSB with ASEB, 2008) Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration (ASEB, 2008) NASA Aeronautics Research: An Assessment (ASEB, 2008) Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program: An Interim Report (ASEB, 2008) Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2008) United States Civil Space Policy: Summary of a Workshop (SSB with ASEB, 2008) Wake Turbulence: An Obstacle to Increased Air Traffic Capacity (ASEB, 2008) Limited copies of ASEB reports are available free of charge from: Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 (202) email@example.com www.nationalacademies.org/aseb v
OCR for page R6
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR NASA TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, RC Space Enterprises, Inc., Chair JOHN D. ANDERSON, JR., Smithsonian Institution JAMES B. ARMOR, JR., ATK Spacecraft System & Services EDWARD F. CRAWLEY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology RAVI B. DEO, EMBR WALT FAULCONER, Strategic Space Solutions, LLC PHILIP D. HATTIS, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. TAMARA E. JERNIGAN, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory JOHN C. KARAS, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Loral Space and Communications, Ltd. (retired) IVETT A. LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory LESTER L. LYLES, The Lyles Group H. JAY MELOSH, Purdue University DANIEL R. MULVILLE, Independent Consultant DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology RICHARD R. PAUL, Independent Consultant LISELOTTE J. SCHIOLER, National Institute of Aerospace GERALD SCHUBERT, University of California, Los Angeles PROPULSION AND POWER PANEL JOHN R. ROGACKI, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Chair DOUGLAS M. ALLEN, Independent Consultant HENRY W. BRANDHORST, JR., Carbon-Free Energy, LLC DAVID E. CROW, University of Connecticut ALEC D. GALLIMORE, University of Michigan MARK W. HENLEY, Boeing Research and Technology ANTHONY K. HYDER, University of Notre Dame IVETT A. LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory PAULO C. LOZANO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOYCE A. McDEVITT, Independent Consultant ROGER M. MYERS, Aerojet General Corporation LAWRENCE J. ROSS, Aerospace Engineering Associates, LLC RAYMOND J. SEDWICK, University of Maryland GEORGE F. SOWERS, United Launch Alliance ROBOTICS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND NAVIGATION PANEL STEPHEN P. GOREVAN, Honeybee Robotics, Ltd., Chair JULIE A. ADAMS, Vanderbilt University EDWARD J. GROTH III, Princeton University PHILIP D. HATTIS, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. JONATHAN P. HOW, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JAMES W. LOWRIE, Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control-Orlando DAVID P. MILLER, University of Oklahoma JONATHAN R. SALTON, Sandia National Laboratories DONNA L. SHIRLEY, Managing Creativity GEORGE W. SWENSON, JR., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign vi
OCR for page R7
INSTRUMENTS AND COMPUTING PANEL JAMES L. BURCH, Southwest Research Institute, Chair PHILIP E. ARDANUY, Raytheon Intelligence and Information Systems WEBSTER CASH, University of Colorado, Boulder JOHN A. HACKWELL, The Aerospace Corporation ROBERT J. HANISCH, Space Telescope Science Institute DAVID Y. KUSNIERKIEWICZ, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory JOEL R. PRIMACK, University of California, Santa Cruz GERALD SCHUBERT, University of California, Los Angeles DANIEL A. SCHWARTZ, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ALAN M. TITLE, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center DANIEL WINTERHALTER, Jet Propulsion Laboratory CARL WUNSCH, Massachusetts Institute of Technology HUMAN HEALTH AND SURFACE EXPLORATION PANEL BONNIE J. DUNBAR, Independent Consultant, Chair DAVID L. AKIN, University of Maryland, College Park DALLAS G. BIENHOFF, The Boeing Company ROBERT L. CURBEAM, JR., ARES Corporation GREGORY J. HARBAUGH, Sigma Chi Foundation TAMARA E. JERNIGAN, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory DANIEL R. MASYS, University of Washington, Seattle ERIC E. RICE, Orbital Technologies Corporation RONALD E. TURNER, ANSER MATERIALS PANEL MOOL C. GUPTA, University of Virginia, Chair GREGORY R. BOGART, Sandia National Laboratories DONALD M. CURRY, The Boeing Company JOHN R. HOWELL, University of Texas, Austin GEORGE A. LESIEUTRE, Pennsylvania State University LISELOTTE J. SCHIOLER, National Institute of Aerospace ROBERT E. SKELTON, University of California, San Diego GEORGE W. SUTTON, SPARTA (retired) ENTRY, DESCENT, AND LANDING PANEL TODD J. MOSHER, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Chair JOHN D. ANDERSON, JR., Smithsonian Institution TYE M. BRADY, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. BASIL HASSAN, Sandia National Laboratories STEPHEN RUFFIN, Georgia Institute of Technology ROBERT J. SINCLAIR, Airborne Systems of North America BYRON D. TAPLEY, University of Texas, Austin BETH E. WAHL, Independent Consultant GERALD D. WAHLBERG, North Carolina State University (retired) vii
