Summary

Success in executing future NASA space missions will depend on advanced technology developments that should already be underway. It has been years since NASA has had a vigorous, broad-based program in advanced space technology development, and NASA’s technology base is largely depleted. As noted in a recent National Research Council report on the U.S. civil space program:

Future U.S. leadership in space requires a foundation of sustained technology advances that can enable the development of more capable, reliable, and lower-cost spacecraft and launch vehicles to achieve space program goals. A strong advanced technology development foundation is needed also to enhance technology readiness of new missions, mitigate their technological risks, improve the quality of cost estimates, and thereby contribute to better overall mission cost management.… Yet financial support for this technology base has eroded over the years. The United States is now living on the innovation funded in the past and has an obligation to replenish this foundational element. (NRC, 2009, pp. 56-57)

NASA has developed a draft set of technology roadmaps to guide the development of space technologies under the leadership of the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist.1 The NRC appointed the Steering Committee for NASA Technology Roadmaps and six panels to evaluate the draft roadmaps, recommend improvements, and prioritize the technologies within each and among all of the technology areas as NASA finalizes the roadmaps. The steering committee is encouraged by the initiative NASA has taken through the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) to develop technology roadmaps and to seek input from the aerospace technical community with this study.

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RATIONALE AND SCOPE

In February 2011, NASA issued an updated strategic plan outlining agency goals and plans for achieving those goals in the 2011-2021 decade and beyond (NASA, 2011). The strategic plan highlights six strategic goals. Five of them relate directly to the scope of this study. The other one deals directly with the agency’s aeronautics mission, which, as mentioned in the preface, is outside the statement of task for this study. The 14 draft space technology roadmaps identify a number of critical enabling technologies that the steering committee and panels evaluated and prioritized. Together they represent a foundation upon which to build and achieve the strategic goals outlined in the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan:

image

1The draft space technology roadmaps are available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/strategic_integration/technology_roadmap.html



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 1
Summary Success in executing future NASA space missions will depend on advanced technology developments that should already be underway. It has been years since NASA has had a vigorous, broad-based program in advanced space technology development, and NASA’s technology base is largely depleted. As noted in a recent National Research Council report on the U.S. civil space program: Future U.S. leadership in space requires a foundation of sustained technology advances that can enable the devel - opment of more capable, reliable, and lower-cost spacecraft and launch vehicles to achieve space program goals. A strong advanced technology development foundation is needed also to enhance technology readiness of new missions, mitigate their technological risks, improve the quality of cost estimates, and thereby contribute to better overall mission cost management. . . . Yet financial support for this technology base has eroded over the years. The United States is now living on the innovation funded in the past and has an obligation to replenish this foundational element. (NRC, 2009, pp. 56-57) NASA has developed a draft set of technology roadmaps to guide the development of space technologies under the leadership of the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist.1 The NRC appointed the Steering Committee for NASA Technology Roadmaps and six panels to evaluate the draft roadmaps, recommend improvements, and prioritize the technologies within each and among all of the technology areas as NASA finalizes the roadmaps. The steering committee is encouraged by the initiative NASA has taken through the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) to develop technology roadmaps and to seek input from the aerospace technical community with this study. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RATIONALE AND SCOPE In February 2011, NASA issued an updated strategic plan outlining agency goals and plans for achieving those goals in the 2011-2021 decade and beyond (NASA, 2011). The strategic plan highlights six strategic goals. Five of them relate directly to the scope of this study. The other one deals directly with the agency’s aeronautics mission, which, as mentioned in the preface, is outside the statement of task for this study. The 14 draft space technology roadmaps identify a number of critical enabling technologies that the steering committee and panels evaluated and prioritized. Together they represent a foundation upon which to build and achieve the strategic goals outlined in the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan: 1 The draft space technology roadmaps are available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/strategic_integration/technology_roadmap.html. 1

