Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
Pages 57-74
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 57... ...
The low probability of generating a successful proposal seriously hinders the participation of the smaller aerospace and technology companies that NASA would like to attract.2 At least the Step 1 selectees obtain NASA funding to refine their concepts in a later 1NASA centers negotiate with NASA Headquarters on bid and proposal funds, which come from center overhead funds. 2NASA AOs for PI-led missions explicitly encourage that proposers include small aerospace companies.
|
From page 58... ...
, which is significantly more than is spent for PI missions. 4Paul Hertz, assistant associate administrator for science, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters.
|
From page 59... ...
The relative success of this practice in achieving the desired goals of the PI-led mission programs remains to be demonstrated. Nevertheless, the committee learned that in the case of New Frontiers, the ability of the proposing and selecting groups to focus on fewer targets, and thus fewer proposals, has simplified the selection process, with only a small subgroup of the scientific and technical communities engaged.9 The practice of focusing on fewer targets need not be viewed as restricting the number of targets but rather as highlighting desirable 5The committee's information on the PI-led selection process was acquired, in large part, from R
|
From page 60... ...
Recommendation 1. NASA should consider modifying the PI-led mission selection process in the following ways: · Revise the required content of the mission proposals to allow informed selection while minimizing the burden on the proposing and reviewing communities by, for example, reconsidering the TMC-lite approach and eliminating the need for content that restates program requirements or provides detailed descriptions such as schedules that would be better left for postselection concept studies, · Alter the order of the review process by removing low- to medium-ranking science proposals from the competition before the TMC review, and · Allow review panels to further query proposers of the most promising subset of concepts for clarification, as necessary.
|
From page 61... ...
Several previous PI-led space science missions, especially in the Explorer line, had the advantage of PIs and PMs with significant experience in either orbital or suborbital hardware development, usually for scientific instrumentation. Successful PIs who lacked space hardware construction experience had often acquired management experience from both space missions and ground-based projects and realized the necessity of identifying a capable PM who could manage the technical implementation.
|
From page 62... ...
These opportunities could become available as a result of revitalizing some smaller flight programs, such as the sounding rocket and University-class Explorer programs. Technology Readiness PI-led mission AOs encourage the infusion of advanced technologies but not necessarily their development.13 Several experts reported that project technology development efforts often lag planned progress 13 NASA AO AO03-OSS-02 for Explorer Program SMEX and MoOs states as follows: "Instructions for the advanced technology component of the proposal are contained in Appendix B
|
From page 63... ...
One effective way to assure that major new technology developments apply to PI-led mission program lines is to have the PI program sponsor the technology development. For example, the unique new technologies required by the PI-led planetary science missions might be best sponsored by the Discovery/ New Frontiers Program Office.
|
From page 64... ...
The results of the competed technology developments could be made available to the proposing community via the PI-led program library, which is accessible on the Web.17 A technology program such as the one described above was successful within the Explorer Program in the late 1990s but was discontinued when NASA Headquarters cut technology funding (~$5 million per year) from the Explorer budget.
|
From page 65... ...
Moreover, the committee believes that the value of respecting and maintaining U.S. international teaming relationships in space science missions, including PI-led missions, and the value of including universities and their students in these missions should not be underestimated.
|
From page 66... ...
Role of the Program Office The inputs received by the committee from PIs and the space science community22 emphasized the need for a well-run and stable program office that enables project implementation and the benefits of such an office. In particular, several PIs, PMs, and other interviewees said the Explorer Program Office was a significant factor in the success of PI-led missions under its aegis.
|
From page 67... ...
meeting, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, December 16, 1998; "A challenge to change: NASA's nonlinear path to the future," speech by Daniel S Goldin, NASA administrator, American Astronautical Society, Goddard Memorial Symposium, Arlington, Va., March 10, 1993.
|
From page 68... ...
PI-led mission programs need to assist their projects in the cost management task by ensuring that PIs and PMs have needed insight and cost data from their NASA center team members. Currently, several practices in place partly address the need for adjusting the cost cap when doing so can be justified.
|
From page 69... ...
PI-led missions are especially vulnerable: Because they are competed, the cost cap is regarded as a harder ceiling than it is for core missions, which can grow 15 percent. For these reasons, termination reviews are avoided whenever possible.
|
From page 70... ...
Program offices should see that links to such materials are provided in their online program libraries27 and AOs and that selected lessons learned are discussed at preproposal conferences and program annual retreats involving the PIs, PMs, and prospective proposers. 27The Discovery, Explorer, Mars Scout, and New Frontiers programs' Web sites include program libraries that offer resources for PIs, including guidelines and requirements documents and NASA mission strategies and policies.
|
From page 71... ...
Goldin, NASA administrator, "A view, a vision, an imperative," speech to the American Geophysical Union meeting on December 16, 1998; Daniel S Goldin, NASA administrator, "A challenge to change: NASA's nonlinear path to the future," speech to the American Astronautical Society on March 10, 1993.
|
From page 72... ...
According to the committee's investigations, the science return from PI-led missions, though difficult to quantify, appears to be at least comparable in influence to the return from core missions. PI-led projects invest, on average, roughly 10 percent of their cost caps in Phase E (see Table 5.4)
|
From page 73... ...
Nevertheless, the committee deems these issues sufficiently important to be emphasized here. As the committee completes this report, NASA Headquarters and its programs are undergoing significant changes in response to the Vision for Space Exploration.29,30 The Science Mission Directorate now consists of four subdivisions: Heliophysics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, and Astronomy and Physics.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.