OCR for page R8
Staff ALAN C. ANGLEMAN, Senior Program Officer, Study Director JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Senior Program Officer IAN W. PRYKE, Senior Program Officer ROBERT L. RIEMER, Senior Program Officer JOHN WENDT, Senior Program Officer MAUREEN MELLODY, Program Officer CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor AMANDA R. THIBAULT, Research Associate DIONNA WILLIAMS, Program Associate TERRI BAKER, Senior Project Assistant RODNEY HOWARD, Senior Project Assistant LINDA WALKER, Senior Project Assistant ANNA B. WILLIAMS, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board viii
OCR for page R9
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, RC Space Enterprises, Inc., Chair LESTER LYLES, The Lyles Group, Vice Chair ELLA M. ATKINS, University of Michigan AMY L. BUHRIG, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group INDERJIT CHOPRA, University of Maryland, College Park JOHN-PAUL B. CLARKE, Georgia Institute of Technology RAVI B. DEO, EMBR VIJAY DHIR, University of California, Los Angeles EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University MICA R. ENDSLEY, SA Technologies DAVID GOLDSTON, Harvard University R. JOHN HANSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN B. HAYHURST, The Boeing Company (retired) WILLIAM L. JOHNSON, California Institute of Technology RICHARD KOHRS, Independent Consultant IVETT LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base ELAINE S. ORAN, Naval Research Laboratory ALAN G. POINDEXTER, Naval Postgraduate School HELEN R. REED, Texas A&M University ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University EDMOND SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired) Staff MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate CHRISTINA O. SHIPMAN, Financial Officer SANDRA WILSON, Financial Assistant ix
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Preface In late 2010, NASA developed a set of 14 draft roadmaps to guide the development of space technologies under the leadership of the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT).1,2 Each of these draft roadmaps focuses on a particular technology area (TA). The roadmaps are intended to foster the development of advanced technologies and concepts that address NASA’s needs and contribute to other aerospace and national needs. In June of 2010, Robert Braun, NASA’s Chief Technologist at the time, requested that the National Research Council (NRC) conduct a study to review the roadmaps. The role of the study was to gather and assess relevant community input, make recommendations and suggest priorities to inform NASA’s decisions as it finalizes its roadmaps, and undertake a time-sequenced and prioritized advanced space technology development program that lays the technical foundation for future NASA missions. The full statement of task appears in Appendix A of this report. Specific elements of the statement of task include the following: • Establish a set of criteria to enable prioritization of technologies within each and among all of the tech- nology areas that the NASA technology roadmaps should satisfy; • Consider technologies that address the needs of NASA’s exploration systems, Earth and space science, and space operations mission areas, as well as those that contribute to critical national and commercial needs in space technology; • Integrate the outputs to identify key common threads and issues and to summarize findings and recom- mendations; and • Prioritize the highest-priority technologies from all 14 roadmaps. In response to this request, the NRC appointed the 18-member Steering Committee for NASA Technology Roadmaps and six study panels with a total of 56 additional experts. The study panels were organized by technical area, based on the organization of the 14 roadmaps, as follows: 1 The draft roadmaps are available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/roadmaps/index.html. 2 This study (and the 14 draft roadmaps) does not cover aeronautics technologies except to the extent that they are needed to achieve NASA and national needs in space. Guidance on the development of core aeronautics technologies is already available in the National Aeronautics Research and Development Plan, which was published in 2010 by the White House National Science and Technology Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/aero-rdplan-2010.pdf. xi
