Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Understanding the Mission Formulation and Proposal Process
2 Understanding the Mission Formulation and Proposal Process
Pages 17-43
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 17... ...
-- and makes selections based on proposals developed by aspiring PIs have evolved significantly and quite effectively since the 1970s. In its 2006 report Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in Space Science, the National Research Council reported that the space science community sees a lot of scientific value in PI-led missions as a complement to NASA flagship missions (NRC 2006)
|
From page 18... ...
In the sections to follow, the committee begins with a look at concept development, team formation, and proposal development, and then the NASA proposal evaluation process in more detail. FIGURE 2.1 Overall flow diagram of the process of developing mission concepts and the NASA proposal evaluation and selection process.
|
From page 19... ...
In this stage, the team also begins generating proposal material in anticipation of a future AO, and the PI and others may publicize the mission concept at conferences and in published papers and/or make presentations to appropriate NASA and other committees. After the release of an AO, the teams refine and submit the proposal, but the concept development stage can easily stretch over 1 year and often extends over many years and across multiple AOs.
|
From page 20... ...
. BOX 2.1 Summary of NASA Project Phases Program Pre-Formulation • Pre-Phase A: Concept Studies Program Formulation • Phase A: Concept and Technology Development • Phase B: Preliminary Design and Technology Completion Program Implementation • Phase C: Final Design and Fabrication • Phase D: System Assembly, Integration and Test, Launch • Phase E: Operations and Sustainment • Phase F: Closeout More on NASA mission phases can be found at https://www.nasa.gov/seh/3-project-life-cycle.
|
From page 21... ...
Taken together, the progress from CML 1 to CML 5 requires extensive resources -- team formation, funding for feasibility and trade space studies, engineering and scientific analysis, and often team reviews as a baseline concept is refined. Thus, concept development alone requires an institutional investment and significant effort by a science team, a core group of engineers, a PSE and PM, and financial and budget analysts.
|
From page 22... ...
.3 Large investments are required for competed space mission proposals of any size. These initial investments are used in proposal development, idea maturation, and trade space analysis.
|
From page 23... ...
Through the testimony of several individuals in the space science community, the committee gained insight into the large variations that occurs surrounding these questions from institution to institution. The committee heard from a range of organizations that serve as instrument builders, spacecraft providers, and research partners on NASA mission proposals.
|
From page 24... ...
SOURCE: Heidi Jensen and Lorenzo Pappas, NASA Science Mission Directorate.
|
From page 25... ...
Conclusion 2-2: The variation of non-NASA/internal resources available for preparation and production of mission concepts, full proposals, and site visits may result in an unfair advantage of some institutions over others. Finding: NASA centers supported ~28% of mission proposals.
|
From page 26... ...
• Large, once-in-a-decade mis- • Large, once-in-a-decade mis- • Large, once-in-a-decade • Large, once-in-a-decade sions, >$1 billion sions also known as "Designated missions, >$1 billion missions, >$1 billion • Directed from HQb to NASA Observables," >$1 billion • Directed from HQ to • Directed from HQ to centers • Directed from HQ to NASA NASA centers NASA centers centers • Instruments often com- • Instruments often competed Other Directed Programs -- costs peted vary Explorer (competed) New Frontiers (competed)
|
From page 27... ...
at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) supports SMD at NASA Headquarters in the acquisition of Earth and space science missions and instruments through the development of AO solicitations and the TMC evaluations of proposals received in response to the AO solicitations
|
From page 28... ...
SOURCE: (Top) Thomas Wagner, NASA Science Mission Directorate.
|
From page 29... ...
The evaluation criteria do not specifically include diversity, which is a missed opportunity, as the evaluation criteria drive the proposal development strategy and the focus of efforts and resources. Factor B-5 (probability of science team success)
|
From page 30... ...
The inclusion of programmatic criteria is important for NASA to achieve its broader goals, but may appear to proposers as a lack of transparency. The Steering Committee then reviews the results of the proposal evaluations and categorizations, and conducts an independent check on the quality, balance, and integrity of the evaluation process to this point. This committee requires less detailed technical expertise and can provide a fresh perspective from qualified and experienced individuals with broad or different backgrounds.
|
From page 31... ...
Contracts by NASA HQ NASA HQ FIGURE 2.7 Overall flow of the evaluation steps for Concept Study Reports. SOURCE: NASA Science Mission Directorate.
|
From page 32... ...
The highest value component of the feedback process may be the face to face debrief during which evaluation process leaders do their best to explain weaknesses that may have been most discriminating in the final selection process by senior officials. Anecdotal evidence suggests that feedback to non-selected PI teams on mission proposals is uneven, particularly for Step 2 proposers who are not selected, because decisions are sometimes driven by other factors and are more programmatic in nature.
|
From page 33... ...
Increased awareness of the evidence-based considerations for science team effectiveness by all who participate in NASA-funded missions can influence future team formation and team performance. Efforts to form teams and
|
From page 34... ...
The PI Launchpad initiative is one mechanism that was motivated by an aspiring PI who was frustrated with the process of proposal development. Created in collaboration with NASA and the Heising-Simons Foundation in 2019, this still evolving training is currently a 3-day workshop targeted at researchers and engineers who would like to submit a NASA space mission proposal in the next few years but do not know where to start.
|
From page 35... ...
with consideration for the full expression of DEIA (e.g., a PI, deputy PI, investigation team lead) is enhanced and nurtured. Figure 2.8 shows the distribution of science team members across NASA mission proposals from 2006 to 2020.
|
From page 36... ...
SOURCE: Heidi Jensen and Lorenzo Pappas, NASA Science Mission Directorate. Proposal Review Proposal review is a process where bias can impact the results.
|
From page 37... ...
• CML 3 Trade Space -- Exploration has been done around the science objectives and architectural trades between the spacecraft system, ground system and mission design to explore impacts on and understand the relationship between science return, cost, and risk. Proposing team makes contact with a mission design center to perform a trade study (CML 3)
|
From page 38... ...
margins and reserves, prototyping & technology demonstrations, risk assessments and mitigation plans have been completed. This is the maturity level needed for competed missions to hold their Preliminary Mission System Review and for assigned projects to hold their Mission Definition Review.
|
From page 39... ...
This factor includes the scientific value of the Threshold Science Mission using the standards in the first factor of this section and whether that value is sufficient to justify the proposed cost of the mission.
|
From page 40... ...
, and the plans for launch services. This factor includes mission resiliency -- the flexibility to recover from problems during both development and operations -- including the technical resource reserves and margins, system and subsystem redundancy, and reductions and other changes that can be implemented without impact to the Baseline Science Mission.
|
From page 41... ...
. Scientific merit will be evaluated for the Baseline Science Mission and the Threshold Science Mission; Operational Enhancement Opportunity beyond the Baseline.
|
From page 42... ...
. TABLE 2.C.1 Evaluation Rubric for Scientific Merit and Implementation Summary of Evaluation for Science Basis for Summary Evaluation Excellent A comprehensive, thorough, and compelling proposal of exceptional merit that fully responds to the objectives of the announcement of opportunity (AO)
|
From page 43... ...
Proposed investigations which are recommended for rejection for the particular opportunity under consideration, whatever the reason.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.