OCR for page 1
2 NASA SPACE TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS AND PRIORITIES 1. Extend and sustain human activities across the solar system. 2. Expand scientific understanding of Earth and the universe in which we live. 3. Create the innovative new space technologies for our exploration, science, and economic future. 4. Advance aeronautics research for societal benefit. 5. Enable program and institutional capabilities to conduct NASA’s aeronautics and space activities. 6. Share NASA with the public, educators, and students to provide opportunities to participate in our Mission, foster innovation, and contribute to a strong national economy. As part of the effort to develop a detailed plan for implementing the Space Technology Program, OCT devel - oped a set of 14 draft technology roadmaps. These roadmaps establish time sequencing and interdependencies of advanced space technology research and development over the next 5 to 30 years for the following 14 technology areas (TAs): • TA01. Launch Propulsion Systems • TA02. In-Space Propulsion Technologies • TA03. Space Power and Energy Storage • TA04. Robotics, TeleRobotics, and Autonomous Systems • TA05. Communication and Navigation • TA06. Human Health, Life Support, and Habitation Systems • TA07. Human Exploration Destination Systems • TA08. Science Instruments, Observatories, and Sensor Systems • TA09. Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems • TA10. Nanotechnology • TA11. Modeling, Simulation, and Information Technology and Processing • TA12. Materials, Structures, Mechanical Systems, and Manufacturing • TA13. Ground and Launch Systems Processing • TA14. Thermal Management Systems These draft roadmaps represented the starting point and point of departure for the steering committee to evaluate and prioritize technologies and recommend areas for improvement. The roadmaps are organized through a technology area breakdown structure, which in turn served as the structure for evaluating the technologies for this study. Level 1 represents the technology area (TA), which is the title of the roadmap. Each roadmap describes level 2 subareas and level 3 technologies. TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA A set of criteria was established by the steering committee to enable the prioritization of technologies within each and, ultimately, among all of the technology areas of the NASA technology roadmaps. These criteria were chosen to capture the potential benefits, breadth, and risk of the various technologies and were used as a guide by both the panels and the steering committee to determine the final prioritization of the technologies. Broad community input was solicited from a public website where more than 240 public comments were received on the draft roadmaps using the established steering committee evaluation criteria and other descriptive factors. The public and panels were given the same rubrics to evaluate the technologies so that the various inputs could be more fairly compared against each other. A series of public workshops were held to solicit input from the members of the community who were inter- ested in contributing to the discussion of the technology roadmaps. The workshops were organized by the various panels, and all included speakers specifically invited by the panel members. The workshops were open to the public and included times for open discussion by all members of the audience. The views expressed during the workshops were considered by the panel members as they assessed the level 3 technologies.

OCR for page 1
3 SUMMARY The panels identified a number of challenges for each technology area that should be addressed for NASA to improve its capability to achieve its strategic goals. These top technical challenges were generated to assist in the prioritization of the level 3 technologies. The challenges were developed to identify the general needs NASA has within each technology area, whereas the technologies themselves address how those needs will be met. The individual panels were tasked with categorizing the individual level 3 technologies into high-, medium-, and low-priority groups. The panels generated a weighted decision matrix based on quality function deployment (QFD) techniques for each technology area. In this method, each criterion and sub-criterion was given a numerical weight by the steering committee. The steering committee based the criteria weighting on the importance of the criteria to meeting NASA’s goals of technology advancement. HIGH-PRIORITY TECHNOLOGIES BY ROADMAP The study panels produced an assessment of each roadmap that defined top technical challenges for that tech - nical area; prioritized the level 3 technologies for the assigned roadmap into high, medium, and low categories; described the value of the high-priority technologies; identified gaps in the draft roadmaps; identified development or schedule changes of the technologies covered; and summarized the public workshop that focused on the draft roadmap. The results of the panels’ work are summarized in this report in 14 appendixes (D through Q; one for each roadmap). This input from the panels was then integrated by the steering committee and documented in the main body of this report. The high-priority technologies identified by the panels are shown in Table S.1. The panels identified a total of 83 high-priority technologies from a total of 295 possible technologies. In subsequent prioritizations, the steering committee used only these 83 technologies from which to make its technology assessments. TECHNOLOGY OBJECTIVES The technology priorities recommended in this report were generated with an awareness of NASA’s current mission plans, but those priorities are not closely linked to any particular set of future NASA missions because the goals and schedules of individual missions frequently change. As described above, NASA’s 2011 strategic plan formed the foundation for the panel’s process of setting technology priorities, and defining top technical challenges was an important intermediate step for setting the panels’ technology priorities. In selecting the highest-priority technologies among all 14 roadmaps, the steering committee took the addi - tional step of established an organizing framework that addressed balance across NASA mission areas, relevance in meeting the highest-priority technical challenges, and expectations that significant progress could be made in the next 5 years of the 30-year window of the roadmaps. Furthermore, the steering committee constrained the number of highest-priority technologies to be included in the final list in the belief that in the face of probable scarce resources, focusing initially on a small number of the highest-priority technologies offers the best chance to make the greatest impact, especially given that agency mission areas, particularly in exploration, are being refined and can be shaped by technology options. Within this organizing framework, technology objectives were defined by the steering committee to address the breadth of NASA missions and group related technologies. Technology Objective A: Extend and sustain human activities beyond low Earth orbit. Technologies to • enable humans to survive long voyages throughout the solar system, get to their chosen destination, work effectively, and return safely. Technology Objective B: Explore the evolution of the solar system and the potential for life elsewhere. • Technologies that enable humans and robots to perform in situ measurements on Earth (astrobiology) and on other planetary bodies. Technology Objective C: Expand our understanding of Earth and the universe in which we live. Tech- • nologies for remote measurements from platforms that orbit or fly by Earth and other planetary bodies, and from other in-space and ground-based observatories.

