DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 Presidential Rank Award

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2011 Presidential Rank Award Each year, the President recognizes and celebrates a small group of career Senior Executives with the President’s Rank Award for exceptional long-term accomplishments. Winners of this prestigious award are strong leaders, professionals and scientists who achieve results and consistently demonstrate strength, integrity, industry, and a relentless commitment to excellence in public service. There are two categories of rank awards: Distinguished and Meritorious. Award winners are chosen through a rigorous selection process. They are nominated by their agency heads, evaluated by boards of private citizens, and approved by the President. The evaluation criteria focus on leadership and results. Meritorious Executive Susan P. Kroskey Chief Financial Officer The President of the United States of America has conferred on Susan P. Kroskey the rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service for sustained superior accomplishment in management of programs of the United States Government and for noteworthy achievement of quality and efficiency in the public service. Tracy L. Wetrich Director, Human Resources Office The President of the United States of America has conferred on Tracy L. Wetrich the rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service for sustained superior accomplishment in management of programs of the United States Government and for noteworthy achievement of quality and efficiency in the public service. Honorable Mention Distinguished Service Medal This is NASA’s highest form of recognition that is awarded to a Government employee who, by distinguished service, ability, or vision has personally contributed to NASA’s advancement of United States’ interests. The individual’s achievement or contribution must demonstrate a level of excellence that has made a profound or indelible impact on NASA mission success, and therefore, the contribution is so extraordinary that other forms of recognition by NASA would be inadequate. 2012 NASA/KSC Honor Awards Ceremony 1 David M. Martin For sustained dedication, exceptional leadership, and outstanding technical contributions to the Space Shuttle and Commercial Crew Programs. Philip E. Phillips For distinguished service to NASA and KSC supporting the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate and Ground Systems Development and Operations Program. Honorable Mention Distinguished Public Service Medal This is NASA’s highest form of recognition that is awarded to any non-Government individual or to an individual who was not a Government employee during the period in which the service was performed, whose distinguished service, ability, or vision has personally contributed to NASA’s advancement of United States’ interests. The individual’s achievement or contribution must demonstrate a level of excellence that has made a profound or indelible impact to NASA mission success, therefore, the contribution is so extraordinary that other forms of recognition by NASA would be inadequate. James Sponnick United Launch Alliance For unparalleled commitment to launching 5 NASA missions in the latter 6 months of 2011 from both Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Michael L. Young United Space Alliance For sustained exceptional service to the NASA Space Shuttle program. 2 2012 NASA/KSC Honor Awards Ceremony Individual KSC Honor Awards KSC Certificates of Commendation This award recognizes exceptional individual accomplishment or outstanding direction or management of a program or program segment, which affects the entire Center or contributes significantly to the Center’s mission. Charles F. Abell For outstanding leadership capturing, validating and documenting Shuttle program knowledge as lessons learned to enhance the future of NASA programs. Alan Alemany For your outstanding leadership and significant contributions in the performance of Safety and Mission Assurance activities at Kennedy Space Center. William C. Atkinson For exceptional leadership and technical excellence in support of the development and launch of the Cube Satellites aboard the Glory and NPOESS Preparatory Project missions. James D. Blake For outstanding efforts in providing engineering support to the Vehicle Assembly Building cranes, doors, and platforms projects in support of future programs. Dawn M. Borden In recognition of excellence to detail during the development, maintenance, and real-time modifications of the Commercial Crew Program’s SharePoint site. Michael D. Bruder For outstanding leadership building the operational partnership for use of the Orbiter Processing Facility 3. Dave W. Burris For outstanding support and leadership in the management of KSC local authority projects, while also providing exemplary support in all other areas of responsibility. Michael L. Canicatti For demonstrating outstanding technical management in the coordination and performance of the very first move of the Mobile Launcher to and from Launch Pad 39B at KSC. Craig J. Chesko For significant technical contributions and dedicated services to human space flight and exploration programs. 2012 NASA/KSC Honor Awards Ceremony 3 Individual KSC Honor Awards Adam C. Cooper For outstanding leadership of the Kennedy Space Center Safety, Quality and Mission Assurance team on the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission. Vicki M. Cox For exceptional leadership and dedication in providing contract management support to the Center Operations Directorate. Frances E. Cunningham For outstanding efforts ensuring that the Ground Facility Spares were identified and transitioned from the Space Shuttle Program to the Institutional Service Contract. Gary M. Felker For significant procurement support to construction and environmental projects and energetic teamwork displayed, assuring successful Center major events. Rogelio Franco For leadership and excellent communication/coordination skills and transporting necessary Environmental Control System hardware for the Space Launch System Program. Thomas E. Frattin For outstanding leadership of KSC Safety and Mission Assurance teams for the GRAIL, Aquarius, and NuSTAR missions and enabling universities to fly small spacecraft in space. Ralph Fritsche For exemplary leadership and project management of the Biotube experiment for the International Space Station program. Jay E. Green For outstanding dedication, diligence, and professionalism in support of a multitude of key tasks for programs, commercial customers, and the Center Operations Directorate. Greg J. Harrigan For outstanding technical leadership and professionalism in support of the Launch Services Program for the Taurus XL mishap investigation and the Pegasus/NuSTAR mission. Kari L. Heminger-Sperna For outstanding dedication and excellence in the management of Center Operations civil service workforce in support of KSC programs and overall KSC mission. Luke D. Hoffman For exemplary resources management support to the Ground Systems Development and Operations Program, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and customers across KSC. 4 2012 NASA/KSC Honor Awards Ceremony Individual KSC Honor Awards John Hueckel For outstanding leadership of Kennedy Space Center’s launch site support for Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft processing. Anne C. Jamison For demonstrating initiative in retraining opportunities for Safety and Mission Assurance employees and developing detailed training memorandums of agreement. Janice R. Justice For exceptional leadership and dedication in supporting KSC’s records management program. James B. Keen For outstanding leadership of the Kennedy Space Center Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance team working on the Orbital Science Corporation risk mitigation activities. Daniel S. Keenan For contributions to the KSC Unmanned Aerial System development efforts in helping to create new training opportunities and data storage and dissemination capabilities. Larry W. Kiel For exceptional control systems engineering contributions to the design and construction of NASA facilities. David C. Knoblock For exceptional technical support, leadership, and dedication in providing user support for the United Launch Alliance Virtual Private Network software upgrade. Scott W. Koester For outstanding leadership, vision, and technical performance during the transition to multi-customer support in the post-shuttle era. Stanley R. Kuhns For providing outstanding support leading the Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Branch through the Ground Processing Directorate’s transition. Stephen P. Lander For developing an Organizational Budget Modeling Tool to allow Organizational Representatives across KSC to track Information Technology requirements and expenditures. Staci A. Leach For exemplary financial management performance and support to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Shuttle Transition and Retirement Project Office. 2012 NASA/KSC Honor Awards Ceremony 5 Individual KSC Honor Awards Jennifer M. Levitt For exceptional leadership and dedication in supporting the development of the Ground Systems Development and Operations Program Flight Systems and Integrated Operations PPBE. Rebecca L. Lewis For outstanding support to the planning and execution of the Kennedy Space Center Fiscal Year 2012 buyout, demonstrating initiative, leadership, and professionalism. Joseph E. Madden For outstanding efforts in refining and transforming the KSC architecture landscape to enable future infrastructure capabilities for multiple space flight customers. Janet A. Mayers For exceptional leadership
Recommended publications
  • NASA Manned Launch Vehicle Lightning Protection Development