OCR for page R12
xii PREFACE • Panel 1: Propulsion and Power — TA01 Launch Propulsion Systems — TA02 In-Space Propulsion Technologies — TA03 Space Power and Energy Storage — TA13 Ground and Launch Systems Processing • Panel 2: Robotics, Communications, and Navigation — TA04 Robotics, TeleRobotics, and Autonomous Systems — TA05 Communication and Navigation • Panel 3: Instruments and Computing — TA08 Science Instruments, Observatories, and Sensor Systems — TA11 Modeling, Simulation, and Information Technology and Processing • Panel 4: Human Health and Surface Exploration — TA06 Human Health, Life Support, and Habitation Systems — TA07 Human Exploration Destination Systems • Panel 5: Materials Panel — TA10 Nanotechnology — TA12 Materials, Structures, Mechanical Systems, and Manufacturing — TA14 Thermal Management Systems • Panel 6: Entry, Descent, and Landing Panel — TA09 Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems After initial discussions by the study chair and a few members of the steering committee and staff to plan committee meetings and draft a uniform set of evaluation criteria, an initial meeting of the steering committee and all six panels was held in Washington, D.C. The January 2011 meeting reviewed and approved the evaluation criteria and study process and also served as a forum to discuss the content of the roadmaps with NASA staff. The steering committee subsequently held three additional meetings between January and September 2011 for information gathering, deliberations, and report writing. During that same time period, each of the six panels also held two additional meetings and hosted a 1-day public workshop for each roadmap under its purview. At each public workshop, the study panels engaged with invited speakers, guests, and members of the public in a dialogue on the technology areas and their value to NASA based on the common evaluation criteria established by the steer - ing committee. More detailed information on each workshop, including a complete agenda and copies of many presentations, can be viewed at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/ASEB/DEPS_060733. Broad community input was also solicited from a public website where 144 individuals provided 244 sets of comments on the draft roadmaps in terms of criteria (such as benefit, risk and reasonableness, and alignment with NASA and national goals) that the steering committee established. The individuals providing these inputs included 91 personnel from NASA (including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory), 6 from other government organizations, 26 from industry, 16 from academia, and 5 from other organizations or no organization at all. (The data provided in the public input forms can be found at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/asebsurvey/tabs/publicview.aspx.) In addition, 87 sets of general comments were received via e-mail from 7 individuals who completed the public input forms noted above and from 68 individuals who did not. These individuals included 47 personnel from NASA (including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory), 1 from another government agency, 7 from industry, 4 from academia, 5 from other organizations, and 11 whose organization is unknown. Based on the important input from the community and its own deliberations, the steering committee prepared a brief interim report that makes high-level observations on the roadmaps and addresses the advisability of modi - fying the technologies included within each of the existing draft roadmaps, as well as technology gaps that cut across multiple roadmaps. This interim report is available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13228. From these various forms of public input, as well as their own internal deliberations, the study panels prioritized technologies for each of their assigned roadmaps into high, medium, and low categories; described the value of the high-priority technologies; identified gaps in the draft roadmaps; identified development or schedule changes of the technologies covered; and summarized the public workshop that focused on the draft roadmap. The results of
OCR for page R13