OCR for page 1
4 NASA SPACE TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS AND PRIORITIES TABLE S.1 The 83 High-Priority Level 3 Technologies Selected by the Panels TA01 Launch Propulsion Systems TA06 Human Health, Life Support, and TA09 Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) Systems 1.3.1 Turbine Based Combined Habitation Systems 9.4.7 GN&C Sensors and Systems (EDL) Cycle (TBCC) 6.5.5 Radiation Monitoring Technology 9.1.1 Rigid Thermal Protection Systems 1.3.2 Rocket Based Combined 6.5.3 Radiation Protection Systems 9.1.2 Flexible Thermal Protection Systems Cycle (RBCC) 6.5.1 Radiation Risk Assessment Modeling 9.1.4 Deployment Hypersonic Decelerators 6.1.4 Habitation 9.4.5 EDL Modeling and Simulation TA02 In-Space Propulsion 6.1.3 Environmental Control and Life 9.4.6 EDL Instrumentation and Health Technologies Support System (ECLSS) Waste Monitoring 2.2.1 Electric Propulsion Management 9.4.4 Atmospheric and Surface Characterization 2.4.2 Propellant Storage and 6.3.2 Long-Duration Crew Health 9.4.3 EDL System Integration and Analysis Transfer 6.1.2 ECLSS Water Recovery and 2.2.3 (Nuclear) Thermal Propulsion TA10 Nanotechnology Management 2.1.7 Micro-Propulsion 10.1.1 (Nano) Lightweight Materials and 6.2.1 Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Structures Pressure Garment TA03 Space Power and Energy Storage 10.2.1 (Nano) Energy Generation 6.5.4 Radiation Prediction 3.1.3 Solar Power Generation 10.3.1 Nanopropellants 6.5.2 Radiation Mitigation (Photovoltaic and Thermal) 10.4.1 (Nano) Sensors and Actuators 6.4.2 Fire Detection and Suppression 3.1.5 Fission Power Generation 6.1.1 Air Revitalization 3.3.3 Power Distribution and TA11 Modeling, Simulation, and Information 6.2.2 EVA Portable Life Support System Transmission Technology and Processing 6.4.4 Fire Remediation 3.3.5 Power Conversion and 11.1.1 Flight Computing Regulation 11.1.2 Ground Computing TA07 Human Exploration Destination Systems 3.2.1 Batteries 11.2.4a Science Modeling and Simulation 7.1.3 In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) 3.1.4 Radioisotope Power 11.3.1 Distributed Simulation Products/Production Generation 7.2.1 Autonomous Logistics Management TA12 Materials, Structures, Mechanical Systems, 7.6.2 Construction and Assembly TA04 Robotics, TeleRobotics, and and Manufacturing 7.6.3 Dust Prevention and Mitigation Autonomous Systems 12.2.5 Structures: Innovative, Multifunctional 7.1.4 ISRU Manufacturing/Infrastructure 4.6.2 Relative Guidance Algorithms Concepts etc. 4.6.3 Docking and Capture 12.2.1 Structures: Lightweight Concepts 7.1.2 ISRU Resource Acquisition Mechanisms/Interfaces 12.1.1 Materials: Lightweight Structure 7.3.2 Surface Mobility 4.5.1 Vehicle System Management 12.2.2 Structures: Design and Certification 7.2.4 Food Production, Processing, and and FDIR Methods Preservation 4.3.2 Dexterous Manipulation 12.5.1 Nondestructive Evaluation and Sensors 7.4.2 Habitation Evolution 4.4.2 Supervisory Control 12.3.4 Mechanisms: Design and Analysis Tools 7.4.3 Smart Habitats 4.2.1 Extreme Terrain Mobility and Methods 7.2.2 Maintenance Systems 4.3.6 Robotic Drilling and Sample 12.3.1 Deployables, Docking, and Interfaces Processing 12.3.5 Mechanisms: Reliability/Life Assessment/ TA08 Science Instruments, Observatories, and 4.2.4 Small Body/Microgravity Health Monitoring Sensor Systems Mobility 12.4.2 Intelligent Integrated Manufacturing and 8.2.4 High-Contrast Imaging and Cyber Physical Systems Spectroscopy Technologies TA05 Communication and Navigation 8.1.3 Optical Systems (Instruments and 5.4.3 Onboard Autonomous TA14 Thermal Management Systems Sensors) Navigation and Maneuvering 14.3.1 Ascent/Entry Thermal Protection Systems 8.1.1 Detectors and Focal Planes 5.4.1 Timekeeping and Time 14.1.2 Active Thermal Control of Cryogenic 8.3.3 In Situ Instruments and Sensors Distribution Systems 8.2.5 Wireless Spacecraft Technology 5.3.2 Adaptive Network Topology 8.1.5 Lasers for Instruments and Sensors 5.5.1 Radio Systems 8.1.2 Electronics for Instruments and Sensors NOTE: Technologies are listed by roadmap/technology area (TA01 through TA14; there are no high-priority technologies in TA13). Within each technology area, technologies are listed by the QFD score assigned by the panels, in descending order. This sequencing may be considered a rough approximation of the relative priority of the technologies within a given technology area.

