DOCSLIB.ORG

NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus NASAs Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus Committee on NASAs Strategic Direction Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu PREPUBLICATION COPYSUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH10CC48B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America PREPUBLICATION COPYSUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academys purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.nationalacademies.org PREPUBLICATION COPYSUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus COMMITTEE ON NASAS STRATEGIC DIRECTION ALBERT CARNESALE, University of California, Los Angeles, Chair RONALD M. SEGA, Colorado State University and Ohio State University, Vice Chair MARK R. ABBOTT, Oregon State University JACQUES E. BLAMONT, Centre National dEtudes Spatiales JOHN C. BROCK, Northrop Grumman Space Technology (retired) ROBERT L. CRIPPEN, Thiokol Propulsion Group (retired) JOSEPH S. HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc. ANN R. KARAGOZIAN, University of California, Los Angeles MARK J. LEWIS, Institute for Defense Analyses Science and Technology Policy Institute MARCIA S. SMITH, Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC MICHAEL S. TURNER, Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago WARREN M. WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research Staff DWAYNE A. DAY, Senior Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, Study Director MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and Space Studies Board ALAN C. ANGLEMAN, Senior Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board DAVID H. SMITH, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and Space Studies Board AMANDA R. THIBAULT, Research Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board ANDREA M. REBHOLZ, Program Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board LINDA WALKER, Senior Program Assistant, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board DANIELLE PISKORZ, SSB Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern PREPUBLICATION COPYSUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus Preface The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is widely admired for astonishing accomplishments since its formation in 1958. These include, for example, setting the (still-standing) world speed record for a piloted aircraft (1967), landing 12 humans on the Moon and returning them safely to Earth (1969 to 1972), exploring all giant planets with Voyager (launched in 1976, still operating), launching the (still-operating) Hubble Space Telescope (1990), establishing the International Space Station (2010), and achieving the soft-landing on Mars of an automobile-sized robotic rover (2012). These missions and many others have dramatically changed our understanding of our universe, our solar system, and our planet. This list constitutes only a small sample of NASA successes over its half-century history. Looking ahead over a comparable period of time, what can the United States and the world expect of NASA? What will be the agencys goals and objectives, and what will be the strategy for achieving them? More fundamentally, how and by whom will the goals, objectives, and strategy be established and subsequently modified to reflect changes in science, technology, national priorities, and available resources? In late 2011, the Congress directed the NASA Office of Inspector General to commission a comprehensive independent assessment of NASAs strategic direction and agency management. Subsequently, NASA requested that the National Research Council (NRC) conduct this independent assessment. In the spring of 2012, the NRC Committee on NASAs Strategic Direction was formed and began work on its task. (The full statement of task appears in Appendix A.) The committee was charged to address the evolution of NASAs goals, objectives, and strategies, including in particular those set forth in the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan; the relevance of NASAs strategic direction to achieving national priorities; the viability of NASAs plans in the context of constrained budgets consistent with continuing deficit reduction; the appropriateness of resource allocations among NASAs various programs; NASAs organizational structure and potential changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and ways in which NASA could establish and effectively communicate a common unifying vision of the future that encompasses the agencys full array of missions. It is worth noting that the committee was not asked to opine on what should be NASAs goals, objectives, and strategy. Neither was it expected to provide a comprehensive summary of past work that was relevant to NASAs strategic direction. Rather, the committee was asked for recommendations on how the goals might best be established and communicated, and that is indeed the focus of this report. The 12-member committee met as a group five timesthree meetings in Washington, D.C.; one in Irvine, California; and one in Los Angeles, California. (See Appendix B for a list of meetings
Recommended publications
  • HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 by REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MO

    HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 by REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MO

    HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MONTH: Commends several Tulane University students upon winning NASA's BIG Idea Challenge competition 1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2 To commend Tulane University students John Robertson, Otto Lyon, Benjamin Lewson, 3 Matthew Gorban, Ethan Gasta, Maxwell Woody, and Afsheen Sajjadi upon their 4 selection as winners of NASA's 2017 BIG Idea Challenge competition. 5 WHEREAS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is widely 6 regarded as the finest space exploration organization in the world and has an exceptional 7 reputation; and 8 WHEREAS, NASA hosts the BIG Idea Challenge, which is intended to produce 9 designs of crucial importance to manned spaceflight; and 10 WHEREAS, twenty-nine teams from top national universities submitted designs to 11 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and 12 WHEREAS, the group of students representing Tulane designed a revolutionary solar 13 electric propulsion cargo transport spacecraft, called "The Sunflower", and submitted their 14 design to the BIG Idea Challenge competition in November of 2016; and 15 WHEREAS, in December of 2016, the students were selected to be among five 16 finalist teams and were invited to present their design before a panel of distinguished judges 17 at NASA's Langley research facility in Hampton, Virginia; and 18 WHEREAS, the judges selected the Tulane team and their design as the winner of 19 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and Page 1 of
  • News & Notes, Third Quarter 2016

