Summary

The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD)/Earth Science Division’s (ESD’s) Earth Venture (EV) is a program element within the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program. It was established in 2009 in response to recommendations that appeared in the 2007 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Earth science and applications from space decadal survey.¹ Until recently, there were three categories (or “strands”) of EV missions: EV Suborbital (EV-S), EV Instrument (EV-I), and EV Mission (EV-M). Following a recommendation in the 2017 decadal survey,² NASA created a fourth category, EV Continuity (EV-C), whose selection now alternates with EV-I. The key characteristics of each category are summarized in Table S.1, and the current and planned selections for EV-I, EV-M, and EV-C missions are shown in Table S.2. As indicated in Table S.1, EV-M and EV-I missions are expected to have either a Class C or Class D risk tolerance.³ NASA’s statement of task for the present study (see Appendix A) includes a review of experiences to date with the EV-I and EV-M, but not EV-S or EV-C.⁴

NASA developed EVs specifically to “conduct low-cost Earth science research and application missions to demonstrate innovative ideas and higher-risk technologies and provide training for future leaders of space-based observations for Earth science applications.”⁵ “Foundational” principles of missions solicited

___________________

¹ National Research Council, 2007, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/11820.

² National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/24938.

³ Four risk levels or classifications (A, B, C, and D) have been characterized in the NPR 8705.4 Risk Classification for NASA Payloads by considering factors such as criticality to the Agency Strategic Plan, national significance, complexity, mission lifetime, cost, and other relevant factors. Class C is medium priority, medium national significance, and medium-to-low complexity and cost while Class D is considered low in all these aspects. See NASA, “Risk Classification for NASA Payloads,” NPR 8705.4A, https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=4A.

⁴ NASA’s request for a study on lessons learned in the implementation of Earth Venture (EV) excluded the EV-S strand, which is expected to undergo a separate review in a forthcoming National Academies study. Lessons from the only recently initiated EV-C strand were also not included in the study request. However, the study committee did consider the impact of implementing EV-C without a commensurate budget increase for the EV line because NASA currently plans to have EV-I announcements of opportunity alternate with EV-C, thereby increasing the intervals between EV-I selections from approximately 18 months to approximately 36 months.

⁵ NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG), 2017, Earth Venture Suborbital Investigations, Report No. IG-17-013, Washington, DC, https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-013.pdf.

TABLE S.1 Earth Venture (EV) Mission Types

NOTES: The November 2020 Earth Venture Mission-3 (EVM-3) announcement of opportunity raised the cost cap to $190 million in NASA fiscal year (FY) 2022 dollars (estimate), including launch. The cost cap for EVI-5 was $108 mission (FY 2022) for a mission with a Class C payload risk classification, and $35 million for a Class D mission. For EVI-6, NASA is only accepting proposals for Class D instruments and CubeSats, and the mission cost cap is $37 million (FY 2024).

^a The four risk levels or classifications (A, B, C, and D) shown in the table reflect factors such as criticality to the Agency Strategic Plan, national significance, complexity, mission lifetime, cost, and other relevant factors. Class C is medium priority, medium national significance, medium to low complexity and cost, while Class D is considered low in all these aspects. See NASA, “Risk Classification for NASA Payloads,” NPR 8705.4A, https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=4A.

SOURCE: Adapted from S.A. Cauffman and G. Bawden, 2020, “Satellite Needs Working Group: NASA Role in the Process & Current and Planned NASA Earth Science Flight Missions,” June 3, https://calval.cr.usgs.gov/apps/sites/default/files/snwg/20200603_NASA_SNWG_KickOff_Bawden_Cauffman.pdf.

in EV-class are that they be competed, principal investigator (PI)-led, and implemented under strict cost and schedule constraints. Adherence to cost caps and schedule constraints was deemed critical to the success of EV in order to ensure availability of funding for regular, relatively frequent solicitations, which are necessary to ensure programmatic flexibility and the capability to respond rapidly to new scientific opportunities or priorities.