OCR for page 1
5 SUMMARY The technology objectives are not independent, and more than one objective may be addressed by a single mission, such as a human mission to explore planetary bodies, and some technologies support more than one of these objectives. Furthermore, these three technology objectives helped categorize similar technologies with similar drivers (i.e., technologies driven by keeping humans alive, productive, and transported; in situ measurements; and remote measurements) and enabled prioritization among diverse technologies on a meaningful basis. Balance One of the steering committee’s basic assumptions was that NASA would continue to pursue a balanced space program across its mission areas of human exploration, space science, space operations, space technology, and aeronautics. Therefore, since OCT’s technology program should broadly support the breadth of the agency’s missions and serve to open up options for future missions, the steering committee established priorities in each of the three technology objective areas, A, B, and C, independently. No one technology objective area was given priority over another. TOP TECHNICAL CHALLENGES With the three technology objectives defined, the steering committee evaluated the top technical challenges from the panels’ prioritized list of challenges for each roadmap TA01 through TA14. The top 10 technical chal - lenges for each of the three technology objectives are described in Table S.2. HIGHEST-PRIORITY LEVEL 3 TECHNOLOGIES ACROSS ALL ROADMAPS Using the panel results, which established a high degree of correlation between high-priority level 3 technolo - gies and the respective technical challenges for each roadmap (see the correlation matrices in the third figure in each of the Appendixes D through Q), the steering committee was able to relate high-priority technologies that aligned with each of the three technology objectives. The steering committee determined that, in several instances, technologies on the original list of 83 high- priority technologies were highly coupled. During the prioritization process, these highly coupled technologies were grouped together and considered as one unit. There are a total of five unified technologies (designated X.1 through X.5). Each one consists of three to five original technologies as follows: • X.1 Radiation Mitigation for Human Spaceflight 6.5.1 Radiation Risk Assessment Modeling 6.5.2 Radiation Mitigation 6.5.3 Radiation Protection Systems 6.5.4 Radiation Prediction 6.5.5 Radiation Monitoring Technology • X.2 Lightweight and Multifunctional Materials and Structures 10.1.1 (Nano) Lightweight Materials and Structures 12.1.1 Materials: Lightweight Structures 12.2.1 Structures: Lightweight Concepts 12.2.2 Structures: Design and Certification Methods 12.2.5 Structures: Innovative, Multifunctional Concepts • X.3 ECLSS 6.1.1 Air Revitalization 6.1.2 ECLSS Water Recovery and Management 6.1.3 ECLSS Waste Management 6.1.4 Habitation

