National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: III. Introduction
Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 33

IV

PROCEEDINGS

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 34

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 35

Welcome

Henry McDonald

Ames Research Center

As director of Ames Research Center, Dr. McDonald welcomed the workshop attendants and offered a brief introduction the Center, which celebrated its 60th anniversary in December 1999. He showed an aerial view of the entire complex, which comprises roughly 2,000 acres.

Dr. McDonald observed that the overall mission of Ames is to support the objectives of its parent agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These objectives are classified under four major “enterprises”: aerospace technology, human exploration and development of space, space science, and earth science. With the exception of earth science, the work at Ames is distributed fairly evenly across the major enterprises. Its work is supported by a budget anticipated to be approximately $600 million.

Ames also plays a major role is aviation operation systems, and is charged with developing somewhat more than 50 percent of the software that will be used to upgrade the national air transportation system to the so-called “free flight” mode. Other specific emphases include intelligent systems, high-performance computing, astrobiology (“in a word, the search for life”) and information technology.

The human capital at Ames consists of roughly 3.5 thousand employees, of whom 1,500 are civil servants and 2,000 are resident contractors. Remarkably, of the total work force, 46 percent have advanced degrees, and nearly 60 percent of its scientists and engineers perform research. Graduate students and postdocs are resident during the summers. In short, Ames is a vibrant place to work, an important contributor to NASA's research enterprise, charged with one of the most stimulating research agendas facing mankind.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 36

Opening Remarks

Zoe Lofgren

U.S. House of Representatives

Congresswoman Lofgren welcomed the conference participants, noting the great changes in Silicon Valley since her days growing up there in the 1950s. At that time, she said, there was “not much opportunity”; “the kind of innovation and success that is the hallmark of Silicon Valley simply did not exist.” She noted that the area had benefited from the special combination of leading research universities, its innovative private sector, and federal research facilities.

She expressed her excitement about NASA's interest in developing a research park at Ames Research Center. In her view, it will provide a unique opportunity to develop and harness the talents of NASA, Silicon Valley firms, and the region's universities in a synergistic partnership that will benefit all parties. The NASA effort complements the University of California's plan to develop a regional education center in Silicon Valley. The University of California at Santa Cruz, she remarked, is leading the effort to build an education and research center that connects the resources and intellectual capital of the entire University of California with the specific interests and needs of Silicon Valley including NASA's research agenda at Ames Research Center. The University of California's plans include a new collaboration with San Jose State University and Foothill/ DeAnza Colleges that will specifically focus on bridging the digital divide in Silicon Valley and filling the workforce gap. In her view, this Center will also facilitate articulation and outreach activities with all the region's community colleges and create a distributed learning and research network that leverages technology and addresses the societal challenges of the Digital Age, including the changing demographics of California and the nation.

Congresswoman Lofgren, who serves on the Space Subcommittee of the

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 37

House Science Committee, said that Congress' support for science is sometimes insufficient, but that she sensed a growing understanding on both sides of the aisle of the importance of science funding. This funding can serve to educate our young people, to advance basic research, and to support efforts such as the Ames project in order to make sure there is an interface that works for the economy.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 38

Panel I:

A Technology Vision for NASA

Moderator: Edward Pehoet University of California at Berkeley and Chiron Corporation

NASA'S TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

Sam Venneri

NASA 1

Dr. Venneri began by describing the commercialization of technology as a major strategy for NASA, and praised the proposal to create a research park at Ames as a step in this direction. He then presented his vision of NASA's technology strategy for the future, involving “highly complex, first-of-a-kind missions which cannot be accomplished or afforded using current systems.”

NASA's future mission challenges will require new systems for both space and Earth transportation. For the space shuttle, the goal for second- and third-generation vehicles is to increase safety and reliability. In the first-generation shuttle, some “3 million things” could go wrong. The chance that a problem will develop is about one in 250, which results in long intervals between missions and the need for some 20,000 people to prepare for each launch. (By contrast, a military pilot in combat has a one-in-10,000 chance of encountering a technical problem, and a commercial airliner a one-in-2 million chance.) NASA plans a third-generation shuttle that requires 50 or fewer people to process a payload and check out the system.

Similarly, in designs for exploratory spacecraft the agency is moving away from the single, large platform toward vehicles that are smaller and work in con-


1 Dr. Venneri spoke via video connection from NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 39

stellation with each other, such as rovers for planetary surfaces and small craft to orbit planets.

These multiple, small spacecraft must be able to navigate for themselves, deal with uncertainty, and react to new conditions. This means that they must create information and knowledge from data, perform self-diagnosis and repair, and make decisions—in effect, to “think for themselves.” Electronic circuits will repair and reconfigure themselves when necessary. A rover might be able to morph into some other state on a planetary surface; if the wheels get stuck, it may switch to another propulsion scheme to crawl or climb. It must be able to “live off the land” and utilize resources from the surface of asteroids or planets. The rover might “know” how to make propellants for itself and shelters for humans. This will require new ways for humans and machines to communicate and work together.

Such systems must be ultra-efficient, extremely durable, use little power onboard, generate power as needed, and move at low cost and high safety both around the earth and away from the earth. Systems must be highly distributed and comprised of interactive networks. Each system might consist of subsystems or units that can be damaged or broken apart and yet work together as constellations. In such a system, the failure of one unit does not mean the loss of the mission; failed units will be replaced or discarded.

The “Mission Triangle”

How does NASA plan to produce such hardy and versatile systems? Through integrating its three primary theme areas for the 21st century: biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology. Dr. Venneri described these three areas in terms of a “mission triangle,” designed in collaboration with NASA administrator Dan Goldin. The integration of the three areas highlights and employs certain cardinal qualities of each:

  • Biotechnology brings an ability to understand and simulate unique strengths of biological systems: e.g., an organism's ability to make exact copies of itself and to hybridize with other organisms. Thus the pieces of a constellated system might replicate themselves and/or hybridize with other pieces to continue functioning.

  • The power of nanotechnology lies in its size—or lack of size. Nanotechnology means technology at the nanometer scale (literally, a billionth of a meter, at the scale of individual atoms). Engineering at the nanometer scale will reduce launch and power requirements and permit construction of smaller, cheaper, ultra-rugged systems.

  • Information technology (IT) creates the means for communications, data storing and retrieval, and systems intelligence, effectively “coupling” the other two systems.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 40

NASA's strategy—and Ames'—is to integrate the three systems to create evolvable, adaptable, self-repairing systems. This change, said Dr. Venneri, is as fundamental as moving from the vacuum tube era in the late 1940s to the transistor and semiconductor materials that have so radically transformed technology today.

The Nanoscale Approach

In engineering today, a typical example of a common manufacturing process is one that embeds graphic fibers in a polymer matrix to form fuel tanks and other objects. In a process at the nanoscale, this kind of process would move from the micron level upward; engineering process and failure methods are understood at that scale, and mechanistic fatigue and fracture are predicted at that scale. Instead of masking material and etching it away, as manufacturers do in conventional circuit-manufacture lithography, they would use “nanotweezers” and build up a material from atoms. Such materials actually have different physical structures and behaviors than today's materials.

Over the next 15- to 20-year period, said Dr. Venneri, nanoscale abilities will be developed and integrated into biological systems and the manufacture of engineering systems, connected by the “glue” of information technology. These relationships can produce a roadmap for a new national industrial base and its radical new products.

Techniques of nanotechnology (and nano-engineering) may accomplish truly revolutionary goals for NASA. They would begin with nano-structured sensors that have the ability to detect and characterize features at the quantum limit: single photons, cosmic particles, and molecules. These nanodevices and sensors would be designed to detect subtle signatures of life and to characterize deep space objects.

The next stage would bring ultrarugged nanoscale materials and structures that can withstand the harsh extremes of space. These would include microstructures for planetary and small body exploration, huge apertures to characterize extra-solar planets, and huge apertures to study phenomena under extreme conditions, such as black holes.

Finally, the third stage would feature a maturing of true nano-structural engineering, characterized by adaptivity and reconfigurability at the molecular level and merged software and hardware for biomimetic systems that are responsive to changes in both internal and external conditions. These advanced nano-systems would allow the development of self-repairing spacecraft, self-configuring space systems to optimize mission returns, biomimetic systems for robotic exploration, and space system lifetimes of decades to centuries for interstellar exploration.

Nanobiotechnology

In nanobiotechnology, the nanoscale approach is enriched by applying the capabilities of biology. Each research effort would advance nanostructural engi-

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 41

neering to produce high strength/mass ratios. Typical efforts would be to emulate the structure of natural structures, such as spider silk, and to produce natural or artificial biomimetics.

Other joint capabilities might include nanodevices and sensors that go beyond binary, silicon-era computers and into the era of quantum, DNA, or proteinbased systems that operate at different scales. They might also include parallel processing that starts to mimic how the brain processes information. Devices at the atomic level may even be able to monitor body systems at the cellular level. These devices could work in clusters and communicate with each other as they observe, for example, cellular damage and mutations. NASA is presently working with NIH on a nanotechnology to monitor signs of early ovarian cancer, which is almost impossible to detect with conventional technology.

Information Technology, Nanotechnology, and Biotechnology

NASA will make use of any appropriate IT systems developed by the commercial IT industry. Because many space systems have little commercial application, however, the Agency anticipates the need to develop many IT systems of its own. In particular, it plans to explore four specific areas that couple nanotechnology with biotechnology:

  • The first is fundamental research in automated reasoning—the ability to embed intelligence in systems through software techniques (or “soft” computing). These are systems that reliably make and execute decisions that traditionally require human intervention. Constellated systems will require neural net technology, genetic algorithms, and fuzzy logic, and a substantial move away from the hard, deterministic numerical computing of today.

  • The second area is “human-centered computing,” systems by which humans deal with machines in ways that amplify what either can do. This may be thought of as a matrix: an intelligent agency computing with humans, perhaps even in a natural language. Such a matrix would allow humans to work with all their senses, not just a Windows-type environment.

  • The third area is intelligent data understanding. This involves autonomous techniques to transform data into information, information into knowledge, and knowledge into understanding. A growing problem for NASA is the overwhelming quantity of data that is produced by systems operation, remote sensing, and other processes. This information must be presented in ways the human brain can process; in other words, as a knowledge base. This “data fusion,” or data product development, has the goal of maximizing human interaction with knowledge.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 42

  • The fourth area is revolutionary computing that moves beyond the silicon era to provide a platform for the development of future “intelligent systems.” Next-generation computing systems may be quantum-based, biology-based, photonic, or (very likely) a hybrid of these systems. The computers of the future may be the size of the human brain and function at power levels of watts, not kilowatts—much like biological systems.

The computing environment of the future might be very different from the familiar present. This environment might be three-dimensional, and it might allow people to use all their senses. It might also mean that the “person” we see and communicate with would not be human at all, but an intelligent agent manifesting in a cave vision dome environment. Geographically dispersed teams would come and go from this virtual world, where intelligent agents would interact with each other and with humans to develop complex products or knowledge.

A practical exercise for this kind of computing is to develop a new idea through virtual means—to move a conceptual, detailed engineering design through manufacture, use and its entire life cycle—in one year rather than the five years required today. Every step would be designed and rehearsed in virtual space before the first piece of hardware is cut.

NASA hopes within the next 20 years to be able to extend this ability to the nanoscale, mimicking and manipulating atoms and molecular biological structures at the atomic scale by virtual means. Artificial DNA and its components, for example, would be part of such a design space, starting with the fundamental building blocks of nature.

Self-Healing Structures

For physical structures, NASA's goals include self-healing organic binders for structural composites, ionomers that can heal cracks with ultrasonic or microwave energy, and the capability to regrow materials and repair damage in load-carrying structures. One biological model is living bone, which is able to regenerate and repair itself by adding material around stress concentrations before cracks grow too far. This might be mimicked by adding tubes of material adjacent to load-carrying fibers so that the material would be available to ooze into new cracks and repair them by hardening in place. Such techniques would be applied to aircraft and spacecraft to keep structures airtight and prevent failures.

Dr. Venneri said that a typical objective in biomimetic engineering might be to emulate the efficient skeletal structure of a frigate bird, whose wings span some seven feet but whose skeleton weighs only four ounces. The secret is the use of a hollow, tubular bone structure. To use biomimetics for such “novel” structural designs, one would design hollow tubes that resembled wing bones, rather than using the traditional spars and ribs of aircraft wings. To complete a

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 43

strong but light aircraft structure, engineers would assemble a thin skin from optimized lightweight material and design an aerodynamically efficient, thin airfoil.

Dr. Venneri concluded by saying that Ames and the surrounding region is an appropriate base from which to pursue this technological vision and its three main emphases. “This synergistic coupling offers a revolution that any of these areas on their own would not begin to achieve,” he said. “We have the potential for self-assembling electronics, for artificial DNA, for a third-generation launch system that is truly a thinking vehicle. With a distributed nervous system it can self-certify, it can talk to people, it can warn of a structural part going bad and ask permission to replace it. Through partnerships in the universities and private firms in this region, we can become the wellspring for this new technological level. Ames is our seed gene for really bringing this together in the agency.”

