SMD Technology Program – Community Update

Presentation to the 2010 Annual LEAG Meeting Gordon Johnston, NASA HQ/SMD/PSD September 14, 2010 1 09/10/2010 1

Outline

• SMD Technology – Investment Areas and OCT Coordination

• Planetary Science Technology Review (PSTR) Panel – Purpose – Team – PSTR Activities and Planned Products – Current Status – Major Observations – Near Term Plans

Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 2 SMD Technology Investments

• NASA Science Mission Directorate invests over $500M in technology development. • Technology investments are made via four major avenues: – Mission-specific technology developments with flight projects – Individual PI-led research investigations – Suborbital research programs – Earth science technology program • SMD is mission focused – Technology investments through the SMD Science Divisions • SMD covers all TRL levels – Low to mid (R+A, instrument incubators, EST) – Mid to late (suborbital, EST, mission focused tech) • SMD is coordinating with and supporting the OCT effort to improve the overall Agency capabilities in Science and Technology development. – Dr. Michael Moore is the SMD point of contact.

09/10/2010 3

SMD Integration with OCT

Direct Communications Chief Technologist (CT) AA Science Deputy CT Mission Directorate Partnerships, Innovation & Technology Financial Management Commercial Space Coordinator Communications Strategic Integration Astrophysics and PhysicsHeliophysics Division Early‐Stage Game Changing Crosscutting Capability Innovation Technology Demonstrations DivisionPlanetary EarthDivision Sciences Space Tech Research Grants NIAC Game‐Changing Technology Demonstration Division SBIR/STTR Developments Missions Centennial Challenges Small Satellite Subsystem Edison Small Sat Missions Technology Center Innovation Fund Flight Opportunities Programs and

HQ –HQ and Strategy Guidance Projects

Select Programs / Programs/Projects / Programs / Flight Demos/ Projects / Activities Activities Projects / Activities SMD sponsored Center and R&A Centers – Centers Program/Project Management Activities

09/10/2010 4 NationalNational Aeronautics Aeronautics and Space Administrationand Space Administration

Planetary Science Technology Review Panel Purpose, Status, and Plans

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.

Planetary Science The full charter of PSTR can be viewed online http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/PlanetaryScience/Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 6 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 • NASA HQ POC is: . Gordon Johnston • Technical Support is provided by: . Waldo Rodriguez, NASA LaRC Planetary Science . Linda Nero, NASA GRC Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 7

PSTR Activities and Products

• There are three phases to the PSTR charter . Assessment of current content and performance . Formulation of ideas and recommendations . Report and Communicate

• Products will be . An interim report of the results of the assessment phase . A final report detailing the work for all three phases . Two high-level notional technology roadmaps  One budget driven the other need-basedPlanetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 8 Current Status

• PSTR is wrapping up its assessment phase . We’ve been presented with current technology content and processes . We’ve interviewed numerous flight projects and technology programs . We’ve 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 Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 9

Technology Flight Programs Technology Tasks/Projects Management ents ents / DSN m m