OCR for page 1
6 NASA SPACE TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS AND PRIORITIES TABLE S.2 Top Technical Challenges by Technology Objective Top Technical Challenges for Technology Top Technical Challenges for Technology Top Technical Challenges for Technology Objective B: Explore the evolution of Objective C: Expand our understanding of Objective A: Extend and sustain human the solar system and the potential for life Earth and the universe in which we live activities beyond low Earth orbit. elsewhere (in situ measurements). (remote measurements). A1) Improved Access to Space: B1) Improved Access to Space: C1) Improved Access to Space: Dramatically reduce the total cost and Dramatically reduce the total cost and Dramatically reduce the total cost and increase reliability and safety of access to increase reliability and safety of access to increase reliability and safety of access to space. space. space. A2) Space Radiation Health Effects: B2) Precision Landing: Increase the C2) New Astronomical Telescopes: Improve understanding of space radiation ability to land more safely and precisely Develop a new generation of astronomical effects on humans and develop radiation at a variety of planetary locales and at a telescopes that enable discovery of protection technologies to enable long- variety of times. habitable planets, facilitate advances in duration space missions. solar physics, and enable the study of faint structures around bright objects by developing high-contrast imaging and spectroscopic technologies to provide unprecedented sensitivity, field of view, and spectroscopy of faint objects. A3) Long-Duration Health Effects: B3) Robotic Maneuvering: Enable C3) Lightweight Space Structures: Minimize the crew health effects of long- mobile robotic systems to autonomously Develop innovative lightweight materials duration space missions (other than space and verifiably navigate and avoid hazards and structures to reduce the mass and radiation). and increase the robustness of landing improve the performance of space systems systems to surface hazards. such as (1) launch vehicle and payload systems; (2) space and surface habitats that protect the crew, including multifunctional structures that enable lightweight radiation shielding, implement self-monitoring capability, and require minimum crew maintenance time; and (3) lightweight, deployable synthetic aperture radar antennas, including reliable mechanisms and structures for large-aperture space systems that can be stowed compactly for launch and yet achieve high-precision final shapes. A4) Long-Duration ECLSS: Achieve B4) Life Detection: Improve sensors for C4) Increase Available Power: Eliminate reliable, closed-loop Environmental in-situ analysis to determine if synthesis the constraint of power availability for Control and Life Support Systems of organic matter may exist today, whether space missions by improving energy (ECLSS) to enable long-duration human there is evidence that life ever emerged, generation and storage with reliable power missions beyond low Earth orbit. and whether there are habitats with the systems that can survive the wide range of necessary conditions to sustain life on environments unique to NASA missions. other planetary bodies. A5) Rapid Crew Transit: Establish B5) High-Power Electric Propulsion: C5) Higher Data Rates: Minimize propulsion capability for rapid crew transit Develop high-power electric propulsion constraints imposed by communication data to and from Mars or other distant targets. systems along with the enabling power rate and range. system technology.