AMES' TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

Henry McDonald

Ames Research Center

Dr. McDonald extended the discussion of NASA's three primary theme areas, explaining that all the elements of the agency's new scientific and technological direction have significant leadership and representation at Ames. The origins of this leadership have much to do with Ames' location in Silicon Valley. The center began early to build up a strong infrastructure and staff in information technology, and is now the lead NASA center for IT. It also became a national leader in advanced computing, and extended its work to artificial intelligence. Dr. McDonald emphasized the world-class science being done at Ames, where researchers have won two Feynman Prizes, published more than 100 scientific papers, and earned four patents since 1996.

When Ames was asked by NASA Administrator Goldin to revise its strategic plan, it was logical for Ames to continue its focus on IT. In recent years, the center had begun to build up expertise in life and microgravity sciences, adding significant strength in biology. It is NASA's lead center for astrobiology. Expertise in the third theme area, nanotechnology, grew out of Ames' supercomputing mandate.

Dr. McDonald expanded on several points made by Dr. Venneri, including the use of nanotechnology to produce very light launch vehicles. Over the last 25 years spacecraft have become lighter by roughly an order of magnitude (from 1000 to 100 kg) and in the future will shed another order of magnitude (to approximately 10 kg). Rather than more 1000-kg Cassinis, whose design might require 15 years and whose failure would mean frustrating loss for its designers and the agency, NASA will build a larger number of smaller, less-expensive, more-reliable vehicles.

He also discussed a change in the way the space agency quantifies its missions. For the past few decades it has focused on launch mass and reliability. A

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 44

new approach is to look at capability. For a communications satellite, capability might be defined as throughput in bits per second times the number of channels on board times the expected lifetime of the satellite. To make dramatic breakthroughs, satellites will require more capability of the kind that information technology and nanotechnology are likely to provide.

A 20-Year Vision

Dr. McDonald reiterated Ames' 20-year vision in terms of “self-assembly, self-diagnosis, self-healing—all processes that the biological world knows how to do very well.” He enumerated the biological processes of interest to nanobiotechnology as follows: replication, production of useful output, growth, evolution, and repair (including reconstruction, reconfiguration, and replacement).

Ames is looking at three elements to understand these processes. The first is the carbon nanotube junction. This has been studied theoretically, using computational electronics, to see if such a junction is possible and how it might perform electronically. The second element is self-assembly at the molecular level, with potential electronic uses. Ames biologists are studying a donut-shaped molecule found in a certain “extremophile,” an organism that flourishes in extreme conditions (in this case hot water). The biologists found that by trimming the donut they could get it to self-assemble into an array. They are now trying to put into the center of each of these molecules a metal atom or some other atom, perhaps one that can accept a photon; it might then be possible to have an array that could read and write at the molecular level. The storage implications of such a capability would be enormous for some missions. This work brought to NASA's attention the convergences of biology and how it affects information technology.

Dr. McDonald offered another example of the potential power of harnessing biological function in the service of technology. If one wants to build a device with a million transistors for use in an extreme environment, such as heavy radiation, one can be certain that some of these transistors will be damaged. They can be protected by shielding, but shielding is heavy. What is needed is a degree of self-healing—a process developed in biological organisms.

Autonomy and Intelligent Agents

Space systems also need (like organisms) a degree of autonomy. A major issue is the total number of decisions that have to be made on a mission, and how often they have to be made by a human. For a sensor on or near Mars, communication with humans on Earth can take as long as 30 minutes, so a successful sensor is one that goes for long periods without requiring human input or response. Similarly, the robot colonies planned by NASA need to be able to make decisions when they encounter a problem. The issue of autonomy is related to human-centered computing, a combination of humans and computers in which

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 45

computers (“intelligent agents”) take increasing degrees of the responsibility. An intelligent agent is one that reliably makes decisions (“autonomous reasoning”) with limited human intervention.

NASA is projecting that the proportion of autonomous decision to human decisions will increase over the next two decades, along with mission complexity (i.e., the number of decisions to be made). A rough progression might include the following mileposts: 1) Predictive diagnosis, for planetary exploration (2003); continuous response to unknown environments, e.g., for the Europa Submarine (2015); collaborative intelligent agents, for robot colonies (2016); and science-driven operations for fleets of spacecraft (c. 2020).

The concept of intelligent agents is also being developed at Ames for the commercial air traffic control system, which must be prepared for a doubling of air traffic in the near future. The number of controllers cannot be increased much further because it is limited by a system that requires inter-controller communication. A revised system is needed that depends less on person-to-person communication and more on autonomous, computer-aided decisions by pilots.

Finally, Ames is challenged to extend its computing expertise into “intelligent data understanding.” The agency has more data than it can access efficiently. For example, the space shuttle has a 25-year history, and enormous amounts of information are spread over a half dozen distributed sites that can not be accessed simultaneously with available browser technology.

In addition, the agency will be downloading terabytes of data each day from space satellites imaging the Earth, progressing from the current Landsat to the more advanced Terra satellite. One goal to identify the features of the Earth in detail, but the size of data sets will rise from about 106 presently to 1015. “Responsiveness”—the number of queries that can be completed in a day—will have to increase from only about one at present to a million for the Remote Lunar Vehicle, scheduled for operation from 2010 to 2015. Other systems, such as the Space Interferometer (2005-7) and the Earth Sensor Web (2020-30), will make additional demands on data handling and understanding.

The computing problem is compounded by the need to put high-capacity computers into space. Conventional computers must be protected, which adds a lot of weight, and they are hitting their theoretical performance wall. The agency urgently needs to find a more effective form of computing to do the science and exploration it wants to do. In particular, the computers of the future must be extremely robust and able to fix or work around the glitches that characterized the early decades of space exploration.

In summary, Dr. McDonald concluded that Ames has appropriate expertise to strengthen its leadership role in research. The challenges involved in moving NASA to the required higher level of technology are clearly beyond the resources of any single center. Ames proposes to do so by utilizing its favorable physical location and creating strategic partnerships with government, industry, and academia in areas of high mission priority.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 46

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

Budgetary Commitment?

In response to a question about budget, Dr. McDonald said that a substantial amount of money will be dedicated toward establishing research partnerships at Ames. For example, approximately 25 percent of the budget of the new intelligent systems program will be available for extramural activities with universities and a further similar amount for academic-industrial-government initiatives. The same is true for the fundamental biology initiative.

The Imperatives of Physical Location

Dr. Wilson asked how important was the physical location of Ames. Dr. McDonald said that the presence of a single site is critical to generate the interactions that occur between investigators at various levels, from graduate students to principal investigators. This is greatly strengthened by personal acquaintance and interaction. Relationships, once established, can then be sustained by telecommunications. Alternatively, interaction can be initiated remotely and then strengthened by physical proximity. The astrobiology institute, for example, is now a virtual institute which will be expanded with on-site facilities so that various participants can come for varying periods and graduate students can do doctoral dissertations.

Ames' Competitive Advantage

Dr. Penhoet pointed out that NASA's mission triangle is now a common theme in universities, including Stanford and MIT, and asked whether Ames had a competitive advantage.

Dr. McDonald mentioned several: 1) Ames is one of the few NASA centers employing significant numbers of people on-site in all three areas: 40-50 people full time in nanotechnology, 150 in the biological sciences, and 150-200 in information technology; 2) Ames' mission requirement to solve these problems provides focus and drive; and 3) because NASA pays its corps of researchers by annual salary, they do not have to spend time writing grant proposals, a significant advantage. Dr. McDonald was also asked whether Ames would be primarily a developer of technology or an aggregator of technology developed elsewhere. He said that Ames will seek out technologies already developed by industry and academia. However, much of its research would focus on areas that are necessary to NASA missions (e.g., space-based computing) but do not attract other groups. Also, because of its range of personnel, Ames can take a technology all the way from the conceptual stage to development and application.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 47

Panel II:

Research Parks: Concept, History, and Metrics

Moderator: David Audretsch

Indiana University

PRESENTER

Michael Luger

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Luger, who has studied and written extensively about research parks, addressed three topics: 1) background and context, 2) design issues, and 3) ways to measure success.

The number of research parks world-wide has grown dramatically since the 1950s, when the pioneering Stanford Industrial Park was established in Palo Alto, California. Depending on definition, there are hundreds or even thousands of parks in more than 60 countries. There are 295 members of the Association of University-Related Research Parks, several hundred members of the International Association of Science Parks, and dozens of members of regional science park organizations.

The International Association of Science Parks defines a research park as one that has operational links to research centers, universities, and other institutions of higher education; is designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge-based industries or value-added tertiary firms; and has a management team actively engaged in transferring technology and business skills to tenant organizations. The most successful parks can have a profound impact on a region and its competitiveness. For example, Research Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina is credited with generating (directly or indirectly) some 25 percent of all jobs in the region, and altering the region's basic economy.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 48

Varieties of Parks

Within this broad definition are many variations of the research park model that differ by structure and function:

  • Research parks, such as Research Triangle Park and Stanford Industrial Park, focus primarily on R&D and may exclude manufacturing or assembly.

  • Science and technology parks, such as the Centennial Campus in North Carolina and the University of Utah Research Park, focus on translating the results of research into new products or processes for commercial applications.

  • In developing countries, many high-tech “industrial or agricultural parks” are essentially groups of firms that assemble and produce high-tech products.

  • Warehouse and distribution parks are basically “big boxes” that concentrate on warehousing and distribution and increasingly develop advanced information technology and logistics.

  • Global transparks, with examples in Kinston, North Carolina, and Thailand, operate just-in-time production facilities near decommissioned air-fields to move goods around the world very quickly.

  • Headquarters parks focus on sales functions and administrative activity rather than R&D.

  • Eco-industrial parks tend to be regional affiliations of firms linked in order to use each other's inputs and byproducts in ways that reduce environmental impacts; a prominent example is found in Kalundborg, Denmark, 75 miles east of Copenhagen. This park began spontaneously when members sought ways to reduce costs and meet regulatory requirements.

Several other kinds of research-oriented facilities share similarities with research parks:

  • Research and technology centers are physical facilities that may or may not be located in parks; many parks are anchored by such centers. The NSTDA park in Thailand is built around four R&T centers. RTP in North Carolina is built around biotechnology and microelectronic centers. A park in Palestine is focused around centers of software and hardware networking support.

  • The technopolis (or science city) is a larger region that is developed around several high-tech elements, including but not limited to research parks and R&D centers. Prominent examples are Tsukuba in Japan and Taedok Science Town in Korea. In southwestern China a technopolis is planned in the metropolitan city of Chongqing, along the Yangtse River, including

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 49

    Chongqing University and some 25 other institutions of higher education or research centers in the region. Dr. Luger suggested that Ames could become the high-tech center for a technopolis in the northern California region.

Trends in Research Parks

Dr. Luger went on to describe four recent trends among research parks during the last several decades.

Concentration on Key Sectors

Parks have concentrated on one or more key technology sectors, for the following purposes: a) to provide greater focus, b) to strengthen marketing ability, and c) to make a greater contribution to science. In the case of RTP, biotechnology, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and software have become the major foci. In Thailand, the foci are biotech, materials sciences, electronics, and informatics; in Palestine, software development and network support. Dr. Luger said that the list of complex technological objectives that had been discussed by Ames leadership might be too ambitious (including carbon nanotube junctions, self-assembling molecular structures, self-healing transistor arrays, intelligent agents, intelligent data understanding, and extremely robust computers), but that Ames certainly hold competitive advantages in some of these areas.

Linking to Clusters

The intensified competition for R&D capacity has prompted more parks to tie into existing and emerging industrial clusters. These are groups of firms and related institutions whose competitiveness depends on the competitiveness of other members of the cluster. Clusters may form among businesses related through input-output linkages (such as the automobile cluster around Detroit) and among firms that share the same labor needs, skill sets, or output markets. In forming a cluster, research parks must be supplemented by cost incentives and training programs.

The standard model for clusters around research parks has four features:

    a) R&D activities appropriate to nearby industries;

    b) technical training to produce skilled technicians;

    c) enabling services (such as network brokers, regulatory assistance, entrepreneurship, and technology transfer) that make the system work more smoothly; and

    d) continual modernization and upgrading of technology. The technopolis growing in Chongqing, China, is a cluster in the sense that it adds R&D capacity around a motorcycle production facility.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 50

In North Carolina, the RTP just finished its 2030 visioning process, which describes large and growing clusters in communications, software, motor vehicle manufacture, and information technology. Planners must now ask what support services and R&D facilities are needed to allow those clusters to continue to gain international competitive advantage.

The “Green Door” Concept

A third trend in research parks is the extension of the university-industry connection into something called the “green door” concept: scientists from universities, who are busy teaching and advising grad students, are offered convenient access to industry-supported labs that focus on commercializing the results of research. A leading example has been initiated at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. The green door area is called the Centennial Campus, developed on 500 hectares of land next to the university. The internationally known school of textiles moved there, and the engineering department built a graduate research center as well as incubator space for private businesses (called partners). Incubator space is reserved for companies that can demonstrate meaningful relationships with students and faculty doing research. In just a few years the success of this venture has far surpassed expectations, linking more than 900 scientists and engineers with 60 partners and producing a number of patents and licensing agreements.