xiii PREFACE the panels’ work are summarized in this report in 14 appendixes (D through Q; one for each roadmap). This input from the panels was then integrated by the steering committee and documented in the main body of this report. The steering committee and panels would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the following staff members of the Aerospace Corporation who assisted the steering committee, the panels, and the NRC staff in this effort: Torrey Radcliffe, Dean Bucher, Robert Kinsey, Kristina Kipp, Marcus Lobbia, and Gregory Richardson. Finally, I wish to personally recognize the hard work and dedicated efforts of the steering committee, and of the panel members and their chairs, and the outstanding support from the NRC staff, without which we would not have been able to meet our delivery milestones. In particular, the tireless and professional attention to all aspects of the study by Alan Angleman and Michael Moloney supported by Maureen Mellody was exceptional. Raymond S. Colladay, Chair Steering Committee for NASA Technology Roadmaps
OCR for page R14
OCR for page R15
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional stan - dards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ellen Bass, University of Virginia, Robert H. Bishop, Marquette University, David C. Byers, Consultant, Elizabeth Cantwell, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Robert L. Crippen, U.S. Navy (retired), Joseph H. Koo, University of Texas, Austin, Kurt Kreiner, Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems, Jonathan Lunine, Cornell University, Alfred U. MacRae, MacRae Technologies, Bruce D. Marcus, TRW (retired), Edward D. McCullough, The Boeing Company (retired), Joseph Nainiger, Alphaport Incorporated, Michael Norman, University of California, San Diego, Robert Pinkerton, Orbital Sciences Corporation, George H. Rieke, University of Arizona, Stephen M. Rock, Stanford University, and Al Sacco, Jr., Texas Tech University. xv
OCR for page R16
xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse any conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University, and Ronald M. Sega, Colorado State University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review com - ments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R17
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 12 Technology Development Program Rationale and Scope, 13 Draft Technology Roadmaps, 13 Stakeholders: Research and Development Partners and End Users, 14 Organization of This Report, 15 References, 15 2 TOP TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AND HIGH-PRIORITY 16 TECHNOLOGIES BY ROADMAP Technology Evaluation Process and Criteria, 16 Summary of Top Technical Challenges and High-Priority Technologies by Roadmap, 24 References, 58 3 INTEGRATED RANKING OF TOP TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AND 59 HIGH-PRIORITY TECHNOLOGIES Technology Objectives, 59 Technical Challenges, 61 Highest-Priority Level 3 Technologies Across All Roadmaps, 64 References, 76 4 OBSERVATIONS AND GENERAL THEMES 77 Introduction, 77 Systems Analysis, 77 Foundational Technology Base and Development of Low-TRL Technology, 78 Cooperative Development of New Technologies, 79 xvii
OCR for page R18
xviii CONTENTS Flight Testing and Demonstrations and Technology Transition, 79 Facilities, 80 Program Stability, 81 Commercial Space, 82 Crosscutting Technologies, 83 References, 85 APPENDIXES1 A Statement of Task 89 B Revised Technology Area Breakdown Structure 91 C Acronyms 100 D TA01 Launch Propulsion Systems 105 E TA02 In-Space Propulsion Technologies 117 F TA03 Space Power and Energy Storage 131 G TA04 Robotics, Tele-Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 147 H TA05 Communication and Navigation 167 I TA06 Human Health, Life Support, and Habitation Systems 182 J TA07 Human Exploration Destination Systems 204 K TA08 Science Instruments, Observatories, and Sensor Systems 230 L TA09 Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems 244 M TA10 Nanotechnology 267 N TA11 Modeling, Simulation, and Information Technology and Processing 282 O TA12 Materials, Structures, Mechanical Systems, and Manufacturing 294 P TA13 Ground and Launch Systems Processing 313 Q TA14 Thermal Management Systems 320 R Biographies of Committee Members and Staff 332 1 Note that Appendixes D through R are not included in the print version of this report. They appear in the electronic version of the report, which is available on the CD-ROM that accompanies the printed report and is posted as a free PDF on the National Academies Press website at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13354.