OCR for page 1
7 SUMMARY TABLE S.2 Continued Top Technical Challenges for Technology Top Technical Challenges for Technology Top Technical Challenges for Technology Objective B: Explore the evolution of Objective C: Expand our understanding of Objective A: Extend and sustain human the solar system and the potential for life Earth and the universe in which we live activities beyond low Earth orbit. elsewhere (in situ measurements). (remote measurements). A6) Lightweight Space Structures: B6) Autonomous Rendezvous and Dock: C6) High-Power Electric Propulsion: Develop innovative lightweight materials Achieve highly reliable, autonomous Develop high-power electric propulsion and structures to reduce the mass and rendezvous, proximity operations, and systems along with the enabling power improve the performance of space capture of free-flying space objects. system technology. systems such as (1) launch vehicle and payload systems; (2) space and surface habitats that protect the crew, including multifunctional structures that enable lightweight radiation shielding, implement self-monitoring capability, and require minimum crew maintenance time; and (3) lightweight, deployable synthetic aperture radar antennas, including reliable mechanisms and structures for large- aperture space systems that can be stowed compactly for launch and yet achieve high-precision final shapes. A7) Increase Available Power: Eliminate B7) Increase Available Power: Eliminate C7) Design Software: Advance new the constraint of power availability for the constraint of power availability for validated computational design, analysis, space missions by improving energy space missions by improving energy and simulation methods for design, generation and storage with reliable power generation and storage with reliable power certification, and reliability of materials, systems that can survive the wide range of systems that can survive the wide range of structures, and thermal, EDL, and other environments unique to NASA missions. environments unique to NASA missions. systems. A8) Mass to Surface: Deliver more B8) Mass to Surface: Deliver more C8) Structural Monitoring: Develop payload to destinations in the solar payload to destinations in the solar means for monitoring structural health and system. system. sustainability for long-duration missions, including integration of unobtrusive sensors and responsive on-board systems. A9) Precision Landing: Increase the B9) Lightweight Space Structures: C9) Improved Flight Computers: Develop ability to land more safely and precisely Develop innovative lightweight materials advanced flight-capable devices and system at a variety of planetary locales and at a and structures to reduce the mass and software for real-time flight computing variety of times. improve the performance of space with low-power, radiation-hard, and fault- systems such as (1) launch vehicle and tolerant hardware that can be applied to payload systems; (2) space and surface autonomous landing, rendezvous, and habitats that protect the crew, including surface hazard avoidance. multifunctional structures that enable lightweight radiation shielding, implement self-monitoring capability, and require minimum crew maintenance time; and (3) lightweight, deployable synthetic aperture radar antennas, including reliable mechanisms and structures for large- aperture space systems that can be stowed compactly for launch and yet achieve high-precision final shapes. A10) Autonomous Rendezvous B10) Higher Data Rates: Minimize C10) Cryogenic Storage and Transfer: and Dock: Achieve highly reliable, constraints imposed by communication Develop long-term storage and transfer autonomous rendezvous, proximity data rate and range. of cryogens in space using systems that operations, and capture of free-flying approach near-zero boil-off. space objects.

OCR for page 1
8 NASA SPACE TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS AND PRIORITIES • X.4 GN&C 4.6.2 Relative Guidance Algorithms 5.4.3 Onboard Autonomous Navigation and Maneuvering 9.4.7 GN&C Sensors and Systems (EDL) • X.5 EDL TPS 9.1.1 Rigid Thermal Protection Systems 9.1.2 Flexible Thermal Protection Systems 14.3.1 Ascent/Entry TPS To develop as short a list as is reasonable in the face of anticipated constrained budgets, several rounds of prioritization were conducted to determine the highest-priority technologies to emphasize over the next 5 years. The resulting short list of the highest-priority technologies to emphasize over the next 5 years is shown in ranked order in Table S.3 (three columns with 16 different technologies). Again, the steering committee assumes NASA will pursue enabling technology related to all three objectives in a balanced approach, and the steering committee does not recommend or advocate support for one objective over another. Finally, the steering committee reasoned that this intentionally limited set of recommended high-priority technologies comprised a scope that could reasonably be accommodated within the most likely expected funding level available for technology development by OCT (in the range of $500 million to $1 billion annually). Also considered within the scope of a balanced technology development program is the importance of low technology readiness level (TRL; 1 and 2) exploratory concept development and high-TRL flight demonstrations. The steering committee consensus is that low-TRL, NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts-like funding should be on the order of 10 percent of the total, and that the research should quickly weed out the least competitive concepts, focusing on those that show the greatest promise in addressing the top technical challenges. At the high-TRL end of the spectrum, flight demonstrations, while expensive, are sometimes essential to reach a readiness level required for transition of a technology to an operational system. Such technology flight demonstrations are considered on a case-by-case basis when there is ample “pull” from the user organization, including a reasonable level of cost sharing. Also, there were two technologies, Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators and On-Orbit Cryogenic Storage and Transfer, that the steering committee considered to be at a “tipping point,” meaning that a relatively small increase in the research effort could produce a large advance in its technology readiness. Recommendation. Technology Development Priorities. During the next 5 years, NASA technology devel- opment efforts should focus on (1) the 16 identified high-priority technologies and associated top technical challenges, (2) a modest but significant investment in low-TRL technology (on the order of 10 percent of NASA’s technology development budget), and (3) flight demonstrations for technologies that are at a high TRL when there is sufficient interest and shared cost by the intended user. Recommendation. Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators. The NASA Office of the Chief Technolo- gist should work with the Science Mission Directorate and the Department of Energy to help bring Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator-technology hardware to flight demonstration on a suitable space mission beyond low Earth orbit. Finding. Plutonium-238. Consistent with findings of previous National Research Council reports on the subject of plutonium-238 (NRC 2010, 2011), restarting the fuel supply is urgently needed. Even with the successful development of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators, if the funds to restart the fuel supply are not authorized and appropriated, it will be impossible for the United States to conduct certain planned, critical deep-space missions after this decade. Recommendation. Cryogenic Storage and Handling. Reduced-gravity cryogenic storage and handling tech- nology is close to a “tipping point,” and NASA should perform on-orbit flight testing and flight demonstrations to establish technology readiness.