    NASA Manned Launch Vehicle Lightning Protection Development

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20090037586 2019-08-30T08:05:42+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server NASA Manned Launch Vehicle Lightning Protection Development Matthew B. McCollum NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA Steven R. Jones NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA Jonathan D. Mack NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA ABSTRACT understanding of the lightning environment has highlighted the vulnerability of the protection Historically, the National Aeronautics and Space schemes and associated risk to the vehicle, which Administration (NASA) relied heavily on lightning has resulted in lost launch opportunities and avoidance to protect launch vehicles and crew from increased expenditures in manpower to assess lightning effects. As NASA transitions from the Space Shuttle vehicle health and safety after Space Shuttle to the new Constellation family of lightning events at the launch pad. launch vehicles and spacecraft, NASA engineers are imposing design and construction standards on the Because of high-percentage launch availability and spacecraft and launch vehicles to withstand both the long-term on-pad requirements, LCC constraints are direct and indirect effects of lightning. no longer considered feasible.[5] The Constellation vehicles must be designed to withstand direct and A review of current Space Shuttle lightning indirect effects of lightning. A review of the vehicle constraints and protection methodology will be design and potential concerns will be presented as presented, as well as a historical review of Space well as the new catenary lightning protection system Shuttle lightning requirements and design.
  • Spm September 2014

