2010 Planetary Science Technology Review

2010 Planetary Science Technology ReviewInterim Report; Assessment Phase

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Prepared by the PSTR panel, advisors, and technical support staff, Tibor Kremic, Panel Chair Sept 22, 2010

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Planetary Science Technology Review- Panel; Interim Report 2

Outline• Panel Purpose• Team• PSTR Activities and Planned Products• Assessment Approach and Methodology• Major Issues and Observations

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3

Purpose• The primary purpose of the Planetary Science Technology

Review (PSTR) panel and its advisors is:

to assist the Planetary Science Division (PSD) of NASA Headquarters in developing a coordinated and integrated technology development plan that will better utilize technology resources

• The panel will suggest process and policy changes

help answer the how questions

• The panel will rely on the planetary decadal survey to identify what technologies PSD should invest in

The full charter of PSTR can be viewed online http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/PlanetaryScience/ Planetary Science Technology Review- Panel; Interim Report


Team

• Panel members are: Peter Hughes, NASA GSFC Tibor Kremic (chair), NASA GRC Brad Perry, NASA HQ James Singleton, AFRL

• Advisors are: Pat Beauchamp, JPL, John Clarke, Boston University Ralph Lorenz, APL

Planetary Science Technology Review- Panel; Interim Report

• NASA HQ POC is: Gordon Johnston

• Technical Support by: Waldo Rodriguez, NASA LaRC Linda Nero, NASA GRC


PSTR Activities and Products• There are three phases to the PSTR charter

Assessment of current content and performanceFormulation of ideas and recommendationsReport and Communicate

• Products will be This interim report for the assessment phase A final report detailing the work for all three phasesTwo high-level notional technology roadmaps

One budget driven, the other need-based



Assessment Approach• The primary objective of the assessment phase is to

understand current content, missing content, and identify issues/barriers as well as what works well

• A second objective is to look for best practices and possible lessons that could be applied to PSD from other organizations within and outside NASA

• In general, obtain inputs through briefings and interviews



Assessment Methodology• Hold briefings with HQ program executives and officers

to understand current content and solicit observations• Hold briefings (mostly via teleconference) between the

panel and selected or recommended technology development stakeholders. Look for patterns of issues of differing views. Contact representatives from all stakeholders


HQ’PE/POTechnologistsScientistsGovernment

Flight MissionsIndustryAcademia


Assessment Summary• The assessment phase has been completed

PSTR has been presented with current technology content and processes

Interviewed numerous flight projects and technology programs Heard from various sources on technology management

successes and lessons learned We’ve heard from other NASA and also non-NASA organizations

about their technology development approaches and lessons learned

Exploration, Aeronautics, Earth Science Technology Office, Air Force, New Millennium, Small business, and others


Speaker Date TopicHQ PE/PO FlagshipDiscoveryNew FrontiersMars OtherIndustryNASAGov UniversityInstrumentsBench MarkingOtherComm / DSN

Notes & Comments

Dryer, Jay 1/26/2010 ARMD x x xKnopf, Bill 1/26/2010 AMMOS x xKomar, George 1/26/2010 ESTO x x x xJohnston, Gordon 1/26/2010 PSD Overview/Manangement x

Crane, Phil 1/26/2010Suborbital Investigationsunder Planetary Astronomy x x x

Conley, Cassie 1/26/2010 Planetary Protection x x xBredekamp, Joe 1/26/2010 AIST x x x x xVoytek, MaryNew, Michael 1/26/2010 ASTID/ASTED x x x x

Roeum, Voleak 1/27/2010 Technology Investments Budget overviewMoore, Chris 1/27/2010 ESMD x x xMay, Lisa 1/27/2010 ISP/Mars x x x xBuckner, Janice 1/27/2010 PIDDIP x xTahu, George 1/27/2010 Lunar Lander x x x xNiebur, Curt 1/27/2010 Outer Planets x x x

Lindstrom, Dave 1/27/2010Samples, Curation, Planetary Major Equip. x x x Facility and ground

systemsDudzinski, Len 1/27/2010 RPS x x xSteven, Chris 2/25/2010 New Millennium Program x JPL x xMunk, Michele 3/11/2010 Aerocapture/EDL x x Agency EDL activities

Hayati, Samad 4/8/2010 Mars Technology Program x JPL x x x Tech progrm with multi-mission view

Manning, Rob 4/22/2010 MSL x x JPL x x

Livesay, Leslie 4/15/2010 Flight Missions x x JPL xBroad expereince and

lessons learnedAmato, Mike 4/29/2010 GSFC Instruments x x Broad expereince and Mahaffey, Paul 5/6/2010 SAM x x x xPeter Bedini , et al. 5/6/2010 MESSENGER x x xBeauchamp, Pat 5/11/2010 Decadal white papers x x xSpanjers, Greg 5/12/2010 AFRL x xPatel, Keyur 5/11/2010 Dawn x

