C
Characteristics of NASA’s Recent Interagency Collaborations
Table C.1 shows a side-by-side comparison of some of the key attributes of selected recent interagency collaborative efforts that were reviewed by the committee. In addition to the type of collaboration and governance structure, the committee noted whether the collaboration was directed by Congress or the administration or whether it emerged in a more spontaneous fashion from the agencies and scientists themselves.
TABLE C.1 Selected Recent Interagency Collaborative Efforts
|
|
NPOESSa |
OSTM/Jason-2 |
Fermi/GLAST |
JDEM/Omega |
|
Nation(s) Involved |
United States |
United States, France |
United States |
United States |
|
Type of Collaboration |
Cooperation |
Coordination (NASA-NOAA) |
Cooperation |
Cooperation |
|
|
Cost-sharing (NOAA, DOD) |
|
|
|
|
|
CNES: bus, 2 instruments, launch and early orbit phase (LEOP), and checkout |
|
NASA: telescope, main science instrument, spacecraft bus |
|
|
|
Technology infusion (NASA) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
DOE: fabrication of major science instrument, development of science operations center |
|
|
|
|
NASA: 3 instruments, launch services |
|
|
|
|
|
NOAA/EUMETSAT: ground segment |
|
|
|
Agencies Involved |
NOAA, DOD, NASA |
NASA, NOAA, EUMETSAT, CNES |
NASA, DOE |
NASA, DOE |
|
Governance Structure |
Integrated Program Office (IPO) for NPOESS |
Developed by NASA, CNES and operated by NOAA, EUMETSAT |
NASA: project office, instruments |
NASA: lead agency responsible for overall success of the mission |
|
|
|
|
DOE: instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DOE: science and operations contribution |
|
Project/Program |
Program—multiple spacecraft |
Single project |
Single project |
Single project |
|
Directed/Organicb |
Directed (executive order) |
Organic |
Organic |
Directed |
|
GOES-R |
Landsat 7 |
LDCM |
C/NOFS |
ACE |
|
United States |
United States |
United States |
United States |
United States |
|
Procurement of services |
Coordination |
Coordination |
Coordination |
Use of resources |
|
|
NASA: development and launch of the spacecraft; development of the ground system |
NASA: development and launch of the spacecraft; development of the ground system |
|
NASA: spacecraft and instruments |
|
NOAA: provides direct oversight for the GOES-R program, flight and ground segment |
||||
|
|
NOAA: small ($680,000) contribution to modify the ACE spacecraft and enable 24-hour continuous transmission of real-time data on the solar wind |
|||
|
|
USGS: operates the satellite and captures, processes, and distributes the data and is responsible for maintaining the data archive |
USGS: operation of the satellite and responsible for a ground system to receive, ingest, archive, calibrate, process, validate, and distribute LDCM science data |
|
|
|
NASA: procurement, management, and execution of the flight project in accordance with overall NOAA guidance |
|
|||
|
|
|
DOD: Air Force ground stations |
||
|
NASA, NOAA |
Development: NASA, NOAA, USGS |
NASA, USGS |
Joint USAF Space Test Program (STP) and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL); participation by NASA, NRL, universities, federally funded research and development centers |
NASA, NOAA, DOD |
|
|
Operations: NASA, USGS |
|
|
|
|
Developed by NASA for NOAA on a cost-reimbursable basis |
NASA: spacecraft, instrument, and ground system |
NASA: development of spacecraft |
STP: spacecraft, launch vehicle, launch and first year of on-orbit operations |
Managed by NASA |
|
|
|
USGS: development and operation of the ground system |
|
|
|
|
NOAA: spacecraft and ground systems operations and functions |
|
||
|
|
AFRL: payload, payload integration and test, model development, data center operations, and product generation and distribution |
|
||
|
|
USGS: Landsat data distribution and archiving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NASA: CINDI instrument |
|
|
Single project |
Single project |
Single project |
Single project |
Single project |
|
Organic |
Directed |
Directed |
Organic |
Organic |
|
|
NPOESSa |
OSTM/Jason-2 |
Fermi/GLAST |
JDEM/Omega |
|
Year Started |
2006 (spacecraft development) |
2002 |
September 2000 (SRR) |
2010 (Phase A) |
|
Launch (or Launch Readiness Date) |
2014 (C-1) |
June 2008 |
2006 (ICRR, 2001) June 2008 (actual) |
2017 |
|
Number of Spacecraft |
Originally 6, now 4 (not including NPP) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Number of Instruments |
7 (C-1), 8 (FOC) |
5 |
2 |
1 |
|
Initial Budget |
|
$76 million (no LV, NASA only, March 2006) $76 million (no LV, NASA only, at launch) |
$454 million FY 2006 (ICRR, 2001) |
~$900 million (FY 2009) |
|
Budgetary Outcome |
Significant overrun; program descoped: $6.8 billion through C1, $8 billion through C2 |
Met launch date on budget |
$508 million FY 2006 (at launch) |
Not yet selected |
|
Motivation for Collaboration at the Outset |