    Spm September 2014

    September 2014 Vol. 1 No. 6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Kennedy Space Center’s MAGAZINE ‘SWARMIES’ TO SCOUR KENNEDY PREPPING CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST OTHER PLANETS FOR NEXT 50 YEARS TARGETS INNOVATIONS FOR WATER, FUEL OF U.S. SPACEFLIGHT FOR EXPLORATION PAGE 4 PAGE 14 PAGE 38 Ground Systems ISS and Spacecraft Launch Services Commercial Center Planning History Engineering Development and Processing Program Crew Program and Development Operations NASA’S KENNEDY SPACE CENTER’S LAUNCH SPACEPORT MAGAZINE SCHEDULE Maneuvering SPHERES Date: No Earlier Than Maneuvering SPHERES Sep. 19 -- 2:38 a.m. EDT Mission: SpaceX 4 Commercial Resupply Services CONTENTS flight with ISS-RapidScat 5 �������������������Mechanical rovers to mimic ants Description: Launching from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., SpaceX-4 9 �������������������NASA completes second Orion Underway will deliver cargo and crew Recovery Test supplies to the International Space Station. It will also carry 12 ����������������New app encourages kids to play along in the ISS-RapidScat instrument, adventure of rocketry a replacement for NASA’s QuikScat Earth satellite to monitor ocean winds for 14 ����������������Kennedy prepping for 50 more years of American climate research, weather spaceflight predictions, and hurricane monitoring. ����������������Hydrogen leak detection tape earns R&D award 21 Date: Sep. 25 Mission: Expedition 41 26 ����������������Flight test preparations draw on Launch to the International Launch Services Program’s expertise Space Station Description: Barry Wilmore, Elena Serova and Alexander online more ����������������Weather manager helped develop launch commit 32 Samokutyaev will launch on criteria Soyuz 40 from the Baikonur Middle school Zero Robotics finals intrigue students Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan 39 ����������������Chief technologist leads team of innovators Energy levels were high as more than 60 middle school students and their Date: No Earlier Than Oct.
  • A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’S Space Program

    A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’S Space Program

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110000675 2019-08-30T13:44:50+00:00Z NASA/SP—2010–216283 A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’s Space Program Francis J. Merceret, Editor NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center John C. Willett, Editor Air Force Research Laboratory (Retired) Hugh J. Christian University of Alabama in Huntsville James E. Dye National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado E. Phillip Krider University of Arizona, Department of Atmospheric Sciences John T. Madura NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center T. Paul O’Brien Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California W. David Rust National Severe Storms Laboratory Richard L. Walterscheid Aerospace Corporation, Space Sciences Department, El Segundo, California National Aeronautics and Space Administration John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 August 2010 Executive Summary Since natural and artificially-initiated (or ‘triggered’) lightning are demonstrated hazards to the launch of space vehicles, the American space program has responded by establishing a set of Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) and Definitions to mitigate the risk. The LLCC apply to all Federal Government ranges and have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration for application at state-operated and private spaceports. The LLCC and their associated definitions have been developed, reviewed, and approved over the years of the American space program starting from relatively simple rules in the mid-twentieth century (that were not adequate) to a complex suite for launch operations in the early 21st century. During this evolutionary process, a “Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP)” of top American scientists in the field of atmospheric electricity was established to guide it.
  • 2019 Agency Honor Awards Program

    2019 Agency Honor Awards Program

    Foreword Message from the NASA Administrator 2019 Agency Honor Awards NASA continues to go further, increase our scientific knowledge faster, and improve the human condition better than anyone else, because we have the world’s best workforce. The Agency Honor Awards is a special occasion to recognize those whose dedicated work has propelled NASA higher and has enabled humanity to take one more step to making the unthinkable possible. I am pleased that this year’s Honor Awards is hosted at the Goddard Space Flight Center as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. Named after American rocket propulsion pioneer Dr. Robert H. Goddard, employees here build on his legacy by helping to advance space and Earth science. Thousands of dedicated civil servants and contractors provide vital support to numerous NASA missions, and display daily their commitment to further discovery for the benefit of all of humanity. This year, the attention of the world once again turned to NASA as we celebrated the golden anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing and further unveiled our plans to return to the Moon and go forward to Mars. The story of our herculean effort to land men on the Moon in the late 1960s is an able guide to help us – the Artemis generation – prepare to advance humanity’s future in space exploration. This bold plan will require the talents of all of the NASA family. Together, I am confident we will unleash our true potential and lead humanity to greater heights of scientific and technological achievement. No problem is too great or mission too difficult for our talented workforce.

  • Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program

    FINAL Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program ENOVARUM PRAESTARUM (Affordability Through Innovation) EXPE D N E D V A L B L O E V E L E A U L N I C C H V E H March 2000 SCO152209.00.03.01.03\Covers EELV GBC Cover-1.FH8 03/00 COVER SHEET FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM a. Responsible Agency: U.S. Air Force b. Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) c. Proposed Action: To allow the addition of up to five strap-on solid rocket motors (SRMs) to the Atlas V lift vehicle and to allow the use of larger SRMs on the Delta IV lift vehicle. Both vehicles are part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. d. Inquiries on this document should be directed to: Mr. Jonathan D. Farthing, Chief, Environmental Analysis Division, HQ AFCEE/ECA, 3207 North Road, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 78235-5363, (210) 536-3668, facsimile number (210) 536-3890. e. Designation: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) f. Abstract: This FSEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Implementation of the EELV program was previously assessed in the April 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program. The Proposed Action of this FSEIS is to allow the addition of up to five strap-on SRMs to the Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMC) Atlas V launch vehicle and to allow the use of larger SRMs on the Boeing Delta IV launch vehicle, both of which are part of the EELV program.
  • A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America's Space Program

    A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America's Space Program

    NASA/SP—2010–216283 A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’s Space Program Francis J. Merceret, Editor NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center John C. Willett, Editor Air Force Research Laboratory (Retired) Hugh J. Christian University of Alabama in Huntsville James E. Dye National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado E. Phillip Krider University of Arizona, Department of Atmospheric Sciences John T. Madura NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center T. Paul O’Brien Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California W. David Rust National Severe Storms Laboratory Richard L. Walterscheid Aerospace Corporation, Space Sciences Department, El Segundo, California National Aeronautics and Space Administration John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 August 2010 Executive Summary Since natural and artificially-initiated (or ‘triggered’) lightning are demonstrated hazards to the launch of space vehicles, the American space program has responded by establishing a set of Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) and Definitions to mitigate the risk. The LLCC apply to all Federal Government ranges and have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration for application at state-operated and private spaceports. The LLCC and their associated definitions have been developed, reviewed, and approved over the years of the American space program starting from relatively simple rules in the mid-twentieth century (that were not adequate) to a complex suite for launch operations in the early 21st century. During this evolutionary process, a “Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP)” of top American scientists in the field of atmospheric electricity was established to guide it. This history document provides a context for and explanation of the evolution of the LLCC and the LAP.
  • Three Events Occurred During This Period Which Together Constitute A

    Three Events Occurred During This Period Which Together Constitute A

    8.6 ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY FOR SPACE LAUNCH B. F. Boyd¹, M. E.Fitzpatrick¹, C. R. Parks², P. N. Rosati³ and R. W. Lamoreaux³ ¹45th Weather Squadron, Patrick Air Force Base, FL 32925, ²ACTA, Inc., Cape Canaveral, FL 32920, ³45th Space Wing, Patrick Air Force Base, FL 32925 1. INTRODUCTION The current satellite receive and integrated display system, the Meteorological Interactive Data Display The Air Force’s 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) System (MIDDS), was installed in 1984/85 and first provides comprehensive operational meteorological described by Erickson et al. (1985). Over the years it services to the Eastern Range (ER) and the Kennedy has undergone many modifications, but today is still a Space Center (KSC). These services include weather derivative of the University of Wisconsin Space Science support for resource protection, pre-launch ground and Engineering Center’s (SSEC) Man-computer processing and day-of-launch operations for over 30 Interactive Data Access System (McIDAS). The original launches per year by the Department of Defense (DoD), goal of MIDDS was to consolidate all meteorological National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), data into a single data management and display system. and commercial launch customers. To ensure safety of Although that goal has yet to be fully reached, it remains government personnel and the civilian population, the valid today (Harms, et al., 2003). Eastern Range Safety Office ingests weather data into physics models which, in turn, assess the risk of each 2.1 Upper-Air Systems operation. Additionally, for launches with radioactive material, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A key system for safety support is the ER upper-air (LLNL) provides radioactive fallout predictions.
  • Space Launch Automation and Integration: a Common Architecture for Mission Assurance, Safety, and Launch Operations

    Space Launch Automation and Integration: a Common Architecture for Mission Assurance, Safety, and Launch Operations