Moore, Chris 5/11/2010ESMD technology update &gnrl lessons learned x x Many new activities

intitiated under ETDD

Chrissotimos, Nick 5/11/2010Explorers & Helio Program Insights x

Tuttle, Karen 5/11/2010NASA SOMD communication plans and insight x x x Similar issues as PSD

technology development

Howard, Rick 5/11/2010NASA Chief Technology Office gnrl lessons learned

x CTO impacts to technology development

Hubbard, Scott 5/11/2010Technology management lessons learned x x x

McDougal, John 5/12/2010New Frontiers/Discover/Lunar Quest Program Insights

x x x x x

Lunar program has technology development.

Other programs feel impacts

Parminer Ghuman 5/12/2010SBIR/STTR process and options x x Low TRL

Gold, Rob 5/20/2010 Technology development at APL x x x APL

Ellen Stofan 5/20/2010 Scientist view of NMP x xMike Moore 5/20/2010 SMD POC to OCT role x x Interfaces to OCT

Dan Baker 5/27/2010LASP (Academic views / Suborbital roles) x x x x x x x

Alec Galimore 5/27/2010 Academic views /Technology x x x Spacecraft usbsystem technologies

Erik Antonsson 6/10/2010 Technology management x x x x xBill Gibson 6/10/2010 New Horizons x x APL x x

Steve Gorevan 6/17/2010 Honeybee Robotics x x x x Small business experiences

Grant Aufderhaar 6/17/2010 Aerospace Corp x x x x x

Flight ProgramsTechnology Management Technology Tasks/Projects

9

Briefing List


Major Observations of Current Programs• Observations/Issues can be grouped into four

categoriesStrategic - Issues that relate to an overall Planetary technology

strategyProcess/Structure – Issues that relate to technology program

processes and supporting institutional structuresResource - Issues that relate to resources made available for

technology development activitiesCulture/Communication – Issues that relate to the cultures and

communication among space projects teams, the supporting technologists, their respective institutions and external stakeholders



Major Observations of Current ProgramsStrategic

*S-1) A comprehensive technology development strategy and an accountable owner is needed to set priorities and increase performance and coordination

S-2) There is no clear path for technologies through the existing programs to mature from TRL-0 to TRL-9. Specifically there is an issue with funding at mid-TRLs (valley of death) and there is no mechanism within PSD for sub-orbital test flights or technology demonstration missions


* S-1 is the top priority issue in the strategy category, S-2 is the second priority in the category and so on


Major Observations of Current ProgramsStrategic

S-3) PSD should be proactive and engage the OCT and ESMD as appropriate to ensure coordination and effective leveraging of plans and activities

S-4) Technologies that address integration, ease of use, and system level issues need to be considered. Technology is more than just hardware and a qualified system is more than a set of qualified components

S-5) Universities and other external organizations are not adequately and consistently engaged and supported in technology development



Major Observations of Current ProgramsProcess/Structure

P-1) The technology related decision making, planning, implementing, and review processes are not well defined and often inconsistent among programs

P-2) Technology management is scattered across busy headquarters program executives and officers that also have other competing responsibilities

P-3) A structure is needed that links technologists to missions and promotes early interaction with scientists. A “shepherd” function (guides a technology’s maturation) is also needed

P-4) The heritage and TRL assessment processes need to be more accurate and consistent



Major Observations of Current ProgramsResources

R-1) Technology budgets are unstable and unpredictable. This makes technology maturation as well as sustaining skills and capability challenging and adds risk to overall mission success

R-2) Previously identified technology priorities have not been adequately funded to make progress

E.g. the gap to infusion, extreme environments, planetary protection, sample return, and more

2008 CASSE report (solar system decadal mid-term)

R-3) Technology investments made by other agencies and the SBIR/STTR processes need to be better leveraged



Major Observations of Current ProgramsCulture / Communication

C-1) Technology investments do not always realize all the benefits possible

Better documentation and accessibility to technology is critical to ensure broader use and to maximize investment potential

There is no easy way to comprehensively search and learn about technologies NASA is developing or has made available

C-2) Increased communication and exposure among all stakeholders (scientists, technologists, mission teams, other SMD divisions like the Earth Science Divisions, Centers,…) is needed for better technology planning, development, and infusion



Major Observations of Current ProgramsCulture / Communication

C-3) Projects are too risk averse to new technologies

C-4) Tenuous top-level sustained commitment for technology

C-5) Technology capability and heritage is lost during gaps in flights or lapses in funding for technology programs


National Aeronautics and Space Administration Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans 17

Additional info can be found on the following

website: http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/PlanetaryScienc

e/

2010 Planetary Science Technology Review

Documents

Transcript of 2010 Planetary Science Technology Review