Virtual Parks or “Collaboratories”

The fourth trend is the development of virtual parks, sometimes called the NSF “collaboratories.” These virtual parks link scientists and engineering researchers around the world in real time via information technology. The intention is not to bypass person-to-person contact, which will always be a necessary foundation for any collaboration, but to supplement it. This strategy is proving increasingly productive in sustaining research partnerships.

Parks differ not only with respect to strategies and structures, but also by the incentives they use, the services they offer, and their ownership and leasing practices. Each park is unique, and must choose the mix of elements that make sense in the local context. Local traditions and legal constraints play large roles in the success of any park.

In general, however, virtually all research parks try to accomplish the same broad set of objectives: incubation, training, services, and research. Successful parks are those that are able to blend their strategies for pursuing all four of these objectives.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 51

Questions of Park Design: Conditions for Success

Park organizers have sought to define and measure success in various ways. Two questions are always important: first, ex ante, how can one know whether a park should be built, and second, how does one know whether a park, once built, is successful. These fundamental policy questions have been studied for several decades.

Answering the first question may begin with a market analysis and consideration of the following issues:

  • Is there sufficient demand to make the model work?

  • Is a park the best way to achieve a set of objectives?

  • What are the primary objectives for a planned park?

  • What resources are available? (Many parks have foundered for lack of adequate support.)

  • What's the expected payback period? (Parks may develop slowly.)

  • How many public benefits are expected? (This question is especially important when public funding, such as transportation funds, are involved.)

  • Does the proposed site have the right fundamentals to make the location attractive to industries? (Ames, for example, offers pre-existing technological prominence, extensive physical facilities, and a strategic location next to Silicon Valley.)

  • Is low-priced land available? (The most successful parks, notably Stanford and RTP, had available land—as does Ames.)

  • Is there access to customers, to a labor supply with appropriate skills, to physical infrastructure (road, sewers, electricity, gas, etc.), a knowledge infrastructure (e.g., universities), capital, and a good quality of life?

  • Is there experienced and visionary leadership?

  • Is there political and citizen support? (Many parks that failed lacked long-term commitment of political, business, and government leaders.)

  • Are governmental and other organizations prepared to take supportive policy actions and be counted as stakeholders?

  • Is the concept based on a realistic reading of the economy? (There are limits to the accuracy of economic prediction, but a generally accurate assessment is important.)

Measuring the Success of Research Parks

The second question, how to measure the success of a park, cannot be answered by any single method, but a combination of several methods usually brings useful information.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 52

Expectations vs. Outcomes

One way to look at success is through “effectiveness analysis”: measuring outcomes against expectations in the near and long terms. Near-term goals tend to be easily quantitative: numbers of new tenants, employees, and patents. In the long term, goals are often more lofty and sometimes less easy to measure: creating new industries, not just attracting more of what exists; creating new wealth, not just new jobs; developing a critical economic mass, not just arresting decline.

Attribution Issues

Attempts to evaluate the success of a park are hampered by problems of attribution: to what extent are effects attributable to the development of the park and its programs? Would these effects have occurred anyway? How should costs be allocated; is technical training on or near the park a cost to the park? Once a development pattern is set, evaluation is not a very useful tool for changing course, because the development pattern is already set. Experience to date suggests that adaptability and flexibility during development are important determinants of whether a part succeeds.

Points of Comparison

Several quasi-experimental methods can also be helpful, if not precise. One is to compare a park with another place that is similar in every way except for a park. A second method is the use of case studies which, although they don't give objective data, can offer rich detail. A third method is econometric analysis. With hundreds of observations, one can do a standard regression and try to attribute outcomes to various activities. In addition to the imprecise nature of these methods, another challenge is how to allocate costs. Is an investment in technical training, for example, a cost to the park or to the public sector?

The Need for Accountability

Despite such uncertainties, Dr. Luger pointed out, accountability is required—by GPRA, by NASA's budget, by Congress, and by the court of public opinion. Benchmarking has become a routine exercise in science and technology policy, and research parks are no exception. He closed by offering a sobering statistic: one-half of the parks that were initiated between 1960 and 1990 have ceased to exist. Of the remainder, half had to shift their emphasis away from research in order to survive.

In terms of efficiency, or cost benefit analysis, few parks generate tangible benefits that exceed their costs, for a number of reasons. Some parks are judged too quickly; long-term goals may take 20-50 years to come to fruition. In the case

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 53

of RTP, the park and affiliated universities were successful in transforming a rural, low-skilled, textile- and tobacco-based economy into a high-tech magnet for industries—but the process took 40 years.

Reasons for failure include increasing competition, an unrealistic concept, the lack of certain key ingredients, too narrow a definition of benefits, and too broad a definition of costs. Conversely, success factors for successful parks include leadership, vision, “deep pockets,” patience, good timing, good luck, appropriate services, and meaningful connections with universities. Proximity to universities is not sufficient; parks must strengthen universities as well as draw on them, so that the competitiveness of both is increased.

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

Pursuing this point, Chancellor Greenwood asked what kinds of university connections are most likely to advance the goals of research parks. Dr. Luger said that the best relationship is a “two-way street.” The university benefits because high-tech companies tend to contribute funds for research, make scientists and engineers available as adjunct professors, build facilities on campus, and employ graduate students. The park benefits in drawing on the university's intellectual resources, gaining access to and sometimes commercializing university research, and forming joint research projects. In addition, with respect to virtual parks, industry researchers gain from association with university researchers, who tend to be better connected globally with others in the field.

DISCUSSANT

Susan Hackwood

California Council on Science and Technology; University of California at Riverside

Dr. Hackwood, who has held positions in academia, private industry, and government, brought a broad perspective to the discussion. She commented that the Ames plans constituted “an extremely interesting venture,” and found the research areas under consideration to be “at the leading edge of what's happening in science and technology.” She said that the challenge to Ames is not so much to generate outstanding research as to find a niche that is not already occupied in this high-tech valley.

The Research Wealth of California

From her position on the California Council of Science and Technology, she perceived California to be virtually “a country in itself” in terms of size, wealth of

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 54

research activities, and contribution to GNP. The Council was created by the state about 10 years ago to represent and support the state's research enterprise. The organization is comprised of 120 people: a board, a council, and a number of fellows, half of whom are members of the National Academy of Sciences and six of whom are Nobel Laureates. The Council's function at the state level is similar to that of the National Research Council at the federal level—to represent the state's interests to the state government, to the federal government, to the Congressional delegation, and to the academic institutions and industries that comprise the council.

The CREST Report: Higher Research Per Capita

The Council has completed a major study on science and technology in California which examined the following components: overall S&T effort, high-tech industry, academic research, state S&T policies, federal laboratories, foundation support, venture capital, and human resources. Then it asked whether these components were sufficient to sustain the state's research momentum and economic growth in the future. The result of the study, the California Report on the Environment for Science and Technology (CREST), was published in November 1999. It revealed that California, with 12.5 percent of the nation's population, conducts about 25 percent of the nation's R&D in science and technology.

Two Disturbing Trends

However, two disturbing conclusions emerged as well, both of which suggest a need for substantial changes and carry important implications for the growth of the Ames research park.

Falling Federal Funding

First, the report revealed a significant change in the kinds of research being supported in California. At first glance, the situation seems healthy; total funding for R&D has risen steadily (except for a pause during the 1990-91 recession) since 1977. This upward trend is a function of a large increase in R&D funding by industry, which is essential to sustain innovation and economic productivity. One result of this upward trend is that the number of patents granted to California researchers in high-technology fields rose considerably faster between 1980 and 1996 than the number of patents in other high-technology states such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York. For example, the number of patents issued for California inventions doubled in electronics and tripled in biotech.

While industry funding for R&D has risen rapidly, however, federal funding has “nose dived.” Because the federal government is the primary source of support for basic, long-range research, especially in university laboratories, these

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 55

forms of research have suffered disproportionately. Industry, by contrast, tends to fund research that is shorter-term and product-oriented.

Lower Funding for S&T Disciplines

The second disturbing finding of CREST is that most California academic institutions, with the exception of those in the top rank (Caltech, Berkeley, Stanford), have suffered a significant erosion of funding for the S&T disciplines, especially engineering. Overall, the number of engineering graduates from California institutions has decreased 9 percent over the last 10 years. Among state university campuses, which produce the of bulk of the S&T workforce, the number has dropped 25 percent.

The state depends on these graduates to fill the high-tech jobs of the future, said Dr. Hackwood, such as those contemplated at Ames. California is already an importer of engineers from other states, but even higher numbers will be required to sustain the state's high-tech growth. This educational deficit forms a serious challenge not only for universities, but also for community colleges, secondary schools, and, significantly, the K-12 schools that produce the workforce of the future.

In conclusion, she said, the “miracle is not guaranteed.” Reasons include the following: Other states show increasing and stronger commitment to support of R&D; California ranks 32nd in R&D state government funding per capita; and California is not preparing its future citizens for high-technology jobs.

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

In response to a question from Elizabeth Downing about the reasons for the decline in technology graduates, Dr. Hackwood described the drop as part of a national trend. California is especially hard hit because of its heavy reliance on research. The reasons for the decline, she said, are many, and begin with the decreasing amount of money available to support graduate students. At the baccalaureate level, schools face rising costs for engineering programs, rapid obsolescence of equipment, and the loss of faculty to private firms. At the associate level, the total number of students entering the system is rising, but fewer choose science or engineering (with the exception of some areas of health science). The K-12 grades suffer from inadequate overall funding—especially for science and mathematics—and a demographic shift toward pupils from cultures who do not traditionally enter S&T.

Dr. Wessner of STEP noted that a reluctance to spend public funds in strengthening education for the current generation almost certainly jeopardizes the prosperity of the next generation, and asked if the Council attempts to raise public awareness of this risk. Dr. Hackwood said that the Council is now beginning a concerted effort to influence state policy on this point.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 56

Dr. Wessner also noted that a STEP report had identified specific problems in K-12 education, and he asked about ongoing efforts to change the system in California.2 Dr. Hackwood observed that any changes to the system encounter political opposition and a reluctance to spend money. She pointed out that the United Kingdom had improved its K-12 system “at the cost of very significant changes in the governance structure and the equivalent of ‘changing the constitution' for K-12.” She said that the state is now looking at how to change policy in California, to change institutional funding, to increase enrollment and retention, and to be sure that pupils in K-12 “have science and engineering on their event horizon.”

Dr. Greenwood added that the K-12 issues raised by STEP'S report, among others, are beginning to be actively addressed in California, both by the governor and by a new, $300 million program for outreach from the UC system. Current efforts include identification of underperforming schools, means of raising performance, and ways to address the fact that the new workforce is comprised largely of people who have not traditionally entered S&T fields.

Dr. Behrens, of Robert son Stephens Investment Management, asked about the source of the pool of technology labor. Dr. Hackwood said that the pool is made up of two groups. The first includes those responsible for innovation, who constitute a small minority. The deficit occurs in the second group, which includes technicians and others at the associate and baccalaureate levels who make up the bulk of the workforce. These must be imported from other states, since California does 25 percent of the nation's research but only produces 9 percent of its engineers. She added that foreign S&Es, including those on H1B visas, are relatively few in number, and don't relieve the state of the need to produce its own workforce.

Mark Weiss of Xerox, who has served as a director of several start-up companies in Silicon Valley, reemphasized the significant deterrents to moving to the area, including the high cost of living, the shortage of affordable housing, and the overburdened transportation system. Dr. Luger responded that these same concerns were described when he was evaluating research parks in the area as long as 15 years ago, when companies feared they would not be able to import enough technicians to support company growth. He said that on-site housing at Ames could at least help alleviate the problem at this site.


2 See National Research Council, Improving America's Schools: The Role of Incentives. Eric A. Hanushek and Dale W. Jorgenson, eds., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 57

Panel III:

The Ames Research Park: Goals and Metrics

Moderator: Patrick Windham

Stanford University and Windham Consulting

THE AMES STRATEGIC PLAN

William Berry

Ames Research Center

Following Dr. McDonald's description of Ames' research objectives, Mr. Berry discussed a series of proposals for research partnerships, education, outreach, regional issues, and site construction. In general, Ames administrators intend to phase out some operational functions in favor of strengthening and extending research capabilities. The broad strategic objective is to “develop a world-class shared-use research and development campus in association with government entities, academia, industry, and non-profits.”

In particular, the plan has two components. The first is to support NASA's overall mission in three areas: 1) advance NASA's research leadership; 2) enhance the Agency's education, outreach, and advocacy efforts; and 3) create a unique community of researchers, students, and educators. The second component is regional involvement. Ames would invite regional participation in planning and in key projects or partnerships, and organize its activities in ways that are consistent with Bay Area interests, including environmental, transportation, educational, and economic interests.