OCR for page 1
9 SUMMARY TABLE S.3 Final Prioritization of the Top Technologies, Categorized by Objective Highest-Priority Technologies for Highest-Priority Technologies for Highest-Priority Technologies for Technology Objective A Technology Objective B Technology Objective C Radiation Mitigation for Human GN&C (X.4) Optical Systems (Instruments and Sensors) Spaceflight (X.1) Solar Power Generation (Photovoltaic and (8.1.3) Long-Duration Crew Health (6.3.2) Thermal) (3.1.3) High-Contrast Imaging and Spectroscopy Technologies (8.2.4) ECLSS (X.3) Electric Propulsion (2.2.1) Detectors and Focal Planes (8.1.1) GN&C (X.4) Fission Power Generation (3.1.5) Lightweight and Multifunctional Materials (Nuclear) Thermal Propulsion (2.2.3) EDL TPS (X.5) and Structures (X.2) Lightweight and Multifunctional Materials In Situ Instruments and Sensors (8.3.3) Active Thermal Control of Cryogenic and Structures (X.2) Lightweight and Multifunctional Materials Systems (14.1.2) Fission Power Generation (3.1.5) and Structures (X.2) Electric Propulsion (2.2.1) EDL TPS (X.5) Extreme Terrain Mobility (4.2.1) Solar Power Generation (Photovoltaic and Thermal) (3.1.3) CROSSCUTTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In reviewing and evaluating the draft roadmaps and considering the purpose and strategic goals for the advanced technology development program managed by OCT, the steering committee formed some general obser- vations concerning the program as a whole and reached some conclusions on how the effectiveness of the program can be maintained or enhanced. The topics dealt with tend to address multiple roadmaps. Recommendation. Systems Analysis. NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) should use disciplined system analysis for the ongoing management and decision support of the space technology portfolio, par- ticularly with regard to understanding technology alternatives, relationships, priorities, timing, availability, down-selection, maturation, investment needs, system engineering considerations, and cost-to-benefit ratios; to examine “what-if” scenarios; and to facilitate multidisciplinary assessment, coordination, and integration of the roadmaps as a whole. OCT should give early attention to improving systems analysis and modeling tools, if necessary to accomplish this recommendation. Recommendation. Managing the Progression of Technologies to Higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). OCT should establish a rigorous process to down select among competing technologies at appropriate milestones and TRLs to assure that only the most promising technologies proceed to the next TRL. Recommendation. Foundational Technology Base. OCT should reestablish a discipline-oriented technology base program that pursues both evolutionary and revolutionary advances in technological capabilities and that draws upon the expertise of NASA centers and laboratories, other federal laboratories, industry, and academia. Recommendation. Cooperative Development of New Technologies. OCT should pursue cooperative devel- opment of high-priority technologies with other organizations to leverage resources available for technology development. Recommendation. Flight Demonstrations and Technology Transition. OCT should collaborate with other NASA mission offices and outside partners in defining, advocating, and where necessary co-funding flight demonstrations of technologies. OCT should document this collaborative arrangement using a technology transition plan or similar agreement that specifies success criteria for flight demonstrations as well as budget commitments by all involved parties.

