Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Advanced Technology Development
2 Advanced Technology Development
Pages 9-29
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 9... ...
. The core programs include both the cross-enterprise technology development efforts transferred from the Office of Space Access and Transportation and a space science core program of advanced technology and broadly based research and development, such as work on OSS information systems, integrated space Microsystems, science instrument technologies, and advanced radioisotope thermo-electric 9
|
From page 10... ...
technology Cross-Enterprise Technology Development Program supports the cross-cutting technology requirements for all NASA space enterprises, focusing on developments supporting multiple enterprise customers Space Science Core Program supports mid- to far-term 55.5 technologies for the Space Science Enterprise .5 30.5 1.53.0 124.8126.3 74.58s.s Focused Programs Dedicated to OSS mission-specific technology areas in the 26.7 170.7 153.2 current OSS Strategic Plan Flight Validation Program Completes the technology development process by validating 45.6 technologies in space 259.8 39.7 411.2 60.4 428.4 Total Technology Budget OSS Budget1,969.31,983.82,058.4 Percent of OSS Budget13.220.720.8 SOURCE: NASA's Office of Space Science. The four theme technology roadmaps, derived from the broadly inclusive science planning process in OSS, are intended to form the basis for planning advarlced technology activities to support the orderly progress of the program outlined in the OSS strategic plan.
|
From page 11... ...
Advanced Technology Development _ 0 ~8 ~5 C,)
|
From page 12... ...
Assessment of the Current Process NASA recognizes the importance of establishing an agency-wide process for identifying, developing, and using space science technologies. The task group was pleased with many of the efforts that NASA has made since Managing the Space Sciences (NRC, 1 995)
|
From page 13... ...
On the other hand, the task group disagrees strongly with the portion of policy 3 that says "in-house efforts justified as the minimal core to discharge management and leadership responsibilities will not be subject to competition with outside organizations." Such a blanket delegation to the Centers goes far beyond what was recommended in Managing the Space Sciences. Preserving a broad range of in-house activities has too often been justified on the basis of a Center's need to be a "smart buyer" in all the areas for which the Center has management responsibility.
|
From page 14... ...
The planning process for cross-cutting technology should be modified so that it mirrors the process used by the Office of Space Science for space science technologies. Key attributes are the use of technology roadmaps that are linked to enterprise science roadmaps and that are developed with the broad participation of the research community.
|
From page 15... ...
aerospace and space science community, and the NRC has suggested that NASA aggressively seek partnerships with both private companies and universities (NRC, ~ 998)
|
From page 16... ...
However, open competition and teaming have worked successfully in the space sciences for years, and there is no reason to expect a more difficult implementation for technology. Key aspects of the competitive process are the use of clear and objective criteria by which to establish merit and the use of independent experts to evaluate the merits of competing proposals or approaches.
|
From page 17... ...
. Facility NASA Headquarters Ames Research Center Dryden Flight Research Center Goddard Space Flight Center Jet Propulsion Laboratory Johnson Space Center Kennedy Space Center Langley Research Center Lewis Research Center Marshall Space Flight Center Stennis Space Center SOURCE: NASA(1998a)
|
From page 18... ...
· Lead independent assessments of critical space missions for the agency. · Conduct technology assessments to enhance space transportation, spacecraft, planetary entry, and sensor concepts.
|
From page 19... ...
Develop models and perform measurements and simulation for advanced electro-optic materials and atmospheric lidar systems to predict system performance in both Earth and planetary atmospheres. Develop advanced diode-pumped solid-state lasers and lidar systems to meet the unique atmospheric science needs of the Earth science and space science enterprises.
|
From page 20... ...
All Centers report that they conduct external reviews of their programs, but the character arid effectiveness of evaluations conducted by individual Centers vary widely and generally should be improved. For example, Ames Research Center and Langley Research Center reported that they conduct an external review of all programs every 3 years, whereas Johnson Space Center indicated that it 2The tenn "external review" as used In this report signifies evaluation by independent, objective experts whose outside perspective and expertise in the subjects at hand can broaden and strengthen the feedback they provide.
|
From page 21... ...
Roles of NASA Headquarters and the Centers As it becomes more common for Centers to compete against academia and industry, increased reliance on objective external reviews will help avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest. Proposal reviews should be carried out by knowledgeable, disinterested individuals from other government agencies, industry, and academia whose collective expertise spans the relevant scientific and technical areas in the projects or programs to be reviewed.
|
From page 22... ...
Currently, the Office ofthe Chief Technologist plays an agency-wide coordination role, and line management for space science technology resides in OSS. In make-or-buy decisions for individual elements of the technology program, the relative roles of OSS and the Centers are unclear.
|
From page 23... ...
Managing the Space Sciences noted the importance of having competent space scientists at the Centers working closely with project managers to support the most effective flight projects. Promoting teaming of Center scientists and technologists is also important to sustain strong technology programs.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Assessment of Technology Development in NASA 's Off ce of Space Science ~.
|
From page 25... ...
A Chief Scientist is needed to work in partnership with the Chief Technologist, the director of the AT&MS Division, and other key NASA of ficials to coordinate the integration of the needs of all of NASA's science offices into an ATD program that appropriately considers NASA's scientific goals and to establish a balanced agency science and technology program. In particular, the Chief Scientist should play a key role in technology planning related to all the space sciences and help ensure that external reviews are scientifically sound.
|
From page 26... ...
needed to effectively manage its ATD programs. The findings and recommendations of external reviews of the Centers should be reported to headquarters as well as to senior Center management.
|
From page 27... ...
The director of the AT&MS Division reported to the task group that he plans to take action to avoid these problems with future NMP missions. Although Managing the Space Sciences "urges that every technology development flight that is to benefit the space sciences use the new technology to accomplish valid science" (p.
|
From page 28... ...
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and Space Studies Board. Committee on Space Science Technology Planning.
|
From page 29... ...
Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA's Office of Space Science. August 27.
|
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.