The strategic plan proposes extensive renovation and expansion of Ames' extensive physical plant, which is located at the heart of Silicon Valley near the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale, between the wetlands of San Francisco Bay and Route 101. The Ames property is adjacent to the Lockheed Martin Mis-

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 58

sile and Space Co. and close to numerous high-tech companies and research facilities, including new components of Microsoft and Netscape.

As a result of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988, the original NASA/Ames tract of 500 acres was increased by 1,500 acres in 1994 by the addition of Moffett Naval Air Station. Ames is now the host agency for several other governmental organizations, including the California Air National Guard, Army reserve units, small active Army units, and a Federal Emergency Management Agency unit, which operate on a shared cost-pool basis. The airfield easily accommodates modern aircraft (e.g., Boeing 747s).

Objectives and Strategy

Mr. Berry began to develop the current strategic plan in January 1997. He emphasized that the objectives of the plan support the NASA mission. The plan's primary objective is to extend and deepen the research and development capabilities of Ames through R&D partnerships with industry, universities, and other entities. These partnerships would primarily be in the areas Mr. Venneri described earlier, that is, information technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology, with complementary programs in astrobiology.

Related objectives are to:

  • create new and unique research facilities and other related physical facilities that further the mission of NASA;

  • conduct education and outreach programs, in partnership with universities and school systems, for multiple purposes—

    • enhancing the education of the Ames work force;

    • creating graduate, postdoctoral, intern, sabbatical, and other opportunities for visiting scholars;

    • developing public educational programs on site; and

    • strengthening science and technology in regional school systems;

  • develop the site in ways that are consistent with regional goals and that promote employment, sound land management, good environmental practices, clean and efficient transportation, and economic development;

  • make available some of Ames' former military housing for researchers; and

  • manage in appropriate ways the portions of the site that have been designated as historic districts and buildings.

The Ames Approach to Partnerships

Mr. Berry emphasized that the Ames partnership strategy is based on its legislative mandate, the Space Act of 1958. In delineating the authority of NASA, the Act permits the agency to enter into “contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 59

such terms as it may deem appropriate...with any person, form, association, corporation, or educational institution.” According to consultations with NASA's counsel general, the center requires no additional authority for its planned activities. The Act also authorizes NASA to recover costs it may incur in supporting a collaborative activity, such as providing fire and security services to its partners.

The partnerships currently envisaged include the following:

  • The formation of any partnership must be an open and fair process that entertains all potential offers, with metrics that show true accountability.

  • Partners can create (or renovate) their own new facilities on the Ames property, including subleasing to tenants approved by NASA.

  • In return for providing land and a unique relationship with NASA researchers, Ames would require some of its partners to reinvest funds gained through partnerships in future collaborative research activities at Ames. NASA will cost-share its own activities when it is directly part of a collaborative activity. Thus the partnerships would be fueled primarily by nonappropriated funds.

Ames has entered into memoranda of understanding with potential partners through 2000: the University of California system, led by UC Santa Cruz; Carnegie Mellon University; San Jose State University; Foothill-DeAnza Community College District; the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO); and Lockheed Martin. The center is presently “moving down parallel paths” with each potential partner toward a “convergent point” that satisfies both NASA's primary objectives and the objectives of each partner. Mr. Berry described the major features (includes post-briefing calendar year 2000 updates) of each partnership as follows:

  • University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC): This would be the lead UC campus, which NASA views as the portal into the UC system. Designating a lead campus in the Research Park is intended to reduce competition for students and provide a more integrated approach to educational projects. The UC System has designated Ames as its preferred site for its Silicon Valley Center, a UCSC-managed research and education campus. Ames anticipates benefits from joint research projects of mutual interest and relationships with graduate students and postdocs. “UC and NASA scientists will work together on advances in science and technology that will drive new industries and provide new products benefiting California's economy,” said UC President Richard Atkinson at an October 25, 2000 press conference announcing the partnership. “UC Santa Cruz will serve as a portal to the UC system for Silicon Valley to connect UC's intellectual resources with the specific interests and needs of Silicon Valley, NASA, the state and the nation,” Atkinson said. UCSC and NASA share

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 60

    many research areas of interest and strengths, such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, planetary sciences, and astrobiology, and other UC campuses have expertise in information technology. In addition, research is expected to be conducted on issues of social justice, education, labor, and economics, among other topics.

  • UCSC, San José State University, and the Foothill-De Anza Community College District: These schools have formed the “Collaborative,” an unprecedented academic partnership to address Silicon Valley's critical education and workforce needs through joint research and education programs to be located at the NASA Research Park. “By crossing traditional boundaries, our collaboration with San José State and Foothill-De Anza will leverage our collective strength, provide innovative programs and services and produce results of value to Silicon Valley and the State of California,” said UCSC Chancellor M.R.C. Greenwood at the September 5, 2000 press conference announcing the partnership. “The NASA Research Park will provide the optimal environment for collaboration. Through these collaborative programs, we look forward to building world-class facilities that will house teaching, research, and economic development programs for the Silicon Valley and the State of California,” said San Jose State University President Robert Caret. The Collaborative has already received a $100k grant from the Packard Foundation to begin planning the Teacher Institute component for the proposed California Air and Space Center (CASC), an independent non-profit, that will renovate Historic Hangar 1 into a world-class science and technology learning center. The CASC will partner with NASA and the Collaborative in a number of areas.

  • National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO): NAFEO is the national umbrella and public policy advocacy organization for 118 of the nation's historically and predominantly Black colleges and universities. NASA Ames and NAFEO have established a partnership to explore bringing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) faculty, researchers, and students to Silicon Valley as part of the planned NASA Research Park. A number of the Research Park agreements include emphasis on female and minority workforce development. Bringing minority students and faculty from minority-serving institutions around the nation through the NAFEO partnership will immediately expand the NASA Research Park into a national educational resource, while connecting those universities to Silicon Valley. “Developing a presence in Silicon Valley is important to our mission of ‘Keeping the Doors of Opportunity Open,'” said NAFEO CEO and President Dr. Henry Ponder in a November 1, 2000 press release. “This research partnership with Ames at the NASA Research Park is an outstanding opportunity to bring faculty and students

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 61

    from our 118 member minority institutions to where the action is for the New Economy,” Ponder said.

  • Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Researchers from this university would complement some of the key technology strengths of Ames, especially information technology, high-reliability computing, and robotics. On December 11, 2000, Ames and Carnegie Mellon announced the formation of a new High Dependability Computing Consortium (HDCC), whose mission is to eliminate failures in computing systems critical to the welfare of society. Twelve information technology companies have agreed to work with Carnegie Mellon and NASA on the consortium and its agenda to promote and conduct research enabling the development of highly dependable, affordable software systems. The consortium's industry partners include Adobe Systems, Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Corp., IBM Corp., ILOG, Inc., Marimba, Inc., Microsoft Corp., Novell, Inc., SGI, Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc., Sybase, Inc., and Sun Microsystems, Inc. The High Dependability Computing Consortium represents the first concrete step in Carnegie Mellon's plan to develop a presence in Silicon Valley, which will include a branch campus for education and research programs. “Carnegie Mellon has a long history of building practical computing systems and is recognized for its expertise in software engineering,” said Carnegie Mellon President Dr. Jared L. Cohon at the press conference announcing the HDCC. “We have an innovative faculty that excels in cross-disciplinary research. The university has played a lead role in forming this HDCC consortium, and along with the branch campus, we will showcase our research and educational offerings in Silicon Valley, the information technology capital of the world,” Cohon said.

  • Lockheed Martin: Ames has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin's space operations company (based in Houston) to enable opportunities in new research. The first major collaborative project will be to construct a Laboratory for Advanced Space Research (tentative plans call for naming the laboratory after Carl Sagan and for establishing a Sagan library on the site). Lockheed Martin would be responsible for developing a critical portion of the infrastructure, upgrading older buildings, and building new office and laboratory space for sublease to tenants whose goals are consistent with NASA's mission. Plans are currently under development for construction to begin in summer 2001. Lockheed Martin already has extensive experience in collaborative ventures, including the lead role in the following consortia: Arctic Slope Regional Coalition, SERC, and the Martin Group.

Ames has discussed possible partnerships with other high-tech firms, including Oracle (information technology research), Raytheon (information technol-

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 62

ogy, remote sensing, air traffic capacity, education), Sun Microsystems (information technology), AMD (nanotechnology), TRW (nanotechnology, IT, space sensors), Intel (information technology), and Computer Sciences Corporation (ATM technologies). All have expressed an interest in leasing space at Ames, in working with Ames researchers, and in developing either precompetitive or commercial technologies. When new infrastructure and rental space is available, Ames can begin establishing relationships with industry partners. Partners will participate in a “resident council” to address common issues for local resolution.

Educational Goals

One of NASA's explicit missions is education and outreach. Ames, because of its large holding of land, has the opportunity to create a unique community of researchers, students, and educators to support the dual objectives of research and education.

With this objective, one goal for Ames is to enhance the education of its own workforce, in multiple ways. One plan is to arrange joint appointments for staff members with university partners. Another is to form joint research teams on campus with researchers from other institutions. A third is to bring graduate students and postdocs with the latest training to the Ames campus.

The 350,000-square-foot Hangar One and surrounding areas at Ames will be converted into a world-class education facility called the California Air and Space Center. This center will be a 501(C)(3) corporation with six directors, including astronaut Sally Ride, director James Cameron, and appointees of the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. The directors will establish a vision statement, create a business plan, and work with the support of NASA resources. In addition to interior space large enough to house numerous life-sized space vehicles, Hangar One will be home to the Teacher Institute.

Other educational projects include the nonprofit Computer History Museum Center, The Research Institute for Advanced Computation, and an expanded small-business incubator. Financial analysis has indicated that these educational projects will be able to operate on a self-funding basis.

A Regional Vision

Under the Space Act, NASA's use of federal land must be both appropriate to NASA's missions and responsive to the surrounding region. Ames, traditionally a fenced, stand-alone enclave, plans to open its gates to the community and enter more closely into the concerns of the surrounding region:

  • The environment: Ames is adjacent to extensive wetlands, much of which is being used as commercial salt basins. The state plans to purchase these wetlands and return them to their original condition and Ames intends to

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 63

    make its activities consistent with this conservation effort. In addition, it is working to complete the last link in a San Francisco-Oakland walking trail, The Bay Trail, across the northern edge of its property.

  • Transportation: With the restoration of the wetlands is a plan to initiate new ferry service across the Bay to ease traffic congestion, with the terminal sited at Ames. In addition, Santa Clara County has extended light rail by building a terminal at Ames to facilitate travel through Santa Clara to South San Jose and to the Caltrans railroad station in Mountain View.

  • Regional development: Ames has met with numerous potential partners and local neighbors (the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Bay Area Economic Forum, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, focus groups, local schools and universities) about the regional effects of the partnership plan. Responses from all groups have been positive.

  • Local governments: The city councils of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and other surrounding communities have discussed and endorsed the plan, and agreed to improve transportation and other vital infrastructure.

  • Access and housing: Ames will by stages open its gates and remove security barriers from the research (western) portion of the complex. A new bridge may be built by Mountain View to provide access to undeveloped land that will form part of the research area. The center may be allowed use some of the 800 units of military housing to provide basic, inexpensive housing for visiting researchers and students.

  • Historic preservation: A number of former military buildings, some of them located in a historic zone, are structurally sound but require upgrades to meet modern seismic and accessibility codes. The center plans to lease some of them to partners who will bring them up to code in lieu of rental fees. The first such tenant has entered negotiations. Other buildings may be removed and replaced with new buildings of architectural styles that are consistent with the historic district.

Proposed Schedule

A number of activities have already begun: completion of the infrastructure assessment, traffic studies, protection of historic resources, and initial massing studies and site plans. The center plans to invite potential partners to a planning session to align the objectives of Ames with those of its potential partners. Construction and gate changes may begin as early as the end of 2000.

In June 2000, NASA Ames announced its Environmental Impact Statement that includes a comprehensive plan for development of the entire 2,000-acre site. The EIS process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will take up to 18 months. NASA Ames plans to reach a Record of Decision in late 2001 that will allow a build-out of an additional approximately 3 million square feet of space for the Research Park.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 64

Summary

In summary, Mr. Berry highlighted these features of the Ames proposal:

  • The proposal has the potential to establish a new world-class R&D campus that can benefit not only NASA but also the region and the nation; and

  • Ames administrators believe that their plan will allow the agency to leverage NASA resources, the capacities of Ames Research Center, and the lands inherited by the center from the military for the benefit of NASA's mission.

The objectives of the strategic plan include improved scientific research and technology development; enhancement of NASA's education and outreach programs; productive partnerships with universities and private companies; and stronger workforces both at Ames and in the region.

PARTNERING WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA CRUZ

M.R.C. Greenwood

University of California at Santa Cruz

Dr. Greenwood's presentation explored why the University of California, and the Santa Cruz campus in particular, are interested in the Ames program. She emphasized two topics: research partnerships and the opportunity to “really deal with some of the issues around the digital divide”—that is, providing better technology education for the present and future workforces. Noting the shortage of human resources in engineering, she said that UC Santa Cruz is committed to a 50 percent increase in engineering graduates. The school has opened “the first 21st-century engineering school” and its plans for growth involve its partnership with the Ames program.