Previous National Academies studies that reviewed progress in implementation of the EV program were generally favorable; indeed, recommending consideration of increased cadence for the EV-M standalone space missions, as well as recommending the initiation of EV-C to provide opportunity for low-cost sustained observations.^6,7 However, implementation of the EV-I and EV-M strands has also experienced setbacks, with several EV-I missions experiencing multiyear delays because anticipated hosting opportunities on commercial launch vehicles did not materialize and because EVM-2, Geostationary Carbon Observatory (GeoCarb), experienced significant cost growth and schedule delays due to technical issues, hosting issues, and the impact of COVID-19, all of which led to a management change.⁸

___________________

⁶ National Research Council. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13405.

⁷ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24938.

⁸ In FY 2020, NASA transferred GeoCarb project management from the University of Oklahoma to the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, following a continuation review to convert GeoCarb from a PI-led mission to a “directed mission.” (NASA assigns a specific NASA center to lead a directed mission.) NASA’s FY 2022 budget includes a $117 million life-cycle cost increase for the GeoCarb mission to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic impacts and to accommodate changes to hosting/launch plans. See https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022_congressional_justification_nasa_budget_request.pdf.

TABLE S.2 Schedule for EV-I, EV-M, and EV-C Missions

^a EMIT is now scheduled for launch in 2022 and PREFIRE is scheduled for launch in 2023.

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix D.

SOURCE: Adapted from Karen St. Germain, Director, NASA Earth Science Division, presentation to the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space, November 1, 2021, https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/11-01-2021/committee-on-earth-sciences-andapplications-from-space-2021-fall-meeting-part-2.

In 2020, at the request of NASA, the National Academies convened an ad hoc study committee to examine the EV-I and EV-M strands and report on lessons learned in the more than 10 years since selection of the first EV mission. Among other issues, NASA requested that the study review the foundational principles and approaches underlying the program. The statement of task for the Committee on the Review of Lessons-Learned in the Implementation of NASA’s EV Class is reprinted in Appendix A. The committee’s response to this charge is detailed in the chapters that follow. Its key findings and recommendations are shown below.

THE EARTH VENTURE SOLICITATION, EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

EV-I and EV-M follow the customary NASA announcement of opportunity (AO) single-step proposal selection process, as follows: NASA releases an AO based on the standard NASA AO template with very similar requirements, sections, page limits, and reference documents to NASA AOs for PI-led missions in the other SMD divisions. Most of these other selections are two-step (i.e., NASA initially selects approximately two to five projects for a competitive Phase A, Concept Study Report and Site Visit, leading ultimately to a down-select for Phase B). The requirements for EV proposals are very similar to the Step 1 proposal for these other programs.

FINDING 2.1: The overall EV solicitation, evaluation, and selection process follows previously established guidelines. In general, the process is clear and methodical, the science and technical management review process is streamlined, and there is an appropriate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal. Selected missions have tended to be “Category I” missions, meaning excellent or very good science and implementation strategies with low risk as assessed by the review of technical, management, and cost feasibility.

FINDING 2.2: By using the same selection process as previous missions in the ESSP Program, which has minimal feedback between science and technical risk portions of the assessment, the EV selection process appears to favor lower risk missions independent of potential advances that were not explicitly part of the baseline science mission.

NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) can provide SMD with launch options and cost brackets based on expected mass and volumes during the EV selection process. LSP, however, views its role as a service to SMD and is not involved in AO evaluation or selection. LSP engages missions as requested, but not before critical design review when instrument details and schedules are sufficiently well known to negotiate launch contracts. Because of this, it is not clear how risk is assessed by the selection committee when proposed launch services are significantly different from NASA LSP experience. As such, the committee is concerned that an EV proposal that makes use of non-NASA-provided launch services risks being penalized in the evaluation process.

To be selectable, EV proposals must offer the potential for a significant science return for missions that can be executed within rigid cost and schedule constraints. Thus, the proposers must convince NASA reviewers that all of the risks (science, technical, cost, and schedule) are both understood and manageable. In interviews with the committee, mission PIs noted that these requirements led them to include less in their EV proposals than they thought their missions, if fully successful, could accomplish. Having only threshold and baseline⁹ science objectives in an EV proposal, without allowing for more speculative discussions, may disadvantage truly new observations. However, selection committees cannot be asked to quantitatively evaluate possible new scenarios that are not part of the proposal itself.

