|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 99
Appendixes
OCR for page 100
An Assessment of NASA 's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program
information, and (4) new and wicle-ranging concepts. Another important criterion, which
should go without saying, is that the concept floes not violate the laws of ohYsics
(Troutman, 2002~. While the technology pull criterion attempts to relate RAS(: concepts
to the NASA technology portfolio, it could be strengthened by overtly specifying its
- -- r--~---
direct relationship to the NASA technology database. No criteria for the reviser! project
had been presented to the pane! by time of publication of this report.
Recommendation: RASC should improve its relationship to the NASA technology
database. Better integration is necessary to ensure an actual connection exists
between RASC and the NASA technology database..
RASC studies tend to be concept studies within a certain NASA enterprise area. The
pane! notes that although efforts have been made to distinguish current studies from past
work, further effort is necessary. The pane! suggests that RASC should emphasize work
that crosses enterprise lines to strengthen the idea that it is wicle ranging. Examples of
such work might include unclerstanding the synergy between human and robotic
missions, NASA-wide future communication needs, and the synergy between high-speed
aeronautics and launch vehicle technology. The pane} felt that NASA shouict revisit its
20+ years timeframe since in some cases this criterion might have unintentionally
directed ideas too far into the future. Almost all projections tend to underestimate how
soon a project will begin. If this change is adopted, it may address some minor criticism
about RASC relevance. The pane! notes that the 20-year time frame was subsequently
dropped during program reformulation in early 2003.
Recommendation: RASC should reconsider the criteria it uses to select studies.
giving more weight to cross-enterprise studies. Care should be taken with the long-
term focus so as not to make RASC projects so far off that they become irrelevant.
r - -a ~
NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Element
NIAC's purpose is to be an independent source of revolutionary aeronautical and
space concepts that could dramatically impact how NASA develops ant! conducts its
mission (NIAC, 2001~. Its ultimate goal is to infuse NIAC-funcled concepts into future
NASA plans and programs. NIAC is operated by the Universities Space Research
Association (USRA) as a virtual institute using Internet technology to distribute its
solicitations, receive proposals ant! reports, and review proposed projects. In 2002,
NIAC's fifth year of existence, funcling was provident at a level of $4 million per year.
NIAC solicits proposals only from non-NASA sources and strives to use non-NASA
reviewers to maintain inclepenclence. The panel was impressed by the diversity and
experience of the reviewers as expressed in general statistics.6
If one agrees with the purpose and premise of NIAC namely, to be a technology
incubator then NIAC has had some success infusing interesting new ideas into NASA.
6 Reviewer names and specific affiliations are held in confidence by USRA and were unavailable to the
review panel. Information on general affiliations and experience was provided to the panel.
100
OCR for page 101
A
Statement of Task
This project will produce biennial assessments of
the programs within NASA's Aerospace Technology
Enterprise the Pioneering Revolutionary Technology
(PRT) program, the Aviation program, and the Space
Transportation program. The first review in the series
will be of the PRT program group; other reviews will
follow in subsequent years. Programs within the PRT
group are the Enabling Concepts and Technologies
(ECT) program, the Computing, Information, and
Communications Technology (CICT) program, and the
Engineering of Complex Systems (ECS) program.
The committee will assess the overall scientific and
technical quality of the PRT program elements. These
assessments will include findings and recommenda-
tions related to the quality and appropriateness of
NASA's internal and collaborative research, develop-
ment, and analysis. While its primary objective is to
conduct peer assessments that provide scientific and
technical advice, the committee may offer program-
matic advice when it follows naturally from technical
considerations or is requested by the NASA Associate
Administrator for Aerospace Technology.
The committee will be assisted by three NRC pan-
els that each focus on one of the three elements of the
PRT program listed above. Each panel will assess the
scientific and technical quality of selected programs in
the element under its purview. Each panel will provide
input to the committee's report via internal working
draft reports to the committee. Panels will meet twice
during the study to receive technical presentations
101
about the projects under review by their group and for-
mulate final findings and recommendations. Panel
members will also make site visits as deemed neces-
sary in formulating the assessment. Portions of each
meeting will be highly interactive with NASA person-
nel. After completion of its deliberations and investi-
gation, the panel will report to the committee on its
findings via internal privileged correspondence and
working papers.