Some Strengths of UC

Dr. Greenwood said that the value of the University of California as a partner lay in its research strengths. UC is widely perceived as the number-one public research university in the world. The system already has 159 research grants with NASA, 34 of which are on the Santa Cruz campus. UC has a reputation for innovation and leadership, she said, and for making an “enormously positive” economic impact in California and the nation generally. Six of UC's nine campuses have already launched successful research parks, as well as partnerships with

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 65

national laboratories and other organizations, such as Lockheed Martin. Of the $13.6 billion UC budget, over $2 billion is spent on research.

UC Santa Cruz, founded in 1965, is one of the younger, faster-growing campuses, said Dr. Greenwood. It plans to hire some 600 new faculty in the next decade, providing many opportunities for joint appointments and new programs. Its young engineering school has grown from several hundred students three years ago to over 900 at present, and already ranks number 15 nationally among public research universities.

Its major engineering research and teaching programs overlap closely with the subfields planned for expansion at Ames. In the partnership, it would emphasize the “mission triangle” fields of NASA (information technology, nanotechnology, biotechnology), as well as planetary sciences and astrobiology. It would also seek ways to address major issues of the “digital divide,” and emphasize both K-12 and teacher education.

Outreach and Partnerships

The University of California at Santa Cruz has an extensive outreach to the Valley, through, for example, its Lifelong Learning program, which now enrolls some 52,000 people with activities designed to respond to existing companies and their workforce needs. The university also collaborates in outreach with the Foothill-De Anza Community College District and San Jose State system on hightech educational initiatives.

The UC campuses have a good record of working with industries, especially in the field of biotechnology, which Dr. Greenwood described as “essentially a California industry.” One of three biotech firms in the nation is within 35 miles of a UC campus, she said; one in four was started by UC scientists, including three of the world's largest. The industry now supports over 60,000 jobs in California.

The multi-campus structure of UC has led to considerable experience in partnerships. UC Santa Cruz, for example, serves as system-wide headquarters for the astronomy program, and has launched an S&T center in adaptive optics in partnership with four other University of California campuses, other universities, and 23 businesses. Santa Cruz would be an experienced anchor tenant for Ames, said Dr. Greenwood, and a portal to facilitate the identification of talent throughout the UC system. UCSC has also formed partnerships with other entities of business and government.

UC Santa Cruz has discussed a role as the lead university for the new Ames astrobiology laboratory, for which it would assemble teams in astrobiology, information technology, and nanotechnology. Strength in planetary sciences is already present, as is a major multi-campus research unit in geophysics and planetary physics. In addition, UC Santa Cruz and Ames would collaborate in the fields of remote sensing, data visualization, Mars missions, and space biology.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 66

Strength in Education

A particular strength and interest of UC Santa Cruz is K-12 education. The University of California system, as a whole, has been given a “huge” role by the governor to improve teacher education and retention, and to hold algebra and science institutes and summer programs for teachers. UC Santa Cruz plans to combine aspects of these objectives with those of Ames' Teacher Institute for considerable impact in the region. The state legislature is motivated to address issues of the digital society, including early identification and inspiration of talented students. Although K-12 education is not a primary objective of the Space Act, said Dr. Greenwood, the educational partnership between Ames and UC Santa Cruz would be a good model for government agencies.

As lead university in the UC system for K-12 outreach, UC Santa Cruz has formed an educational collaborative with San Jose State University, the Foothills/ De Anza colleges, local organizations, and UC resources. The model combines outreach, articulation, and programming, focusing on digital divide issues. For higher education, one expected outcome of the collaborative are joint doctorate degrees in science and mathematics education and in engineering with San Jose State and NASA.

The partnership between UC Santa Cruz and NASA began nearly two years ago, and has recently accelerated. The role of UC is to furnish planning money for the regional center, and perhaps for the educational collaborative as well. A UC academic task force will visit Ames in summer 2000, and siting/real estate teams are working with Lockheed Martin (with whom UC has long experience collaborating in DoE labs). The president of UC Santa Cruz has talked with leaders in Silicon Valley about partnerships, and a letter of intent with NASA is in progress.

In conclusion, Dr. Greenwood said that a strength of the partnership between NASA and UC Santa Cruz is their close alignment of objectives, in research, education, and outreach. The opportunities for joint appointments, joint projects, and workforce enhancements are extensions of ongoing efforts and goals for both institutions. For UC Santa Cruz, the practical objective is to provide Ames with a portal to the UC system; the larger goal is to create a nationally recognized model for collaboration between education, government, and industry.

THE ROLE OF LOCKHEED MARTIN

William Ballhaus

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Dr. Ballhaus, a former director of NASA Ames Research Center, praised the new Ames strategic plan, saying it could provide a “wellspring of innovation”

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 67

that would benefit not only NASA and its partners but also the entire science and engineering enterprise. He said that Lockheed Martin (LM) has been collaborating on this strategic plan for some time and is eager to participate as a partner.

He summarized the mission of Lockheed Martin as “systems integration and technology,” and said that this mission makes an excellent fit with the goals described by Drs. Venneri and McDonald. Lockheed Martin already has extensive working relationships with NASA in which it contributes strategic planning, program management, and laboratory support. The corporation employs a total of about 50,000 scientists and engineers and supports over 1,000 internal R&D projects and a variety of government contracts in aeronautics, space systems, information technology, electronics, technical services, and others.

In the 1990s, when Lockheed Martin took its present form, its leaders decided against maintaining a central research laboratory. They recognized that the scope of LM technology could not be covered by a single lab. Instead, the corporation reached out to form partnerships with a broad range of external sources, including Sandia National Laboratories (which LM operates), General Electric, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and over 100 colleges and universities.

Partnerships and Clusters

Dr. Ballhaus described a recent meeting of the Council on Competitiveness which he attended in Washington. He said that the Council focused on three areas, all of which were vital elements of the Ames plan:

  1. a technologically competent workforce;

  2. enhanced government funding of basic research; and

  3. regional alliances and incubators.

The meeting heard that, in the 1990s, businesses faced up to problems that impeded productivity and became more efficient. In 2000 and beyond, the next advances will be provided by innovation, to which regional clusters are critically important, including a supplier base, expert financiers, and supportive educational and governmental institutions.

Dr. Ballhaus suggested that such a cluster could take shape around Ames and the partnerships it forms. As one such partner, Lockheed Martin's goals would be to serve the customer's needs and to help reach the goals described by NASA. One reason that Lockheed Martin is an appropriate partner, he said, its is expertise in recruiting and managing human resources. LM hires 2,000 people every year (65 percent of them in electrical engineering and computer sciences). Another reason is that its focus on systems integration brings wide experience in collaboration.

He noted that the growing importance of collaborative research is illustrated by a recent study for the Air Force. The study recommended a science and tech-

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 68

nology strategy called GOCA—“government owned/collaborator assisted”—as a way to ensure a continuing stream of fresh ideas and talent.

He then cited four criteria he had used as director of Ames to assess the vitality of a research center: 1) the strength of its mission; 2) the quality of its workforce; 3) the uniqueness of its facilities; and 4) the strength of its interactions with academia, government, and industry. He said that Ames as a facility is strong in each area, and that the new strategic plan could establish a “new model for doing business with NASA.”

Collaboration with Ames and Academic Partners

Within this model, one of LM's goals would be to establish and direct a Research Initiative Fund to support new research programs. Profits from such programs would be held in an escrow account, and the use of profits would be decided jointly by NASA, LM, and UC Santa Cruz. Potential uses would include innovative research programs, academic fellowships and joint educational projects, K-12 initiatives, and various vehicles to further the mission of NASA. Lockheed Martin would also be responsible for developing the new air and space museum and the research and educational environment that supports Ames' mission.

Specific areas of research collaboration with Ames would include astrobiology, information technology (LM is a leader in government and commercial IT system design and implementation), nanotechnology (taking advantage of leading-edge research at Sandia National Laboratory, managed by LM), life and microgravity sciences, and aeronautical and space technology. To strengthen this collaboration, LM would also join with Ames in workforce enhancement through joint appointments and internships, access to graduate students, postdocs, and future employees, and on-site continuing education.

LM would also collaborate on several fronts with Ames' major academic partners, UC Santa Cruz and Carnegie Mellon University. First, university professors would play an educational role in the laboratories where LM researchers work. In addition, LM and its academic partners would collaborate on both scientific and educational programs, including joint R&D projects, advanced education for LM employees and other Center tenants, shared leadership in the Research Initiative Fund, and technology transfer.

Experience with Partnerships

Lockheed Martin has already experienced aspects of the Ames plan in its role of manager of Sandia National Laboratories, a Department of Energy facility in New Mexico. With its management contract comes a commitment to investing in the local community. An important aspect of this investment is the Technology Ventures Corp., a 501(c)(3) corporation founded in 1993 to facilitate commercialization of new technology, commercialize technology developed at the lab,

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 69

and create new businesses and jobs in New Mexico. Some early results include the following:

  • strategic alliances with 25 partners;

  • establishment of a 200-acre science and technology park;

  • 7 tenant companies employing more than 225 people;

  • investments in client companies totaling $166 million;

  • 36 business formations, 27 business expansions, 16 licenses, 7 CRADAs; and

  • more than 2,000 jobs created.

Similarly, a 250-acre multipurpose industrial office park has been created at Oak Ridge. Park management is committed to invest 10 percent of profits from park activities in the local Oak Ridge community. This is done through educational institutions, entrepreneurial ventures, United Way, and other means. The Oak Ridge initiative:

  • supports a model technology transfer program, which makes available the latest equipment and staff expertise. This has resulted in more than 250 licenses of Oak Ridge technologies, hundreds of CRADAs, a small business incubator, and an investment company to supply seed capital to technologies developed by DoE. It also

  • supports Technology 2020, a public-private partnership that leverages IT resources to create an entrepreneurial environment, develop a high-speed information infrastructure, and establish a pipeline of qualified IT professionals; and

  • contributes millions of dollars to education, corporate matching gifts, and education scholarships.

Dr. Ballhaus closed his talk by congratulating the Ames leaders on their plan, and citing the value of linkages and collaborative research to Lockheed Martin. “We have common goals with NASA and the other partners,” he said. “A shared R&D center will benefit us all. We are very much focused on linkages into the wellsprings of intellectual activity and new technology in areas that affect our mission.”

THE ROLE OF CARNEGIE MELLON

Duane Adams and James Morris

Carnegie Mellon University

Moderator Patrick Windham introduced Dr. Adams as a former director of DARPA who has had considerable experience with government-industry partner-

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 70

ships. Dr. Adams began by praising the plan for a research park at Ames, citing the advantages of collaborative programs over programs done in separate organizations. He suggested that the Ames design include explicit strategies to induce interaction, including opportunities for communal dining, on-site lodging, and round-the-clock access to research facilities. “It should be a place where people from the research community want to come, for employment or visits or sabbaticals, to take advantage of the environment.”

A Commitment to Collaboration

Dr. Adams said that Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was committed to working as a partner with NASA, with other universities, and with corporate partners in forming and operating a “world-class, shared-use research park.” The focus of CMU's activities will be research, especially long-term, fundamental investigations in the areas of robotics, software engineering, and other aspects of information technology. He affirmed that education is most effective in the context of research, and for this reason he advocated the participation of CMU students, as well as faculty (typically during sabbatical leave from campus), as part of the local research community. He cautioned that structuring the space and buildings in ways that truly facilitate collaboration will take “a really collaborative effort among all major partners.”

CMU has managed a program in robotics for 20 years, initiated with flexible startup grants from Westinghouse. The sophistication of this Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) has increased over its lifespan. An initial focus on manufacture, inspection of circuit boards, welding, and forging has evolved to include robot fields, health care robots, and exploration robots. NASA has funded the National Robotic Engineering Consortium, along with about 20 commercial partners, including Caterpillar, New Holland, and Ford, with the goal of transferring technology developed at CMU, NASA, and elsewhere. The robotics institute includes an educational program with Ph.D. and master's degrees.

The software engineering program began 15 years ago in response to defense needs. About a dozen years ago the program set up a computer emergency response team for DARPA to counter an internet threat. Today the program has matured into a “911” system for cyberattacks. It, too, is an educational program, offering a master's in software engineering.

Possible Lessons for Ames

Through such collaborations, CMU has learned valuable lessons that may be useful at Ames:

  • Institutional support from the top is essential. At CMU, a new program is

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 71

    usually initiated by a principal investigator with a proposal, but its success depends on the active support of institutional leadership, “all the way up the entire chain,” from the deans and provost to the president and board of trustees.

  • In both robotics and software engineering, flexibility and continuous innovation are essential to keep programs vigorous. “The projects you start out with are not necessarily the ones you end up with after a few years.”

  • Industry relationships are essential to productive collaborations, but they must be nurtured patiently over a long period. “It is important to deal not only with researchers, but right up to the CEO and other key leaders.”

  • Success will depend on the Center's ability to attract the very best researchers. This ability can be enhanced by permitting and encouraging companies to co-locate on the site and by providing incubator services for new and small businesses.