RECOMMENDATION 4.7: To facilitate selection of Earth Venture (EV) missions that are considered high risk but also have the potential to deliver an additional important science and/or a high-value applications product, NASA should request that EV teams include in their submission a supplemental document that highlights what a mission might accomplish beyond the stated baseline objectives. Given the difficulties in rating applications that have not been demonstrated, or the enhanced science that may be enabled by new types of observations, the Earth Science Division should evaluate the supplemental information and provide its assessment to the associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at the time of mission selection. The associate administrator would have the option of working with the appropriate program to fund the enhanced science or applications.

The science return of future EV missions, the benefits of a regular and predictable cadence for EV selection, as well as the ability of potential PIs to keep their teams together if attempting a second (or further)

___________________

⁹Threshold (or minimum) science requirements are the minimum performance requirements necessary to achieve the minimum science acceptable for the mission. Baseline science requirements are the investigation performance requirements necessary to achieve the entire set of science objectives identified at the initiation of the mission (see NASA, 2011, “Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office: Program Plan,” NASA Langley Research Center, Document No. ESSPPO-0001, March 29, https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EV-I/pdf_files/ESSP_Program_Plan_sig.pdf).

proposal, are threatened when previously selected missions are allowed to grow substantially beyond their planned cost cap.

RECOMMENDATION 3.2: NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) should not deviate from the foundational principles of the Earth Venture (EV) program. In particular, the ESD should establish and implement an effective process to strictly enforcing the cost caps established for EV missions.

RECOMMENDATION 4.1: NASA should maintain a cadence of approximately one Earth Venture solicitation every 18 months to allow institutions to maintain proposal teams and ensure broad community engagement.

During interviews, the committee found that most PIs reported good experiences working with NASA HQ and with the NASA centers managing their programs. A single repeated concern, however, was the number and the level of detail of the review process that seemed to follow the format of larger flagship missions, even if the risk posture (either Class C or D) was much higher.

RECOMMENDATION 4.3: NASA project management should implement risk-based safety and mission assurance principles and procedures by using NASA Procedural Document (NPR) NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements (NPR 7120.5F), Section 3.5 (Principles Related to Tailoring Requirements), to tailor management and review requirements to the particulars of the Earth Venture project and thereby reduce cost and management burden.

FINDING 4.1: Classifying all EV missions as Class “D” and tailoring the project management regime to be consistent with the results from the proposal’s technical, management, and cost review can identify more specific risks to be addressed during a risk-based safety and mission assurance process.

RECOMMENDATION 4.4: NASA should conduct an in-house analysis of the project management and review practices used in Earth Venture missions with the aim of streamlining processes and reducing budgetary and schedule pressures on these small, budget-constrained projects.

RECOMMENDATION 4.5: NASA should ensure that Earth Venture announcements of opportunity include examples of contract deliverables with descriptions for various classes of instruments deployed in flight projects in order to provide the proposal teams with a better idea of reporting requirements that will facilitate budgeting and better inform contract negotiations.

Significant resources are needed to develop a competitive EV proposal. To reduce these resource requirements and as a way to facilitate the expansion of the pool of proposers, the committee analyzed the merits of a one-step versus two-step proposal process. These are detailed in Chapter 4.

RECOMMENDATION 4.2: NASA should keep the Earth Venture selection process as a one-step process.

MEASURES OF SUCCESS

The EV program has a number of objectives and thus not a single measure of success. In addition to having missions fulfill their science objectives, EV missions were initiated to restore more frequent launch

opportunities, facilitate the demonstration of innovative ideas and higher-risk technologies, and expand the pool of well-qualified PIs and project managers (PMs) for implementation of future NASA missions.

Science Return

Of the seven missions that have been under way for more than 5 years, the PIs have delivered the instruments on time and schedule for one of the two EV-M and all of the EV-I missions. Unfortunately, mission success and science return have been disrupted by delays in accommodating three EV-I instruments (TEMPO [Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring Pollution], MAIA [Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols], and TROPICS [Time-Resolved Observations of Precipitation Structure and Storm Intensity with a Constellation of SmallSats]) on spacecraft and launches. NASA is primarily responsible for these delays, which may be attributable to changing opportunities in instrument accommodation and/or launch capabilities. The GeoCarb mission is also behind schedule, and NASA has continued to fund GeoCarb even though it has greatly exceeded its cost cap.