HQ Notes & Com Marki ng Other Com Flagship Discovery New Bench Speaker Date Topic PE/PO Frontiers Mars Other Industry NASA Gov University Instrum Dryer, Jay 1/26/2010 ARMD x x x Knopf, Bill 1/26/2010 AMMOS x x Komar, George 1/26/2010 ESTO x xxx Johnston, Gordon 1/26/2010 PSD Overview/Manangement x Suborbital Investigations xxx Crane, Phil 1/26/2010 under Planetary Astronomy Conley, Cassie 1/26/2010 Planetary Protection x x x Bredekamp, Joe 1/26/2010 AIST x x x x x Voytek, Mary xxxx New, Michael 1/26/2010 ASTID/ASTED Roeum, Voleak 1/27/2010 Technology Investments Budget overview Moore, Chris 1/27/2010 ESMD x x x May, Lisa 1/27/2010 ISP/Mars x x x x Buckner, Janice 1/27/2010 PIDDIP x x Tahu, George 1/27/2010 Lunar Lander x x x x Niebur, Curt 1/27/2010 Outer Planets x x x Samples, Curation, Facility and ground xxx Lindstrom, Dave 1/27/2010 Planetary Major Equip. systems Dudzinski, Len 1/27/2010 RPS x x x Steven, Chris 2/25/2010 New Millennium Program x JPL x x Munk, Michele 3/11/2010 Aerocapture/EDL x x Agency EDL activities Tech progrm with multi- x JPL xxx Hayati, Samad 4/8/2010 Mars Technology Program mission view Manning, Rob 4/22/2010 MSL x x JPL x x Broad expereince and xx JPL x Livesay, Leslie 4/15/2010 Flight Missions lessons learned Amato, Mike 4/29/2010 GSFC Instruments x x Broad expereince and Mahaffey, Paul 5/6/2010 SAM xxxx Peter Bedini , et al. 5/6/2010 MESSENGER x x x Beauchamp, Pat 5/11/2010 Decadal white papers x x x Spanjers, Greg 5/12/2010 AFRL xx Patel, Keyur 5/11/2010 Dawn x ESMD technology update & Many new activities xx Moore, Chris 5/11/2010 gnrl lessons learned intitiated under ETDD Explorers & Helio Program x Chrissotimos, Nick 5/11/2010 Insights NASA SOMD communication Similar issues as PSD xxx Tuttle, Karen 5/11/2010 plans and insight technology development CTO impacts to NASA Chief Technology Office x Howard, Rick 5/11/2010 gnrl lessons learned technology development Technology management xxx Hubbard, Scott 5/11/2010 lessons learned Lunar program has technology development. xx x x x New Frontiers/Discover/Lunar Other programs feel McDougal, John 5/12/2010 Quest Program Insights impacts SBIR/STTR process and x x Low TRL Parminer Ghuman 5/12/2010 options

xx xAPL Gold, Rob 5/20/2010 Technology development at APL Ellen Stofan 5/20/2010 Scientist view of NMP xx Mike Moore 5/20/2010 SMD POC to OCT role xxInterfaces to OCT LASP (Academic views / xxxx xx x Dan Baker 5/27/2010 Suborbital roles) Spacecraft usbsystem xxx Alec Galimore 5/27/2010 Academic views /Technology technologies Erik Antonsson 6/10/2010 Technology management xx xxx Bill Gibson 6/10/2010 New Horizons xxAPLxx Small business xxxx Steve09/10/2010 Gorevan 6/17/2010 Honeybee Robotics experiences 10 Grant Aufderhaar 6/17/2010 Aerospace Corp xx x xx Major Observations of Current Programs

• Observations/Issues can be grouped into four categories – Strategic - Issues that relate to an overall Planetary technology strategy – Process/Structure – Issues that relate to technology program processes and supporting institutional structures – Resource - Issues that relate to resources made available for technology development activities – Culture/Communication – Issues that relate to the cultures and communication among space projects teams, the supporting technologists, their respective institutions and external Planetary Science stakeholders Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 11

Major Observations of Current Programs

Strategic

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 Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 12 Major Observations of Current Programs

Strategic 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

Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 13

Major Observations of Current Programs

• Process/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 Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 14 Major Observations of Current Programs

• Resources – 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 Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 15

Major Observations of Current Programs

• Culture / Communication – C-1) Technology investments do not always realize 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, Centers,…) is needed for better technology planning, development, and infusion Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 16 Major Observations of Current Programs

• Culture / 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 technology programsPlanetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 17

Near Term Plans

• Complete interim report

• Formulate a set of recommendations –Continue to seek community input • Website •Blog • Direct contact/Email •AG’s • DPS workshop Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans

09/10/2010 18 We welcome your inputs!

Inputs can be forwarded via the PSTR website at http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/PlanetaryScience/ Planetary Science Technology Review--Purpose, Status, and Plans 19 09/10/2010 19