Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Management Recommendations
Pages 22-33

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 22...
... The central issue in enabling science for a human exploration program concerns the collection and analysis of the prerequisite life science and biomedical data required in order to determine whether long-duration human spaceflight, such as that required for a voyage to Mars, is advisable or even possible. The committee's Prerequisites report identified two broad categories of enabling science required for undertaking human exploration of the inner solar system.
From page 23...
... responsible for the various space sciences, as well as non-NASA entities, such as the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, for specialized assistance. Exploration program research goals should also be brought to the attention of recognized experts in the relevant disciplines within the academic community.
From page 24...
... Fundamental characteristics of this process have been described in several Space Studies Board reports.5 6 The committee recommends that: 2. The scientific investigations required to resolve critical enabling research and optimal performance issues for a human exploration program should be selected by NASA's Headquarters science offices, or other designated agencies, using selection procedures based on broad solicitation, open and equitable competition, peer review, and adequate post-selection debriefings.7 The best medical scientists should participate in and review the enabling biomedical research programs.
From page 25...
... Advantages of this unification, which include strengthened management focus, have been compared with disadvantages in the Space Studies Board report Managing the Space Sciences.9 As a result of a sweeping policy-level review, which evaluated NASA's management structure in the context of a customer service model, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin subsequently aggregated the agency's functional offices into "strategic enterprises." Initially, OLMSA, which has responsibility for space biomedicine, was grouped with the physical space sciences in the Scientific Research Enterprise. Later, OLMSA was relocated out of this enterprise, and joined with the Office of Space Flight (OSF)
From page 26...
... In 1996, however, budgetary control over the scientific components of the space station program, including the NASA-Mir Research Program and Space Station Facilities and Utilization, was removed from OLMSA and placed under the management of the International Space Station program within OSF, OLMSA's partner in the HEDS strategic enterprise. In this arrangement, these important elements of the space laboratory research program are effectively once again vested in NASA's human spaceflight office, at least from a budgetary point of view, where they are directly subordinated to the priorities of the flight program.~2 As argued in the Space Studies Board reports cited above (including the 1970 report)
From page 27...
... At the same time, there will arise occasions where it is decided, after thorough evaluation, that an investigation of high scientific merit should be accomplished within the human exploration program even though some programmatic considerations, such as cost, might argue for implementation through a purely robotic program. A past example illustrates this point: the Apollo Telescope Mount on Skylab successfully accomplished scientific objectives derived from planning for the robotic Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory, a program that had been canceled in the space science program for budgetary reasons.
From page 28...
... , the committee recommends that: 6. The offices responsible for human exploration and for space science should jointly create a formal organizational structure for managing the enabled science component of a human exploration program.
From page 29...
... Analysis of the history of planetary quarantine during the Apollo era, for example, exposes a series of organizational and implementation problems, ranging from unclear allocation of authority and responsibility to deficient integration of engineering requirements and personnel training into the program.20 One study concluded, after examining alternatives, with a preference that "a life science program office would be established within NASA with responsibilities for life science research and for protecting against extraterrestrial contamination, both outbound and inbound. As recommended in the 1960 NASA report, this program would carry status equivalent to that of other program offices within NASA."2i Experience illustrates a clear need for independent objective review of the handling of these concerns and of constituent protocols by individuals and offices not responsible for the conduct of the flight program.
From page 30...
... The best way to guarantee and monitor the competence of these in-house scientists is to expect them to compete successfully with their academic colleagues for the opportunity to participate in the NASA space science program as investigators themselves. In response to downsizing pressures and an agency desire to preserve and enhance the vitality of its science programs, the role of government space scientists, especially those at NASA field centers, has recently been reexamined in a number of Board studies and reports.25~27 An alternate approach to the vital functions performed by these scientists that is structured around external, but tightly coupled, "science institutes" has been examined recently by NASA.28 While not directed at a human exploration program, these analyses' rationale and conclusions apply directly to such a program, adapted perhaps to NASA's organizational configuration at such a time.
From page 31...
... That is, if the science office assumed the responsibility for budgeting human exploration program science, it would be required to ask for funds to plan and support science for human flight programs not yet approved in order for the science to be incorporated into the program in its early phases. This additional science funding could prove difficult to attract under these circumstances, and the science office would naturally be cautious about committing any of its existing resources specifically to such support.
From page 32...
... 9. Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Managing the Space Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, p.
From page 33...
... 17. The Space Studies Board addressed aspects of NASA research selection procedures in several letter reports: letter to Associate Administrator Harry Holloway on April 26, 1993 (Space Studies Board Annual Report 1993, p.


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.