FINDING 2.5: Delays in launching three EV-I missions and programmatic and budget issues with EVM-2 (GeoCarb) are the largest factors limiting the EV program’s science return to date. Multiyear schedule slips and projects growing substantially beyond their cost cap are inconsistent with the rationale for the EV program.

Expanding and Diversifying the Principal Investigator and Project Manager Pool

The mission development experiences needed to put together full EV proposals currently limit the pool of PIs and program management entities capable of assembling competitive proposals; indirectly, it also limits the diversity of selectees. To date, the EV program has had limited success in expanding the PI and PM pool. While the great majority of EV PIs and PMs have not previously led EV missions, most were already working quite closely in other NASA flight programs. In interviews, most teams commented on the need to have well-informed partners, often NASA centers, managing program implementation. Many said they would have been overwhelmed without the support of NASA centers.

Diversity in terms of gender and race needs particular attention. For example, only one of the EV-M and EV-I missions has had a female PI. This lack of diversity, however, is not limited to the EV program, and the root of the problem is much deeper and broader than the EV program. Across all of SMD, during the period from 2001 to 2017, only 30 of 301 PI-led mission proposals had female PIs, and one division (the Planetary Science Division) accounted for 26 of the 30 female PI applicants.^10,11 Action by the EV program to increase diversity is warranted and can be expected to improve diversity. The effectiveness of actions by the EV program will be greatly enhanced by societal progress in addressing wide-ranging factors that impede diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in education and professional careers. In addition, focused efforts to examine and address diversity, equity, and inclusion among SMD PIs are ongoing.¹²

___________________

¹⁰ M. New, NASA Science Mission Directorate, “Diversity and Inclusion,” 2018, https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/New_Diversity&Inclusion_APAC_April2018.pdf.

¹¹ Data on the race of the PIs were not available.

¹² In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will publish a consensus study report with recommendations to increase diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility in the leadership of space mission proposals submitted to SMD competed space mission programs: Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions.

RECOMMENDATION 4.6: To support diversification among potential principal investigators that may not have strong existing ties to NASA’s Earth Science Division or to NASA’s centers, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate should call for “mission concept planning proposals” in its annual solicitations for Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences.

A Changing Landscape for Earth Venture

The TROPICS and PREFIRE EV-I missions are examples of EV missions that blur the lines between EV-I and EV-M. Both provide the instrument and the bus (NASA), and both need dedicated launchers because of their specific orbit requirements. In addition, the diminished prospects for hosting opportunities to geostationary orbits, and the anticipated loss of the International Space Station as a host platform after 2031, suggest this blurring of project elements is likely to persist.

RECOMMENDATION 3.3: In future Earth Venture (EV) announcements of opportunity (AOs), NASA should consider discontinuing the distinction between EV Mission (EV-M) and EV Instrument proposals. NASA would then solicit proposals that provide the full mission architecture as is currently done with EV-M. The AO should list any specific hosting or launch opportunity that NASA offers to provide. EV teams would have the option to incorporate these opportunities in their proposals, accounting for their cost to ensure a level competition against proposals that do not take advantage of such NASA-provided accommodation(s).

EV missions are relatively small missions that provide targeted science investigations that complement NASA’s satellite and research program. With their relatively high risk, EVs are selected with the understanding that failure of a particular mission should not compromise the overall objectives of the NASA Earth Science program. Thus, while aligned with ESD objectives, which are guided in part by the recommendations of National Academies’ Earth science and applications from space decadal surveys, EV missions were not intended to be—and to date have not been—critical to ESD plans for decadal survey implementation. However, recent changes in EV selection criteria raise at least the possibility that, in the future, EV missions might become tied closely to the fulfillment of a specific decadal survey objective. The most recent AO for EV-M states that NASA will prioritize consideration of proposals that address the questions presented in the 2017 Earth science and applications from space decadal survey, and it will use the classification of the question being addressed as a guide for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION 3.1: To encourage consideration of a wider set of ideas benefiting Earth system science, NASA’s Earth Science Division should, in future Earth Venture solicitations, emphasize that science priorities of potential interest encompass the full range of science priorities in the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine decadal survey Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space.