The Human Exploration of Space (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space
Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space
Pages 119-168
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 119... ...
Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space
|
From page 121... ...
Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space Committee on Human Exploration Space Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.
|
From page 122... ...
Copies of this report are available free of charge from Space Studies Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences.
|
From page 123... ...
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN EXPLORATION NOEL W HINNERS, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Chair WILLIAM J
|
From page 124... ...
HINNERS,* Lockheed Martin Astronautics ANDREW H
|
From page 125... ...
KIVELSON, University of California, Los Angeles DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company MARSHA I LESTER, University of Pennsylvania THOMAS A
|
From page 127... ...
This report of the Space Studies Board' s Committee on Human Exploration examines U.S. spaceflight history and draws lessons about "best practices" for managing scientific research in conjunction with a human spaceflight program.
|
From page 129... ...
It is clear, however, that if and when a program of human exploration is initiated, the U.S. research community must play a central role by providing the scientific advice necessary to help make numerous political and technical decisions." Since its establishment in 1958, the Space Studies Board, formerly the Space Science Board, has been the principal independent advisory body on civil space research in the United States.
|
From page 130... ...
The associate administrators for space science and human exploration recently directed NASA field centers to initiate planning for an integrated approach that could be brought forward "sometime in the second decade of the next century." The fact that human exploration beyond low Earth orbit is once again a subject of public dialogue and active planning makes this report especially timely.
|
From page 131... ...
, 22 Science Enabled by Human Exploration, 26 Institutional Issues, 28 Notes and References, 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY x~ 5 10 22 34
|
From page 133... ...
in 1989 to examine the general question of the space science component of a future human exploration program. The first CHEX report, Scientific Prerequisitesfor the Human Exploration of Space, addressed the question of what scientific knowledge is required to enable prolonged human space missions.
|
From page 134... ...
To avoid confusion and misunderstandings, the objectives of each individual component project or mission that integrates space science and human spaceflight should be clearly specified and prioritized. JOINT SPA CEFLIGHT/SCIENCE PROGRAM OFFICE The offices responsible for human spaceflight and space science should jointly establish and staff a program office to collaboratively implement the scientific component of human exploration.
|
From page 135... ...
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 136... ...
2. Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.
|
From page 137... ...
Indeed, the Committee on Human Exploration's first report, Scientific Prerequisitesfor the Human Exploration of Space, dealt specifically with the requirements for a microgravity research facility in space. Recently, NASA's associate administrators for space science and human exploration issued a joint directive to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Johnson Space Center to form a multicenter working group to fully integrate robotic and human Mars exploration planning.2 The integrated activity is intended to result in a proposal that can be brought forward for human exploration missions that could begin "sometime in the second decade of the next century." The committee based its second report, Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space,3 on the assumption that any program of human exploration of the solar system would have significant science content; in fact, most exploration studies4~9 depict science goals as major motivations for such a program.
|
From page 138... ...
sciences for a human exploration program, the committee recognized the value of reviewing the history of space science programs carried out within the larger context of a human exploration program. Thus, the committee and the Space Studies Board set out to determine what attributes of past programs, particularly management attributes, might minimize the conflict and maximize the potential for a productive integration of science with human exploration.
|
From page 139... ...
14 has formulated, funded, and executed NASA's space science program. Advised by the Space Studies Boardi5 and assisted by the scientific community, OSS established long-range objectives, devised missions, selected scientists to conduct experiments, and planned the data analysis program.
|
From page 140... ...
2. Letter to the directors of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Johnson Space Center from Associate Administrators Wilbur Trafton, Arnauld Nicogossian, and Wesley Huntress, November 7, 1996; a press release announcing a cooperative activity to jointly fund and manage two robotic missions to Mars due for launch in 2001 was issued on March 25, 1997: "Space Science and Human Space Flight Enterprises Agree to Joint Robotic Mars Lander Mission," NASA Release 97-51.
|
From page 141... ...
or the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) , depending on whether some or all of space applications, microgravity science, or life science were combined with space science.
|
From page 142... ...
Each of these eras featured a distinct but evolutionary distribution of authorities and responsibilities among the science and human spaceflight offices. INTERACTION BETWEEN SPACE SCIENCE AND HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT COMMUNITIES Early Lunar Exploration The management structure used during the Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Or 10
|
From page 143... ...
. When measured against the existing technology and the knowledge and experience of those involved, Ranger was probably the most difficult and certainly one of the most frustrating projects everundertaken by the Office of Space Science (OSS)
|
From page 144... ...
