6
Integration of Technology Development with the Science Program
The draft Science Plan’s treatment of issues relating to technology development and, in particular, the integration of science and technology programs is not consistent. Chapter 2 of the draft Science Plan contains a paragraph on NASA’s role in driving technological innovation, as illustrated by a medical application of the mirror metrology techniques developed for the James Webb Space Telescope. This is a simple, almost trivial, example of the impact of a $2 billion-plus technology program.
Chapter 3 of the draft Science Plan includes material on technology maturation in the discussion of Science Mission Directorate (SMD) strategies. This material emphasizes that new technologies need to address important science goals and that these technologies be mature prior to any commitment being made to undertake the respective activity. But there is no discussion of when to start and when to stop expensive technology development programs. The technical challenges posed by the current difficulty with access to space are also discussed in Chapter 3. The primary focus of this section is not on new technologies for launching SMD’s satellites but, rather, on replacing the launch capability that once existed in the form of the Delta II rocket. SMD is faced with committing to various as-yet-unproven launch vehicles for its missions. It is not clear that these new vehicles will be able to deliver the reliability and performance required, while also satisfying cost and schedule, especially when one views historical performance with regard to these criteria. High expenditure rates occur when missions are ready for launch, and the price of getting science payloads to orbit is likely to increase substantially. Attention to the inevitable cost escalation is warranted when planning future missions. Chapter 3 of the draft Science Plan also includes a discussion of the challenges posed by technology development and demonstration and of the respective roles of SMD divisions and NASA’s new Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) but does not include any examples.
The discussion of technology in Chapter 4 of the draft Science Plan is incomplete. Although technology development activities are a part of all four divisional sections, the write-up of only two of them—i.e., Earth Science and Planetary Science—contain text specifically related to technology development. The Heliophysics section includes a brief mention of the consolidated Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science program—in response to the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey’s DRIVE initiative—is a positive step.
The draft Science Plan includes a succinct description of the technology programs within the Planetary Science Division. The text focuses on two newly restructured instrument development programs: Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration (MatISSE) and Planetary Instrument Concepts for Advancements of Solar System Observations (PICASSO). Additional text concerning the important issue of plutonium-238 for radioisotope power systems is included. However, the draft Science Plan makes no mention of the assumption by SMD of all of the Department of Energy’s infrastructure costs necessary to resume the domestic production of plutonium-238.
In 2011, NASA’s Planetary Science Technology Review Panel (PSTRP) submitted a series of recommendations to the Planetary Science Division that notes the problems resulting from the absence of an overall technology development strategy and a designated program manager.1 The report also notes the difficulty in bringing new technologies from technology readiness levels (TRLs) 0 to 9. These concerns were reiterated in the 2011 planetary science decadal survey, together which clear guidance to NASA on the technology needs of the coming decade and recommendations on the level of funding that
would be needed to enable future robotic exploration missions. The planetary science decadal survey also included tables that capture some of the most compelling technology requirements for the current decade and beyond.2
The discussion of technology development by the Astrophysics Division is limited to noting that the division has a new Strategic Astrophysics Technology Program focused on mid-TRL activities. The draft Science Plan is silent on the technology activities tightly coupled to the decadal strategies described in NASA’s 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan. In addition, no mention is made of the efforts by the Astrophysics Division to pursue coordinated technology development activities with STMD. The draft Science Plan identifies, in general, how SMD will interact with STMD in integrating needed technology development, but there is a need for a strategic plan for technology that is tied to the overall Science Plan. One goal for an SMD-wide technology strategy would be to identify the cross-divisional technologies necessary for the cost-effective implementation of decadal survey priorities. Another goal of a technology strategy would be to identify optimum approaches to “buy down” the costs of implementing decadal survey recommendations. In addition, technology development can be a very effective way to foster interdisciplinary activities throughout SMD in various areas of mutual interest.
The draft Science Plan does discuss technology development in slightly greater detail in the text devoted to the Earth Science Technology Program. The material presented notes the key role played by a “science-driven strategy that employs open peer-reviewed solicitations to produce the best appropriate technologies.”3 Moreover, the primary science requirements are derived from the 2007 Earth science decadal survey. However, important questions are left unanswered. For example, the Earth Science Division has been assigned the role maintaining continuity of data, but the draft Science Plan is silent on the need for or emphasis on new technologies to support efficiently and economically continuous measurements and long-term monitoring. In addition, nowhere is it suggested that the investment in new technologies should focus on system capabilities as well as on individual missions and sensors.
Other than a single sentence early in the draft Science Plan—i.e., “For the development of crosscutting, advanced and pioneering new space technologies that can be leveraged by the entire agency”4—there is no discussion of the demarcation between technology development within the STMD and within the technology program in Planetary Science Division or any of SMD’s other three divisions. Similarly, many of the technologies discussed within the first paragraph in the section entitled “Planetary Science Technology Program,” such as power generation, propulsion, navigation, and aerocapture, do not seem to fit within the scope of PICASSO or MatISSE instrument development programs.5 The PSTRP proposes that the appropriate staff in Planetary Science Division interact with the Office of Chief Technologist to support the development of the needed technologies for future missions. With the recent formation of the STMD, that liaison could extend to staff in that directorate.
The draft Science Plan does not provide a coherent picture of technology development in SMD and does not tie activities in the various disciplines to technology developments recommended in the respective decadal surveys. Moreover, the draft Science Plan presents an unclear picture of the relative roles and responsibilities for the demarcation of technology development efforts between SMD, its divisions, and STMD.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should explicitly describe a technology plan that clearly defines how and what technologies require development and what activities and programs are supported by the plan, as recommended in their respective decadal surveys.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should also describe the relative roles and responsibilities of which organizational entities at NASA will be responsible for each specific technology development effort.
REFERENCES
1. NASA. 2011. Planetary Science Technology Review Panel: Final Report. Washington, D.C.
2. National Research Council. 2011. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 304 and 311.
3. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 49.
4. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 16.
5. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, pp. 58 and 59.