  • Even within individual institutions, collaborations among departments can spur innovation. Mutual interests between the computer sciences and business studies programs at CMU have resulted in a master's program in ecommerce.

  • Thanks to modern electronic communication, it will be possible to perform tightly-coupled research programs in separate locations (Ames and CMU campus).

As a partner at Ames, CMU would have the following objectives: to perform collaborative research with NASA, other universities, and Silicon Valley companies; to participate in selected educational programs to benefit NASA and private partners; and to assist in the commercialization of technology by various means, including hosting and incubation services.

“At Ames, we need to share ideas and really work together,” Dr. Adams concluded. “We have to attract enough researchers and provide incentives for them to do more than just research. They must have opportunities to commercialize their work and participate in ventures. These are important incentives.”

Dr. Morris continued the discussion of CMU's role by suggesting that the time is right to launch a major, long-term effort in “dependable computing.” The time will soon come, he said, when the “euphoric era of computing will end” and users will no longer tolerate bugs and failures. He said that society's attitude toward computing, which began with an atmosphere of almost euphoric acceptance, will rapidly evolve into the same demand for reliability experienced with the automobile several decades ago.

Dr. Morris said that most computer systems today are assembled from commercial, off-the-shelf components that may not always work. To make them dependable, methods and theories of systems integration are needed that have not yet been developed. Systems must also be protected against attack from malicious forces.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 72

Embedded systems are already essential to the operation of devices as mundane as water heaters and telephones, and they will become more so. They are not traditionally considered critical systems, but the day will soon come when consumers demand that embedded devices must be fail-safe, along with the goods deployed in international markets.

In particular, Dr. Morris suggested that the multi-decade, “dependable computing” program be coordinated by a panel called the High Dependability Computing Consortium. This consortium would seek to provide a sound theoretical, scientific, and technological basis for construction of safe, secure computing systems. More specific goals would be to protect the public, protect the consumer, preserve competition in the computer industry, and promote national security. It would seek to develop high-assurance computing elements for every sector, including transportation, medical systems, consumer products, and national security.

Members of this consortium, who have conducted preliminary discussions, would be based at Ames and likely would be composed of the following participants: 1) universities, including CMU, University of California, MIT, University of Washington; 2) other government agencies in addition to NASA; and 3) private firms, including Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Compaq, Microsoft, Marimba, ILOG, SGI, Siebel, Novell, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard.

Current Needs in Robotics and Computing

Dr. Morris outlined a list of additional activities that would be appropriate for partnerships at Ames:

  • Software engineering: Software engineering—the partner of hardware engineering and systems engineering—must be developed in both its research and educational aspects. Not enough is known about using formal methods to check systems. Formal methods have worked well to design hardware and chip systems, partly because they are smaller systems with tighter specifications, but they have not been pushed into the software area.

  • Software clusters: In addition to software engineering research, major areas of software education are needed, as distinct from computer science education. Many software engineers are people who were engineers and then learned either software or computer science. True software engineering curricula are needed. These might resemble medical curricula, where clinical doctors understand both the underlying biomedicine and also enjoy practicing health care. Software educators would truly understand how software systems are built and enjoy teaching. People in Silicon Valley who have built the systems (including some of the 2,500 CMU alumni working there) could teach software engineering in a completely new way.

Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
×

Page 73

  • Human-computer systems: A crucial area of research is human-computer “systems.” Some 80 percent of airline accidents are attributed to pilot error. Similarly, computer system failures are in reality often programmer or user errors. On a psychological level, it is essential to better understand humans as fallible “parts” of computer systems. The new Human Computer Interaction Institute at CMU is devoted to this subject.

  • Basic computer science: A great deal of basic computer science remains to be done. Dr. Morris gave the example of a colleague who recently invented a concept called proof-carrying code that allows one to test a piece of code from anywhere in the world in the assurance that it will not disrupt a computer system.

  • Robotics for Planetary Exploration and Life-Seeking Missions

    Dr. Adams returned to explain that the development of more reliable and autonomous computing systems would directly promote the development of exploration robots, which must operate in the most extreme and remote physical settings, both on Earth and on other planets. Immediate goals of “space robotics” would include planetary exploration and life-seeking experiments in extreme environments.

    Life-seeking experiments depend on the kind of collaborative research envisioned by the Ames strategic plan. In this case, roboticists and biologists would collaborate to develop life-seeking detection instrumentation; non-intrusive, minimal-contamination robotic search techniques; and autonomous means to discover and classify chemical and life forms.

    Likewise, planetary exploration is a collaborative venture requiring diverse expertise. One of the challenges of planetary exploration is to seek out and use terrestrial venues that resemble the environments found on other worlds. For example, Haughton Crater on the dry plains of Antarctica provides an analog for the Martian permafrost environment; polar volcanoes and fumaroles provide an analog for Martian volcanoes; Lake Vostok provides an analog for the polar sub-ice environment; and the Chernobyl reactor provides an analog for a high-radiation environment. Researchers at Ames can monitor the use of systems here on Earth before sending them on expensive missions in space.

    Planetary global explorers would be expected to have decades of operational life, thousands of kilometers of range, and sufficient autonomy to require minimal human intervention. They would be asked to perform comprehensive regional scientific surveys in the most extreme environment. An example that has already been studied in some detail by researchers at CMU and NASA is the Victoria robot system for surveying the surface of the Moon. Victoria would circumnavigate the lunar south pole, where “she” could receive solar energy at all times by traveling in a sun-synchronous route in a direction opposite the Moon's

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 74

    rotation. The route would be designed so that the robot would complete one polar cycle each month, surveying the geological environment and relaying data continuously to Earth. More generally, the Victoria project would provide a focus and stimulus for research on robust mechanical, computational, and electrical components, and in autonomous navigation and fault detection equipment.

    Dr. Adams concluded with a few examples of the capabilities of some of CMU's exploration robots:

    • A robot named Nomad has been launched in the desert of Chile and guided on a 200-km journey by remote control from Pittsburgh. Young students came to the science center and learned that they could control a robot in another continent, in a barren environment that might resemble that of another planet. The same robot found five meteorites autonomously in Antarctica.

    • A robot called Dante—a “legged walker”—descended into the volcano of Mt. Spur in Alaska.

    Various commercial vehicles fitted with sensors and control systems have harvested hay, mined ore underground, and hauled crushed ore from a mine.

    DISCUSSANTS

    Robert Wilson

    University of Texas at Austin

    Potentially Pathbreaking

    Dr. Wilson began by saying “I find this a truly extraordinary proposal” which “seems to have the potential for a path breaking arrangement.” He noted in particular the scope of the proposal, the range of resources available, and the stature of the institutions involved. He added that he did not know of any other government agency with such an extensive collaboration that involved so many functions, including basic research, technology transfer, land and property management, housing development, environmental protection, public information, and education.

    But Points to Consider

    Turning to his role as discussant, Dr. Wilson recognized that the Ames' proposal to broaden its range of activities and to mobilize nongovernmental resources for its principal mission represents a response to Congressional action and contains an element of “reinventing government.” Wilson identified several potential

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 75

    challenges for implementation of the plan. The first he described as “some disconnection” between the principal missions of Ames, which are technology- and research-oriented, and the broader objectives of the new strategic plan. The plan reflects “more than a subtle shift in mission,” he said. The long list of partnerships entailed in the plan would require “an enormous amount of institutional energy,” because no partnership is easy—even if the partner is familiar and shares common goals.

    He also raised the difficulty of defining and measuring success for these new objectives. For example, “Ames as landlord” will be concerned with recovering costs through rental income. On the other hand, “Ames as educator” will face the challenges of designing training programs and evaluating their impact. The education of students is a powerful means of transferring technology, but evaluating the effectiveness of this transfer is itself challenging. He said that the program is ambitious and broad, and many of its elements will have to be evaluated individually as well as in terms of their contribution to the core missions of Ames.

    Given the importance of the expanded Ames role in land management in one of the country's hottest real estate markets, the difficulties of regional governance systems will likely emerge. Ames has incorporated important local governmental jurisdictions in the development of the plan, but the presence of Ames, as a federal agency, in local planning and land management will create a need for creative, intergovernmental, and interorganizational systems of governance. Just as the Ames activities will affect adjacent communities, adjacent communities will also have an impact on the project.

    Finally, Dr. Wilson suggested that one of the reasons Ames has formulated this plan is “to remain competitive.” He pointed out that many universities and research centers are focusing on these new technologies. Given the multiple objectives of the plan, how will Ames know if this endeavor has been successful?

    Edward Penhoet

    University of California at Berkeley and Chiron Corporation

    Dr. Penhoet offered two suggestions about the Ames plan for partnerships. First, it is important to make sure that collaboration means more than having a collection of new buildings on the site. He suggested that teamwork is powerfully stimulated when partners share major pieces of equipment, such as the advanced light source at Lawrence Livermore that is used by people from Berkeley and other institutions.

    Second, he suggested taking the bold step of housing people from three or four institutions in the same building—to further encourage and even force interaction among researchers.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 76

    QUESTIONS &COMMENTS

    Mr. Berry responded that a portion of Ames funding will be committed to outfitting the new space science laboratory for collaborative research. Ames has revised its planning several times in an effort to make the site attractive to people from different disciplines.

    In response to Dr. Wilson, Mr. Berry remarked that the only organizations with which Ames competes are the other NASA centers. “Competition is one element of how we get authority for programs, and we are very much looking toward the long-term competitiveness of Ames within the NASA system,” he said. “At the end of the day, my vision is, what have we accomplished in the way of research initiatives; have we really made the breakthroughs and accomplishments?

    “We want a successful research park, joint degree programs, and new students going into the market,” he continued. “And we want it to be economically viable. But the real objective is to enable a new future for NASA. If new things flow from this activity that allow NASA to do breakthrough missions 10 or 20 years from now, that is our metric for success.”

    Dr. McDonald added, “Our metric of success is how much we have enabled NASA to achieve the very lofty goals the administrator and the Congress and the President have set. Also, the educational activity with our various partners will have a vital synergism, and we will achieve important mentoring of the next generation of NASA employees and technologists. We have to compete with industry for the best and the brightest, so we have a profound interest in the educational process.”

    Dr. Wessner raised the question of financing, asking whether there would be pressure to ask for additional federal funding to support the intense level of activity. Mr. Berry replied that Ames plans to use appropriated funds to facilitate creation of the Research Park, but that operations and programs would be supported by leasing income and revenues from partnerships. He added that income generation would be possible primarily because of the value of Ames' location to prospective partners.

    Dr. Greenwood said that UC Santa Cruz had developed a successful financing model in its outreach partnerships in Silicon Valley. Given the student presence, the university has the capacity to leverage state funds by indirect cost recovery, along with some fund-raising, to provide classroom and other facilities. She suggested that this model could be extended to Ames.

    As a final comment, Burton McMurtry expressed his concern that the scarcity of affordable housing in Silicon Valley might threaten the project's viability by undermining the ability to bring in new employees necessary for the undertaking.

    Dr. Morris was asked about a plan at Carnegie Mellon to create a four-year Ph.D. program that would be divided evenly between time on campus and time in an industrial lab. He answered that despite many reasons in favor of trying this

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 77

    new paradigm, the traditions of the campus have restrained execution of the plan. Ames would afford a fresh opportunity to develop the idea.

    Dr. Penhoet added that Ames would provide an excellent environment for other new learning paradigms, such as breaking the exclusively “sequestered,” on-campus setting in favor of internships and intensive off-campus learning experiences.

    Dr. Wilson asked for more detail about how the research fund mentioned by Dr. Ballhaus would be funded. Dr. Ballhaus replied that the initiative would be funded from the profits of partnerships, revenues from leases, and other rental fees. The fund would then be administered jointly by the partners.

    Mr. Berry added that NASA plans to update its research priorities annually, provide these priorities to its partners, and expect its partners to reinvest in research in ways consistent with those priorities.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 78

    Panel IV:

    SBIR Initiatives and Mission Objectives

    Moderator: Burton McMurtry

    Technology Venture Investors

    IN-Q-TEL: A “NONPROFIT VENTURE CAPITAL FUND”

    Gilman G. Louie

    In-Q-Tel

    In-Q-Tel, which Mr. Louie described as a “nonprofit venture capital fund,” was established by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to promote the private development of new technologies that might meet basic information needs of the Agency. He offered a brief description of his company as one model that might be of interest to NASA in its own efforts to stimulate technology development.

    The CIA was established in 1947 when President Truman realized that the government probably possessed enough information to have predicted the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941—but that the information was too dispersed to allow proper interpretation. The CIA was charged with centralizing and summarizing such vital information. Today, however, even the government's primary information agency is overwhelmed by difficulties in centralizing, mining, and summarizing the vast amounts of data gathered by satellites, computers, and other modern devices.