    33rd Space Symposium, Technical Track, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America Presented on April 3, 2017 SPACE LAUNCH AUTOMATION AND INTEGRATION: A COMMON ARCHITECTURE FOR MISSION ASSURANCE, SAFETY, AND LAUNCH OPERATIONS O. “Rusty” Powell Millennium Engineering and Integration Company, [email protected] Devin Dickens Millennium Engineering and Integration Company, [email protected] Jack Lyle Millennium Engineering and Integration Company, [email protected] ABSTRACT For decades, the gateway to space has been through the Eastern and Western Launch Ranges (E/WRs). The collaboration of the governing agencies, FAA, USAF, and NASA provides a commercial alternative to past practice with greater reliance on telemetry and automation. The need for mission assurance and public safety in all phases of flight, on-orbit operations, and reentry through mission planning, launch/reentry operations, streamlined telemetry processing, real-time situational awareness, and autonomous flight safety system (AFSS) use will drive launch operations and range costs down, increasing launch availability, and allowing Spaceport development at non-traditional launch locations. Today, industry has multiple new entrant’s vying for the projected increased capacity with re-entry operations; we must capture synergy with ascent tools and regulations must complement this concept. Further, government and commercial providers, with increasingly more responsibility, are required to ensure public safety in the event of a vehicle failure, driving the importance of launch data integration into National Airspace System (NAS) operations. The need for a cost-effective, reliable, accessible mission assurance and flight safety solution is imperative given the strategic importance to assure access to space. Implementation of an AFSS, coupled with the full spectrum of support from complete autonomy to situational awareness with man-in-the-loop awareness, is critical.
  • Investigation of the Challenger Accident

    Investigation of the Challenger Accident

    Union Calendar No. 600 99th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 99-1016 INVESTIGATION OF THE CHALLENGER ACCIDENT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION OCTOBER29, 1986.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 64-420 0 WASHINGTON : 1986 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DON FUQUA, Florida, Chairman ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey MANUEL LUJAN, JR.; New Mexico GEORGE E. BROWN. JR.. California ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee Wisconsin TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, Rhode Island DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania SHERWOOD L. BOEBLEKT, New York DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas TOM LEWIS, Florida ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri DON RI'ITER, Pennsylvania HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri SID W. MORRISON. Washinaton BILL NELSON, Florida RON PACKARD, California - STAN LUNDINE, New York JAN MEYERS, Kansas RALPH M. HALL, Texas ROBERT C. SMITH, New Hampshire DAVE McCURDY, Oklahoma PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan NORMAN Y. MINETA, California HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois BUDDY MAcKAY,'. Florida WILLIAM W. COBEY, JR.,North Carolina TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina JOE BARTON, Texas HARRY M. REID, Nevada D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER, JR., Virginia ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey DAVID S. MONSON, Utah RICK BOUCHER, Virginia TERRY BRUCE, Illinois RICHARD H. STALLINGS, Idaho BART GORDON, Tennessee JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio JIM CHAPMAN, Texas HAROLDP. HANSON,Executive Director ROBERTC. KETCHAM,General Counsel REGINA A. DAVIS,Chief Clerk R. THOMASWEIMER, Republican Staff Director CHALLENGERACCIDENT REPORT STAFF TASK GROUP ROBERTC. K~HAM,General Counsel ROBERTE.
  • + Part 2 (4.2 Mb PDF)

    + Part 2 (4.2 Mb PDF)

    Part 2 Detailed Performance Data Introduction to NASA’s Detailed Performance Data The four-part Mission Statement and ten Strategic Goals in NASA’s Strategic Plan provide the framework for the Agency’s annual performance plan that is part of NASA’s Integrated Budget and Performance Document. As in previous years, NASA’s FY 2004 performance plan included long-term Performance Objectives and Annual Performance Goals (APGs). But, in FY 2004, NASA addressed the difficult task of measuring annual performance against long-term research and development goals by adding a new set of mid-range measures called Performance Outcomes to help the Agency track and evaluate progress at a more meaningful level. These Outcomes enable NASA to focus and report on multi-year efforts more accurately and to provide a clearer picture of planned and actual performance on an annual and multi-year basis. NASA’s Mission NASA’s Strategic Goals To Understand and Protect our Goal 1: Understand the Earth system and apply Earth system science to improve prediction of climate, Home Planet weather, and natural hazards. Goal 2: Enable a safer, more secure, efficient, and environmentally friendly air transportation system. Goal 3: Create a more secure world and improve the quality of life by investing in technologies and collaborating with other agencies, industry, and academia. To Explore the Universe and Goal 4: Explore the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology through research in the Search for Life unique natural laboratory of space. Goal 5: Explore the solar system and the universe beyond, understand the origin and evolution of life, and search for evidence of life elsewhere.