Cost: “eliminate the financial redundancy of acquiring and operating polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems, while continuing to satisfy U.S. operational requirement for data from these systems” |
Third in partnership; continue measurement record |
Similar science goals: GLAST draws on the interest of both the high-energy particle physics and high-energy astrophysics communities and is the highest ranked initiative in its category in the NRC 2000 decadal survey reportd |
Science goals are high priority to both organizations; leverage each agency’s expertise |
|
GOES-R |
Landsat 7 |
LDCM |
C/NOFS |
ACE |
|
September 2004 (instrument development) October 2005 (preliminary spacecraft design) |
1993 (SRR) |
2007 |
At least 2000 |
1991 |
|
April 2015 (GAO, 2009)c |
1998 (1993) instrument power supply failures during thermal/vacuum testing; 1999 (actual) |
2011 (ICR, 2008) 2012 (PDR, 2009) |
2003 (2001) |
1997 |
|
|
|
February 2006 (October 2005) solar panel (18-month delay) and EMI probes; rebuilt harness April 2008 (actual) |
|
|
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
4 |
1 |
Originally 1, now 2 |
6 |
9 |
|
$6.6 billion |
|
$652 million (ICR, 2008) |
|
Total cost for Phase C/D through launch plus 30 days of checkout not to exceed $141.1 million (in real-year dollars) |
|
$7.67 billion (GAO, 2009)c significant overrun; program descoped from 4 satellites/5 sensors to 2 satellites/4 sensors |
$718 million (at launch, includes $212 million DOD, $6.5 million USGS) |
Still in development, has overrun; USGS funding shortfalls have impacted ground system |
Combined cost of satellite development and construction, the Pegasus rocket, and the 13 months of in-space operations total about $135 million (at launch); solar panel design issues slowed the program; instrument RF sensitivities created technical challenges |
Final project cost $106.8 million, a $34.3 million under-run |
|
NOAA: procurement of next-generation GOES spacecraft |
Latest partnership to continue decades-long record of moderate-resolution measurements of the land surface (see text for details) |
NSTC directed collaboration to maintain continuity of Landsat-type data for civil, commercial, and national security interests |
NASA: science payload access to space as mission of opportunity |
Merging of NASA research interests with NOAA and Air Force operational needs for real-time data on the upstream solar wind and forecast and warning of severe space weather events |
|
NASA: Possible transition of GIFTS instrument to advanced sounder for GOES-R |
|
|||
|
DOD: means to expand scope of mission through hosting NASA-funded payload; support operational users of space weather information |
|
|
NPOESSa |
OSTM/Jason-2 |
Fermi/GLAST |
JDEM/Omega |
|
Primary Sources for the Committee’s Analysise |
See in the main text references cited in the section “NASA-NOAA Interagency Collaboration.” |
See in the main text references cited in the section “Coordination Example: Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason-2.” |
See in the main text references cited in the section “The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Mission.” |
See in the main text references cited in the section “The Joint Dark Energy Mission.” |
|
a As noted in the text, on February 1, 2010, it was announced that the NPOESS program would be restructured into two separate lines of polar-orbiting satellites to serve military and civilian users. Information in this table refers to the NPOESS program prior to the restructuring. b “Organic” and “directed” are used here to distinguish between agency collaborations that arise mostly from the normal self-interests of the agencies and in which efforts are made to align the structure with normal agency practices and culture (partnerships arise from the bottom up) versus collaborations that arise from external demands, for example, to meet a political objective beyond the agency’s own self-interests or to meet a mission requirement that is externally imposed (partnerships arise from the top down). c Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Statement of David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,” GAO-09-596T, April 23, 2009. d National Research Council, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010. e For all missions and especially for NPOESS, Fermi/GLAST, and JDEM/Omega, the committee also drew on the substantive knowledge and first-hand experiences of its members. f National Research Council, Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12254. |
||||
|
GOES-R |
Landsat 7 |
LDCM |
C/NOFS |
ACE |
|
NRC (2008)f |
See in the main text references cited in the section “The Landsat Program.” |
See in the main text references cited in the section “The Landsat Program.” |
Interview with Roderick Heelis, principal investigator for CINDI |
See in the main text references cited in the section “Use of Resources Example: Space Weather Data from the Advanced Composition Explorer.” |