    Capturing Fast-Moving Technologies

    In-Q-Tel3 was set up on a dual premise: 1) Development of today's information technologies is driven largely by fast-moving young “dot-com” companies;


    3 The name is derived from Information, Telecommunications, and Q: a character in the Ian Fleming series of James Bond spy novels and films.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 79

    and 2) in order to tap into those technologies, the CIA needs to establish communication links with those new firms. The old language of RFPs and contracts, said Mr. Louie, while appropriate for many kinds of acquisitions, is less useful for obtaining useful new technologies because of the speed with which they advance. By the time the CIA uses traditional means to identify a need, process it, acquire it, and adopt it, six months to two or more years may have passed, rendering the technology obsolete.

    The goal of In-Q-Tel as a nonprofit venture capital fund is to roll any profit back into R&D. This approach is not appropriate for classified projects, but for unclassified challenges the goal of the fund is to find new technologies in the marketplace and move them into government more efficiently and quickly.

    Mr. Louie, who heads In-Q-Tel, began his own career by founding a small company in Silicon Valley. He counts his experience and contacts there as essential in finding new technologies. In practice, In-Q-Tel monitors technological developments at universities, FFRDCs, private firms, and venture funds. The last are especially important because they provide advance indicators of where the marketplace is going. When In-Q-Tel finds a company doing work that is relevant to the CIA's needs, it can offer the company “real-world” feedback. Half the staff works in Silicon Valley (or other high-tech regions) where they search for promising technologies that might fit the Agency's needs. When they find one, they invest in it, help it along the path toward commercialization, and integrate it into the Agency.

    Part Incubator, Part Venture Capitalist

    Part of In-Q-Tel's work is to act as an incubator. Technical members of the staff help new companies through technical hurdles, and business people help companies create business plans and raise money. In-Q-Tel also functions as a venture capitalist: last year the company allocated over $10 million of a $34 million budget to venture capital for direct equity-style investments; much of the rest of the money is spent on “hybrids,” agreements with elements of both contracting and equity conversion. Sometimes In-Q-Tel contracts with companies with the stipulation that the invested money be converted to equity if In-Q-Tel shows the innovators how to take their new technology not only into the CIA but also to the commercial market.

    The decision of the CIA to work with In-Q-Tel sparked a debate about open standards. On one side was the desire to keep new technologies closed and secure, where no one could test or tamper with them. The winning side, however, argued that a truly durable technology is one that can live on the internet, where any weakness can be exposed early by hackers and then remedied before it is released. Open standards also help stimulate competition in the marketplace, bringing improved technology.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 80

    Motivation Through Equity

    Mr. Louie explained why a contract is less effective for developing new technologies, citing two reasons. With a contract, he said, goals and metrics must be explained at the outset of an agreement. With new, fast-moving technologies, however, it is seldom possible to know the outcome of a project in advance. Second, part of a contractor's motive to succeed is to avoid the penalties built into the contract. With an investment or partnership, the contractor is motivated not only to succeed but to do its very best in the hopes of finding, patenting, and profiting from a new technology.

    He offered an example of the effectiveness of this process. A company was developing a promising internet security technology supported by In-Q-Tel. The company called to ask if they could speed up the timetable by 50 percent—and also invest $10 million of their own money. The company's strategic interest was being served by getting to market quickly, and In-Q-Tel's interest was being served because they wanted the technology tested in public before it was moved to the CIA.

    Mr. Louie concluded by emphasizing that finding new technologies was only part of the job. The other part is to constantly survey and review Agency requirements that might be addressed by those technologies. As prototypes are developed, the technology has to be converted into a form in which analysts and other Agency technicians can use it to their advantage.

    QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

    Dr. Wessner asked about the reactions of Congressional committees to In-Q-Tel's role. Mr. Louie replied that he had testified in the House before both the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. Both, he said, were concerned that the program did not become corporate welfare, and that it maintained a fair and level playing field for all potential partners. He said that the company is “living under a lot of scrutiny.”

    Kathy Behrens asked how the success of In-Q-Tel was being measured, and the time frame for success. Mr. Louie answered that the metrics for success were simple: are we able to accomplish the mission of finding valuable new technologies for the CIA that people are actually going to use? He said that they had 18-24 months to demonstrate success.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 81

    AN “ENTERPRISE FUND” FOR NASA

    Robert L. Norwood

    NASA

    Dr. Norwood described the concept of a technology investment fund, or what might be called an “enterprise fund”4 for NASA. The fund would be a new business organization, independent of government, with links both to NASA's technological resources and to the private investment community.

    The goals of the enterprise fund would be 1) to identify NASA technologies (at Ames or other centers) with strong commercial potential, 2) to find business or corporate partners capable of developing those technologies and applying them to new products and services, and 3) to involve market savvy investors in the venture to carry them into the marketplace. Through the fund, NASA could be included in a development venture as a limited investment partner.

    The enterprise fund would operate on return-on-investment principles, as set out by a professional management team and an industry-style board of directors. NASA would provide technical collaboration and management as needed.

    Dr. Norwood said that the planning for this new fund has been driven by recent changes in the technology business environment to one that is “quick-reacting, high-tech, and market-based.” He noted the explosive growth in venture funding, from about $6 billion in 1995 to about $45 billion in 1999, plus an additional $30 billion in funding provided by angel investors. Today's market, he said, is characterized by new entrepreneurial spirit and creativity, greater risktaking and larger rewards. New markets and business/industry structures are continuously generated.

    The new model is designed to take advantage of this new environment by expanding the opportunity to leverage and create technology-based ventures where NASA and business technology needs intersect. The fund would generate benefits in both directions. It would benefit NASA when efficiencies of the marketplace make new technologies (no matter where they are generated) available for purchase by NASA quickly and cheaply. The fund would benefit the investment community by providing readier access to useful and potentially profitable technologies developed by NASA.

    Moving Technology into the Marketplace

    Dr. Norwood said that NASA already creates several hundred partnerships each year with industry. What is new about the enterprise fund is that it would


    4 The term enterprise fund combines the notion of private enterprise with NASA's custom of describing its mission activities under four distinct “enterprises.”

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 82

    involve the investment community and leverage that community's “dynamic structure and agile operations.”

    “What we are trying to do,” he said, “is use the best practices of identifying the market and leveraging the power of the marketplace to help NASA commercialize its technology.”

    The enterprise fund would take advantage of two existing resources. The first is the research base created by NASA's $100 million SBIR program authorized by Congress. This research spans 18 major technological areas. Every year about 70 companies graduate from phase 2 of the program, when their technology has reached the prototype stage and a business plan has been submitted. The new fund would essentially add a “phase 3,” in which the technology would be developed further by a partnership. The second resource is NASA's in-house R&D program, which generates some $800 million worth of mission-relevant technology each year. This program includes five strategic areas, and 40 near-term development areas, all of which have a mandate to seek commercial partnerships. Major markets include rapid design tools, telecommunications, smart sensors, data mining, medical and environmental instrumentation, and information technology.

    Dr. Norwood said that the entrepreneurial community has encountered difficulties in using the standard SBIR model to convert technology into commercial products. An enterprise fund would attempt to structure venture partnerships based on the NASA technologies in a new way. Rather than using traditional contracts for Phase III activities, the fund would create an investment agreement between NASA, a contractor, and the investment partners.

    He said that there is risk in starting a company from an enterprise fund, as there is for any new venture, including NASA's own risk in providing the initial funding from existing sources. In addition, directors of the enterprise fund would have to contend with traditional private-sector suspicion of government involvement and the fear of controls that might delay or encumber innovation. But he suggested that the enterprise concept would soon allay any private-sector suspicions by demonstrating that it is “a new business organization independent of government controls and aligned with industry practices.”

    Dr. Norwood said that the authority to undertake such partnerships is already described in the Space Act under an “other transaction authority” that allows relationships with private firms. He added that the enterprise fund concept is not conceptually different from current licensing agreements to transfer knowledge to companies.

    In conclusion, Dr. Norwood summarized the arguments in favor of the enterprise fund. For NASA, it would provide

    • a profit center for innovations derived from NASA mission technologies and applied to commercial markets;

    • opportunities to accelerate the development of mission-relevant technolo-

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 83

      gies in the commercial marketplace and to acquire these technologies for use by NASA at lower cost; and

    • a reduction in the business risks of technology transfer by involving the investment community and benefiting from its market expertise.

    For the business and investment communities, the fund would provide

    • opportunities to gain substantial returns on investment by leveraging NASA technologies;

    • a capable partner in the acceleration of market-relevant technology; and

    • direct linkage to the research strengths of NASA, which reduces technological risk for companies.

    QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

    Mr. Windham asked about the connection between the enterprise fund and the research park at Ames. Dr. Norwood replied that they would complement one another, and that the entrepreneurial activities of the fund would help move NASA technologies from all of its research centers into the marketplace.

    Mr. Windham also asked whether the enterprise fund had advantages above the transaction authority that already exists and the Space Act authority that is similar to CRADAs. Dr. Norwood answered that the main purpose in designing the enterprise fund is to add the agility and drive of venture capitalists and other elements of the investment community.

    A VENTURE CAPITAL PERSPECTIVE ON RESEARCH PARKS

    Kathy Behrens

    Robertson Stephens Investment Management

    Dr. Behrens, who invests venture capital in high-tech firms for RS Investment Management, emphasized the “vast differences” between the world of scientific and engineering research and the world of venture capital. She questioned whether the two worlds could find sufficient overlap and alignment to form successful partnerships.

    One difference concerns basic goals. Unlike most researchers in science and engineering, whose goal is to answer interesting questions and discover new products and processes, for traditional venture capitalists the primary goal of their work is financial return. Closely related to return is monetary compensation, which is based on the profitability of a company in which the venture capitalist has invested.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 84

    A second difference is that the main service of venture capital is not a product or a technology, but an application with concrete monetary value to the market.

    A third difference is in the time scale of activities. Venture capitalists are compensated partly for their ability to “get there first”—to predict where the market is going and to be there when it arrives. When they sense a change in the market, they quickly—even instantaneously—make changes in their investments. Researchers, by contrast, must plan and develop support for their work gradually; government organizations traditionally make changes at a deliberate pace.

    A variation on traditional venture capital—corporate venture capital—has far more in common with what Ames is trying to do. Goals are more strategic in nature, and time frames are longer. Certain features of corporate venture capital could provide a useful model for Ames.

    Dr. Behrens suggested that Ames should not get into the “let's find a home for our technology” business. Venture capitalists prefer to finance people rather than specific, already-developed technology. She underscored the difficulty of taking a new technology—even a good one—and finding a market for it.

    She said that Ames has a great geographical advantage in its Silicon Valley location, where the local economy is uniquely vibrant. At the same time, venture capital is “the most competitive business in the world today.” Three years ago, she said, venture capitalists put $6 billion to work per year in new companies; by last year the figure had passed $50 billion in a single year. Ames would face a difficult challenge in learning the business, building up a network of contacts, communicating its story to the Valley, and learning to promote their technology. Hiring people who can “work in the Valley” is critical, she said, and those people must be listened to at Ames and have ample time to develop an Ames network.

    QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

    Dr. Luger questioned the focus of discussions on Silicon Valley, and asked whether other high-tech centers were not important as well. A number of participants agreed that technological development is now global, and that venture capitalists, like researchers, seek out partnerships all over the world. Dr. Behrens agreed, but emphasized that individual specialists in venture capital need to be physically close to their partners to operate effectively.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 85

    Panel V:

    Ames as an Entrepreneurial Center: Opportunities and Challenges

    Moderator: Mark Myers

    Xerox Corporation

    COMMERCIALIZING TECHNOLOGY

    Carolina Blake

    Ames Research Center

    Ms. Blake, chief of the Commercial Technology Office (CTO) at Ames, recalled the challenge issued by NASA Administrator Dan Goldin several years ago: “If Ames could find corporate partners willing to work on technologies that were both critical for NASA's mission and profitable for the companies, NASA would provide space for them to work at Ames.” The response at Ames, she said, was to leverage what Ames already does by adding something new: an entrepreneurial center to expand the pool of technological resources through focused partnerships.

    CTO Roles

    The existing Commercial Technology Office at Ames has several roles: technology assessment (finding the right time to take a technology to market); marketing (throughout the U.S. and abroad); working with NASA's patent counsel to license intellectual property; and bringing companies into partnerships when the technology needs further development for patenting. The office is the focal point for business incubation at Ames and will be for the research park. Its mission, in the words of NASA headquarters, is “leveraging opportunities and partnerships with organizations outside of NASA in areas of emerging technologies.”

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 86

    New Procedures for New Firms

    In response to this mandate, the current office will expand into a new Entrepreneurial Center. Among its goals are to devise ways of resolving common technological problems in ways that accelerate the spin-off of NASA technology and expand opportunities for NASA incubators, both at Ames and throughout the country. The office is trying to expand its resource pool to make this happen. It plans to focus on individual partnerships so that each has its own approval process, its own line of communication between NASA researchers and commercial partners, agreed beginning and end points, and milestones. The office will employ mini-CRADAs when possible, because of their flexibility, and manage the project once approved.

    New Agreements

    On March 13, 2000, the office signed an MOU with an internet consortium of companies. It is also working on a Space Act Agreement, a land lease agreement, and a programmatic agreement, which will call for each partner to put in two dollars for every dollar NASA invests.