The main committee will meet twice during the
review: once to plan the review process, meet with the
panel members, and discuss the charge to the commit-
tee and panels, and a second time to discuss in a closed
session the working papers and findings and recom-
mendations. This meeting will also involve interactive
discussions with NASA personnel from the program.
A final report will be developed from discussion at this
final meeting. Before the final report is published, com-
mittee and panel members may revisit select programs
within the PRT group during a short reevaluation pro-
cess. This reevaluation will assess progress made by
individual programs within the PRT that were initially
deemed to be problematic.
While the committee's observations will follow the
broad themes of technical and scientific quality and
appropriateness of the research, the research perform-
ers, and the research plan, the panel assessments should
use specific criteria, where appropriate. These criteria
are discussed next.
OCR for page 102
102
Research Portfolio
Is the balance between fundamental and user-
driven research proper?
Is research being conducted in the proper ar-
eas?
Are there plausible hypotheses supporting each
of the research plans?
Is far-term research at the forefront of science
and determined to be a world-class endeavor?
Is the proper amount of high-risk, high-payoff
research being pursued?
Is the application of fundamental science to
solve real-world problems adequate?
Formu/ation of the Research Plan
.
.
AN ASSESSMENT OF NASA 'S PIONEERING REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Connections to the Broader Community
Are the program's goals and objectives clearly
defined and consistent with relevant docu-
ments such as NASA's Strategic Plan?
Is there evidence of a clear understanding of
the need by NASA's enterprises, other organi-
zations (e.g., the FAA, DOD, etc. ), or the aero-
space community at large for the R&D or
analysis and the potential benefits? Are the
program's deliverables to those organizations Methodo/ogy
clearly articulated, and are those organizations
adequately involved in the planning and review
process?
Can the expected benefits be accomplished by
the proposed research? If not, is the path for
adequately maturing the research clear? Is this
planning well supported by sufficient decision
points, downselects, customer agreements,
and/or unallocated outyear funding?
Are there sufficient near-term deliverables or
progress metrics by which the program can be
regularly assessed? Are there sufficient off-
ramps or sunsets to ensure that funding is real-
located within the program or to other pro-
grams if the program does not make adequate
progress toward one or more of its goals and
objectives? Are the program's plans for inde-
pendent and/or external reviews adequate and
appropriate?
Are appropriate scientific and technical objec-
tives being posed, taking into consideration
program goals, NASA's strengths, and the time
horizon for the project? Are the critical per-
sonnel and facilities required to support the
program well defined?
What programs or program elements should be
performed in-house at NASA and be exempt
from competition with industry or academia?
Is there evidence that the research plan for the
area under review reflects a broad understand-
ing of the underlying science and technology
and of comparable work within other NASA
units as well as industry, academia, and other
federal laboratories?
Is there evidence that the research builds ap-
propriately on work already done elsewhere?
Does it leverage the work of leaders in the
field? Is the strategy for out-of-house work
(competitions, partnerships, etc.) well chosen
and managed?
Is the research being accomplished with a
proper mix of personnel from NASA,
academia, industry, and other government
agencies? Is the program using high-quality
research performers, or is there untapped tal-
ent outside the program that can be brought to
bear?
How well crafted are the research plans for the
areas under review? In general, is the use of
laboratory experiment, modeling, simulation,
and/or field testing appropriate? How well are
these methods integrated?
Have the appropriate supporting system-level
assessments been conducted?
Do both the researchers and managers under-
stand and manage the risks involved to an ap-
propriate level?
Are the plans for further study reasonable and
justifiable?
Overa// Capabi/ities
Is the scientific or engineering quality of the
work (including work performed in academia
and industry) comparable to similar world-
class efforts at other institutions, and is it ap-
propriate for the goal?
Are the qualifications of the scientific and en-
gineering staff (including researchers in
academia and industry) sufficient to achieve
program goals?
OCR for page 103
APPENDIX A
.
103
Are the capabilities, quantity, and state of
readiness of equipment and facilities sufficient
to achieve program goals?
Are personnel, equipment, and facilities sup-
plied by support contractors used efficiently?
Do they fill gaps in government capabilities
without duplication?
The selection of criteria for each assessment and
the relative weights given to each criterion are within a
panel's discretion and can vary from program to pro-
gram. Neither the committee nor the panels will make
explicit budget recommendations to NASA but will
instead comment on program content, gaps in technol-
ogy, and other issues outlined above.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
pioneering revolutionary