OCR for page 1
10 NASA SPACE TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS AND PRIORITIES Finding. Facilities. Adequate research and testing facilities are essential to the timely development of many space technologies. In some cases, critical facilities do not exist or no longer exist, but defining facility requirements and then meeting those requirements fall outside the scope of NASA’s OCT (and this study). Finding. Program Stability. Repeated, unexpected changes in the direction, content, and/or level of effort of technology development programs have diminished the programs’ productivity and effectiveness. In the absence of a sustained commitment to address this issue, the pursuit of OCT’s mission to advance key tech - nologies at a steady pace will be threatened. Recommendation. Industry Access to NASA Data. OCT should make the engineering, scientific, and tech- nical data that NASA has acquired from past and present space missions and technology development more readily available to U.S. industry, including companies that do not have an ongoing working relationship with NASA and that are pursuing their own commercial goals apart from NASA’s science and exploration missions. To facilitate this process in the future, OCT should propose changes to NASA procedures so that programs are required to archive data in a readily accessible format. Recommendation. NASA Investments in Commercial Space Technology. While OCT should focus primarily on developing advanced technologies of high value to NASA’s own mission needs, OCT should also collaborate with the U.S. commercial space industry in the development of precompetitive technologies of interest to and sought by the commercial space industry. Finding. Crosscutting Technologies. Many technologies, such as those related to avionics and space weather beyond radiation effects, cut across many of the existing draft roadmaps, but the level 3 technologies in the draft roadmaps provide an uneven and incomplete list of the technologies needed to address these topics comprehensively. Recommendation. Crosscutting Technologies. OCT should review and, as necessary, expand the sections of each roadmap that address crosscutting level 3 technologies, especially with regard to avionics and space weather beyond radiation effects. OCT should assure effective ownership responsibility for crosscutting tech - nologies in each of the roadmaps where they appear and establish a comprehensive, systematic approach for synergistic, coordinated development of high-priority crosscutting technologies. In summary, the draft set of 14 roadmaps produced by NASA contained 320 level 3 technologies. The panels assessed the technology area breakdown structure of the 14 roadmaps and developed a revised structure containing 295 level 3 technologies. Of those 295 technologies, 83 were considered high priority by the panels. The steering committee then evaluated those 83 technologies. Through an organizing framework relating objectives, challenges, and individual technologies, the prioritization process across all roadmaps identified 7 or 8 technologies for each of three independent technology objectives, for a total of 16 unique technologies that this report recommends be emphasized over the next 5 years of the 5- to 30-year window of the technology roadmaps. Technological breakthroughs have been the foundation of virtually every NASA success. The Apollo landings on the Moon are now an icon for the successful application of technology to a task that was once regarded as a distant dream. NASA science missions that continue to unlock the secrets of our solar system and universe, and human and robotic exploration of the solar system are inherently high-risk endeavors and require new technologies, new ideas, and bold applications of technology, engineering, and science to create the required vehicles, support systems, and space operations infrastructure. NASA has led in the development and application of many critically important space technologies. In addition, technological advances have yielded benefits far beyond space itself in down-to-Earth applications. The technologies needed for the Apollo program were generally self-evident and driven by a clear and well- defined goal. In the modern era, the goals of the country’s broad space mission include multiple objectives, exten - sive involvement from both the public and private sectors, choices among multiple paths to different destinations,

OCR for page 1
11 SUMMARY and very limited resources. As the breadth of the country’s space mission has expanded, the necessary technological developments have become less clear, and more effort is required to evaluate the best path for a forward-looking technology development program. NASA has now entered a transitional stage, moving from the past era in which desirable technological goals were evident to all to one in which careful choices among many conflicting alterna - tives must be made. This report provides specific guidance and recommendations on how the effectiveness of the technology development program managed by NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist can be enhanced in the face of scarce resources by focusing on the highest-priority technologies. REFERENCES NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2011. 2011 NASA Strategic Plan. NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516579main_NASA2011StrategicPlan.pdf. NRC (National Research Council). 2009. America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. NRC. 2010. Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. NRC. 2011. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.