Several observations concerning the management of space science emerged from the experience of the early days of NASA's lunar exploration program. The chances of mission success are enhanced if the objectives of each specific project or mission are clearly specified.
|
From page 145... ...
Apollo began strictly as a human spaceflight mission, as NASA's initial plans included no scientific experiments. But the Space Science Board's 1962 Iowa Summer Study examined the role for the human in research on the lunar surface,3 and the Physics Committee, an OSS advisory group, proposed that the astronauts place optical corner reflectors on the Moon.
|
From page 146... ...
1 . 1, I I I I L I Manned Space Science 1 I Division l Manned Marshall Kennedy Spacecraft Space Flight Space Center Center Center Program Offices*
|
From page 147... ...
While disagreements between the staffs of OSS and OMSF did not disappear, this established the principle that there would be one space science program formulated by OSS. This imperfect arrangement continued until September 1967, when a NASA reorganization promoted OSS head Homer Newell to NASA Associate Administrator and made Newell's former deputy, Edgar Cortright, deputy associate administrator of OMSF.
|
From page 148... ...
The formation of a joint program office, staffed by representatives of both NASA's science and human spaceflight offices, was shown to be an effective solution to the day-to-day ten
|
From page 149... ...
Within NASA, the associate administrator of OSS organized and co-chaired the Shuttle Payload Planning Steering Group. This group, made up of members of OSS and OMSF, worked to make sure that OMSF, which was developing the Shuttle, understood space science requirements and that OSS understood the capabilities and constraints of the Shuttle.
|
From page 150... ...
This arrangement was nearly the opposite of that used for Lunar Orbiter. In the latter, the office responsible for human spaceflight set requirements for the science office for the data it needed to land humans on the Moon.
|
From page 151... ...
A more elaborate structure evolved during the A polio program, and subsequently the Skylab and A S T P programs, to explicitly manage the interaction between the space science and human spaceflight programs. During this era, a joint management team that included representatives of the science office and the spaceflight office oversaw the conduct of space science within the context of the larger exploration programs.
|
From page 152... ...
To avoid confusion and misunderstandings, the objectives of each individual component project or mission that integrates space science and human space;flight should be clearly specified and prioritized. Although a human exploration program cannot be justified by scientific considerations alone, such missions have the potential, as noted in the committee's second report,7 to provide significant scientific opportunities.
|
From page 153... ...
Compton (NASA History Series, NASA SP-4214, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1989) ; see also Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science, by Homer E
|
From page 154... ...
This third category of science is straightforwardly managed according to well-established OSS policies and procedures similar to standard practices of the non-NASA research community, without the national policy issues and complicating effects of human presence.3 SCIENCE PREREQUISITES FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION (ENABLING SCIENCE) 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.
|
From page 155... ...
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 156... ...
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 157... ...
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 158... ...
The option of having this office report directly to the NASA Administrator should be given careful consideration. SCIENCE ENABLED BY HUMAN EXPLORATION Early examinations of enabled science in human exploration included the Space Science Board's Iowa Summer Studyi3 on the scientific opportunities arising from the Apollo program, and the work of NASA's Task Force on the Scientific Uses of a Space Station.~4 In its Opportunities report, the present committee discussed the distinction between enabling and enabled science in human exploration.
|
From page 159... ...
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 160... ...
, 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 161... ...
Therefore, the committee recommends that: 8. The external research community should have a leading role in defining and carrying out the scientific experiments conducted within a human exploration program.
|
From page 162... ...
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 163... ...
Historically, as Chapter 2 recounts, both of these approaches have been used at different times. During the early lunar exploration program, the Office of Space Science budgeted for the robotic missions.
|
From page 164... ...
6. Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Managing the Space Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995; Recommendations 5-1 through 5-8, pp.
|
From page 165... ...
18. Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Managing the Space Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp.
|
From page 166... ...
Office of Exploration, Leadership and America's Future in Space, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1987. Office of Space Science and Applications, Cardiopulmonary Discipline Science Plan, Life Sciences Division, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1991.
|
From page 167... ...
Space Science Board, A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987. Space Studies Board, National Research Council, 1990 Update to Strategy for the Exploration of the Inner Planets, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990.
|
From page 168... ...
Synthesis Group, America at the Threshold, Report of the Synthesis Group on America's Space Exploration Initiative, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1991.
|
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.