    Focus Areas

    Initial areas of collaboration will probably include nanotechnology, biotechnology, and internet security.

    Intellectual Property Issues

    The office is working with NASA's legal counsel to resolve a number of problems regarding intellectual property. They will use existing authorities from the Space Act and the Stevenson-Wydler Act, and new models are being developed to allow some revenues to be invested back into new partnerships. The office is aware of the need to make government rules more flexible in working with industry.5

    “As a technology transfer office,” she said in conclusion, “we must protect the public investment, and our leadership. And so far, everything we plan makes use of authorities NASA already has. But we are also aware of the rigidities of government rules, and we have to examine these in light of the new realities of globalization.”


    5 The STEP Board has launched a major review of U.S. intellectual property policy. See The National Research Council, Intellectual Property Rights: How Far Should They be Extended: Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, forthcoming. See also www.nationalacademies.org/ipr.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 87

    THE EXPERIENCE OF ONE START-UP COMPANY

    Elizabeth Downing

    3D Technology Laboratories

    Dr. Downing is a founder of 3D Technology Laboratories, which is now four years old. She described an important distinction among start-up companies. Some have low technological risk and are able to attract angel or venture capital funding early on. 3D Technology Laboratories, however, is developing a technology with substantial risk and therefore requires a different funding path.

    Developing a Technology

    This technology, called cross-beam volumetric display, is a means of providing realistic and safe three-dimensional display. It employs a gated, two-frequency up-conversion and requires two elements to function: an active ion and a host medium in which the active ion can be doped and dispersed fairly uniformly. The ion itself has a number of energy levels, including infrared wavelengths and a different, excited-state wavelength. The result of the gated photonic excitation (as opposed to electronic excitation) is the emission of visible light. This allows the interception of two infrared laser beams. At the point of intersection, visible light is emitted, and scanning this light around the inside of an image chamber produces three-dimensional images.

    The technology has been demonstrated and the company is now increasing its scale. It has a number of features. By addressing information in a volume, rather than a flat plane, it provides real stereo depth perception. There is no conflict between accommodation (the focusing action of the eye) and convergences (the angle between the eyes as they focus). This conflict is what causes headaches and nausea in stereo and shutter-glasses displays. Nor are glasses or headgear needed. It offers 360-degree, walk-around viewing of the data that's being displayed inside the image chamber; multiple viewers can see it simultaneously and interact with it. The images can be dynamic (refreshed at 30 hertz) and have the potential for multiple colors and opacity.

    Another attribute of this technology is that the image chamber is a nonpixillated homogenous volume of material, which confers a manufacturing advantage. Traditional CRTs are pixilated, and liquid crystal displays are pixilated with wires and electrodes, so that conversions to 3-D would be complex. With the cross-beam system, information is addressed remotely: lasers are scanned remotely and modulated remotely. Then the material “does all the work.” Unlike a laser, it poses no “eye fry” hazard because the radiation is incoherent.

    The value of this technology has been recognized for decades, but potential developers—and venture financiers—were daunted by the issue of scaling. It was originally demonstrated on a very small sample, then scaled up to the order of a

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 88

    sugar cube, then to a cubic inch. 3D Technology Laboratories is currently attempting a chamber about 7 inches on a side, but the materials are difficult to make. Another issue is the size of the addressable data set, which requires rapid scanning; if scanning is too rapid, brightness is poor. The solution is to develop higher efficiency materials, which requires time and work. As Dr. Downing points out, however, the CRT was first presented in the 1920s as a dim, monochrome experience; 80 years later it is bright, colorful, and omnipresent.

    A third area that requires more work is software. It is not a high-risk area, but little of it exists because there is no market yet.

    Finding Support for Development

    In her pursuit of funding to develop this technology, Dr. Downing has received little support from private firms or universities. Private firms saw that the technology had a long lead time and wanted rights to her intellectual property, her only real asset, before investing. Several partnerships with universities brought more difficulties than value to the company. In particular, she found the technology licensing offices to be demanding, even unreasonable, and one professor who was contracted to write software for the company attempted to profit from the software on his own. 3D now has a policy of avoiding partnerships with universities.

    Instead, Dr. Downing has found support through a series of government grants, beginning with an SBIR contract when she was in graduate school. Soon after that a Phase 2 grant from NSF provided an essential foundation for development, and was followed by grants from DARPA, NIH, the Air Force, and more recently, the ATP.6 In essence, “The company tries to mitigate the technology risk and make itself more appealing to outside investors by trying to solve some of the scanning and system architecture problems with government funding.”

    She added that venture capital firms were not interested in her technology as long as it required further development. At present, the company has a “fairly substantial” materials R&D program under way to improve efficiency and brightness and to improve the image chambers—as Dr. Downing says, to make them “bigger-brighter-cheaper-lighter.” She feels that her work is important, even though it has taken 12 years to progress this far, because of the chance that it will be an enabling technology.


    6 3D Technology Laboratories is in a sense a poster child for the Committee's analysis of Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies. The 3D technology is technically complex, results from research at a major U.S. university, and has a long lead time. At the same time, it also has multiple potential applications across a wide range of agency missions, from space exploration and defense to health care. Reflecting this diversity of applications, and the management's steep learning curve, 3D Technology Laboratories has made use of a surprising range of government programs to support new technologies, cited in the text. Relatively few companies do this, either because the technology would not qualify or because the management is unaware of the opportunities for federal funding.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 89

    “Without government support,” she concluded, “new technology-based products cannot be developed. If this one lives for decades past what we are putting into it, then America as a country and our economy and the industries that can use this new type of visualization tool will benefit. My goal is to take it to the point where it can survive on its own.” She is beginning to look for nongovernment sources of funding for the next stages of development.

    DISCUSSANT

    Jim Turner

    House Science Committee

    Mr. Turner agreed with other participants that the conditions at Ames amounted to a unique opportunity to develop partnerships, and that the geographical, technological, and other assets of Ames gave this lab an excellent chance of succeeding in its objectives.

    He also offered several notes of caution. First, he reminded the audience that Congress is highly critical toward programs that bring any suggestion of “corporate welfare” or government giveaways—even for programs that are essentially self-financing. He suggested that Ames planners take special care in how they interact with private firms and that they pay special attention to how their plans might be perceived in Washington.

    He added that it appears that Congress intends to create a new requirement that Phase 2 SBIR awards include a commercial plan, including steps in marketing and selling technology, and said that those companies who work with Ames would be well prepared for these new requirements.

    He commented on Dr. Downing's unsatisfactory experiences with university partnerships, suggesting that while the Bayh-Dole Act had generally “proved itself” in the context of federal laboratories by transferring the rights of discoveries to the inventor, the allocation of IP rights at universities is still evolving. He proposed that she might find a more satisfactory partnership with a national lab, such as Ames.

    In regard to the In-Q-Tel program, Mr. Turner said that an SBIR program for the CIA might have some advantages over a venture capital fund. He said that while the In-Q-Tel program may indeed “hit it big” with a useful and moneymaking technology, it would be highly visible money vulnerable to appropriation by Congress. He suggested that a more orthodox program to seek out existing technologies and issue small contracts might be a practical way to financing startups with less political risk.

    Importantly, he urged the Ames planners not to use up their “very precious resource” of land too quickly with many small programs. A good strategy, he

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 90

    said, is to reserve enough land to accommodate changes in their strategic vision as the years go by.

    Finally, Mr. Turner praised the involvement of UC Santa Cruz and Carnegie Mellon, and also urged Ames not to rule out relationships with Stanford and Berkeley, “two of the best computer schools in the nation, right in your back yard.”

    QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

    Dr. Penhoet extended Mr. Turner's comment about the danger of too many objectives, adding that it is rare to be able to meet multiple objectives under the same program. A participant, David Audretsch, offered the good-humored objection noting that Berkeley, where Dr. Penhoet serves as a dean, has multiple mandates itself. Dr. Penhoet replied that Berkeley also has a 150-year history of managing programs, and even so, it has had programs with multiple goals that do not thrive. He also observed that as a businessman he had seen many failures in the use of venture capital for multiple objectives. “You can either try to make money on venture capital,” he said, “or you can try to use it as a window on technology, but you are unlikely to do both well.” He suggested that this is a constraint to keep in mind.

    Dr. Ballhaus of Lockheed Martin agreed with Dr. Behrens that the Ames plan may resemble corporate venturing more closely than traditional venturing. In corporate venturing, he said, the projects that work are those you do not micromanage. When Lockheed sets up a partnership, he said, it takes only a minority position, late in development, because “larger corporations that are managing things strategically are usually mismatched with respect to startups that are moving in an entrepreneurial fashion.” He mentioned some of the triumphs of Xerox PARC in the form of its “offspring,” including 3Com, Adobe, and Bay Networks. All of them avoided a strategic relationship with Xerox because they were moving swiftly to markets that were no longer interesting to the larger corporation.

    Dr. Wessner agreed with a comment by Jim Turner about “virtual” partnerships conducted at a distance. Collaborations with off-site researchers would reduce crowding and increase the national reach of NASA, he said. He also cautioned against too much focus on equity investments.

    In conclusion, Jim Turner praised the effort at Ames as an innovative use of the space program's resources. Turner also reiterated his word of caution, advising that Ames take special care to avoid the perception of “corporate favors” while at the same time profiting from the synergies and management experience that the private sector can bring. Charles Wessner suggested that the flexibility of the Space Act, and its legitimacy, should be kept in mind as the project goes forward. Seed capital, from SBIR awards, and other arrangements already permitted under the Space Act might accomplish most of Ames' objectives without

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 91

    raising as many policy questions as would equity investments. The technological and perhaps political risk associated with equity investments or venture activities should be kept in mind. Success rates for investments, even when made by outstanding venture capital firms, may not be high enough to meet Washington's admittedly ill-defined expectations. Nonetheless, while keeping in mind these cautionary comments, Dr. Wessner suggested that it is only fair to observe that this ambitious initiative does address needs central to the NASA mission and provide a means of meeting educational needs which are equally central to the continued development of the region.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×

    Page 92

    Concluding Remarks

    Henry McDonald

    Ames Research Center

    Dr. McDonald thanked the presenters and discussants, and summarized the intent of the Ames strategic plan as enhancing “this center's ability to contribute to the fulfillment of NASA's mission.” As a major part of that, he said, Ames will involve itself with people who are likely to help do that, including universities and industrial organizations. “We'll also get involved in the educational process as a natural fallout from this collaboration, and this will also train our next generation workforce. So we will connect ourselves rather directly to the mission of the Agency and judge ourselves on that basis.”

    He concluded by addressing the issue of affordable housing, which had been raised by several participants. He pointed out that the area had been crowded and expensive since before he immigrated to the United States from Scotland many years ago, “yet we manage to recruit some of the best scientists in the country because of the stimulating intellectual opportunities we have to offer them.” Some of these scientists eventually leave for tenure at a university, he said, but Ames gets some of their best years. Current plans to use housing on site, and to develop plans to extend that housing, can help alleviate the problem and allow for the expansion of on-site programs and the inclusion of graduate students, postdocs, and summer programs for faculty.

    In closing his remarks, and the symposium, Dr. McDonald again thanked the participants, noting that their expert but informal dialogue had sharpened the formulation of Ames' objectives in exactly the manner they had hoped when they asked the Academies' STEP Board to review their plans and objectives.

    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 33
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 34
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 35
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 36
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 37
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 38
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 39
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 40
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 41
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 42
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 43
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 44
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 45
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 46
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 47
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 48
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 49
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 50
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 51
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 52
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 53
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 54
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 55
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 56
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 57
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 58
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 59
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 60
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 61
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 62
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 63
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 64
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 65
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 66
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 67
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 68
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 69
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 70
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 71
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 72
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 73
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 74
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 75
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 76
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 77
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 78
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 79
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 80
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 81
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 82
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 83
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 84
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 85
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 86
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 87
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 88
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 89
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 90
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 91
    Suggested Citation:"IV. Proceedings." National Research Council. 2001. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10115.
    ×
    Page 92
    Next: V. Research Papers »
    A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop Get This Book
    ×
    Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $39.99
    MyNAP members save 10% online.
    Login or Register to save!
    Download Free PDF

    NASA Ames Research Center, in the heart of Silicon Valley, is embarking on a program to develop a science and technology park bringing together leading companies and universities to capitalize on Ames’ exceptional mission and location. Other initiatives under consideration include the integration of SBIR grants with a planned on-site incubator, virtual collaboration, and possibly a new public venture capital program. The STEP Board was asked by the NASA Administrator to hold a one-day symposium to review these initiatives. This report includes commissioned research papers and a summary of the proceedings of the symposium organized in response to the NASA request.

    1. ×

      Welcome to OpenBook!

      You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

      Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

      No Thanks Take a Tour »
    2. ×

      Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

      « Back Next »
    3. ×

      ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

      « Back Next »
    4. ×

      Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

      « Back Next »
    5. ×

      Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

      « Back Next »
    6. ×

      To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

      « Back Next »
    7. ×

      Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

      « Back Next »
    8. ×

      View our suggested citation for this chapter.

      « Back Next »
    9. ×

      Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

      « Back Next »
    Stay Connected!