    News & Notes, Third Quarter 2016

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Volume 33, Number 3 Third Quarter 2016 FROM IF YOU GIVE A NASA HISTORY INTERN THE CHIEF SOME APPLE JUICE HISTORIAN By Cat Baldwin and Chris Rudeen n last quarter’s issue, II made some fairly s the NASA History summer interns, IN THIS ISSUE: pointed comments on Athere’s a special place in our hearts for decisions being made the Smithsonian National Air and Space From the Chief Historian regarding the history Museum (NASM). We have dragged many 1 office at Johnson Space Center (JSC). As I people into the Apollo exhibit, stopping 1 If You Give a NASA History Intern write this, the situation is still in flux, but I am them at every artifact along the way and Some Apple Juice considerably more inclined to expect a positive telling stories over their loud complaints. 5 News from Headquarters and the outcome. This is in part due to my impressions “That’s the lunar ranging retroreflector! Centers from some very frank discussions between It’s a mirror on the Moon and they shoot senior officials at JSC and Headquarters. It is lasers at it. How cool is that?” “Yes, that’s 11 Other Aerospace History News clear from those discussions that JSC leader- duct tape on that bumper. Gene Cernan 14 Recent Publications and Online ship has a strong commitment to an effective literally had to duct-tape the bumper back Resources history program. However, it was equally clear on the LRV [lunar roving vehicle]. Gene 21 Upcoming Meetings that JSC is feeling the squeeze in their Center Cernan is an artist.” Our friends don’t Management and Operations (CMO) budget.
  • Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property Assets (IG-11-024

    Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property Assets (IG-11-024

    AUGUST 4, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-024 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-001-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms FERP Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements NTC NASA Technical Capabilities OIG Office of Inspector General O&M Operations and Maintenance RPMS Real Property Management System SPF Space Power Facility REPORT NO. IG-11-024 AUGUST 4, 2011 OVERVIEW NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS The Issue NASA’s real property holdings include approximately 5,000 buildings and structures such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands. In total, the assets occupy 44 million square feet and represent more than $26.4 billion in current replacement value.1 However, 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 40 or more years old and many are in degraded condition. Moreover, NASA is dealing with the challenge of its aging infrastructure at a time of large and growing budget deficits that are straining the resources of all Federal agencies. As discretionary funding continues to decline, NASA will be required to make more prudent decisions regarding its infrastructure. In addition, the issue of the Agency’s aging infrastructure has been identified by NASA, the
  • Nasa As an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy

    Nasa As an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy

    CHAPTER 11 Nasa as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy John Krige as space exploration,and NASA’s role in it in particular,had an effect on society, Hand, if so, on what aspects of it? And how do we measure any such impact? These are challenging questions indeed. The stakeholders in the huge American space program are multiple and include scientists; engineers; research, development, and launch facilities; industry; administrators; and many government agencies, not to speak of Congress and the U.S. taxpayer.The impacts of spaceflight vary widely, from adding to the stockpile of knowledge and stimulating innovation and industry, to training, education, and creating jobs and—if we move beyond the civilian sphere— to enhancing national security and intelligence gathering. And then there are the intangible, difficult to quantify cultural effects that range from inspiring a young girl to become an astronaut to building national pride and prestige in what are, after all, spectacular scientific and technological, managerial, and industrial achievements. This paper briefly considers one small, but I think important and often overlooked, corner of this vast panorama: the place of spaceflight in American foreign policy. I do not simply want to insist that naSa’s international programs have had an important impact as instruments of foreign policy.I also want to suggest that today they have a particularly significant political and cultural role to play in projecting a positive image of American power and American democracy abroad. In a world increasingly torn apart by conflicts over values—conflicts which history teaches us can seldom be resolved by force—i believe we overlook the potential of NASA as an instrument for American foreign policy at our peril.
  • Sixty Years of Australia in Space

    Sixty Years of Australia in Space

    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 153, part 1, 2020, pp. 46–57. ISSN 0035-9173/20/010046-12 Sixty years of Australia in space Kerrie Dougherty Space Humanities Department, International Space University, Strasbourg, France Email: [email protected] Abstract Australia’s involvement in space activities commenced in 1957, at the beginning of the Space Age, with space tracking and sounding rocket launches at Woomera. By 1960, Australia was considered one of the leading space-active nations and in 1967 became one of the earliest countries to launch its own satellite. Yet by 1980, Australia’s space prominence had dwindled, with the country lacking both a national space agency and a coherent national space policy. Despite attempts in the latter part of the 1980s to develop an Australian space industry, the lack of a coherent and consistent national space policy and an effective co-ordinating body, left Australia constantly “punching below its weight” in global space activities until the Twenty First Century. This paper will briefly examine the often-contradictory history of Australian space activities from 1957 to the announcement of the Australian Space Agency in 2017, providing background and context for the later papers in this issue. Introduction Launchpad: the Woomera or 60,000 years the Indigenous people of Rocket Range FAustralia have looked to the sky, using “If the Woomera Range did not already exist, the stars to determine their location, find the proposal that Australia should engage in their way across the land and mark the a program of civil space research would be passage of the seasons and the best times unrealistic”.
  • APRSAF22 Space Research and Development in the Philippines.Key

    APRSAF22 Space Research and Development in the Philippines.Key

    Space Research and Development in ! the Philippines EGULUS! R! SPACETECH SPACETECH! Dr. Rogel Mari Sese EGULUS! SPACETECH! RSPACETECH! ! Program Leader, National SPACE Development Program Focal Person, Philippine Space Science Education Program SPACETECH! SPACETECH! Challenges of Philippine Space R&D NO DIRECT ACCESS TO SPACE The Philippines has no direct access to space (e.g. satellites, launchers etc.) ! ! RELIANT ON SATELLITE DATA PROVIDERS Despite having two orbital slot allocations, we do not have any satellite in orbit; ! ! MINIMAL NUMBER OF TRAINED EXPERTS The country has a very small pool of trained astrophysicists, space scientists and engineers; ! ! SMALL SPACE R&D AND INDUSTRY No existing full capability to develop rockets and payloads to high altitudes and outer space. ! ! NO SPACE POLICY AND AGENCY The Philippines is not a signatory to most international space treaties and currently has no space agency to implement a cohesive space development strategy. Space-Related Programs and Activities Optical and Radio Astronomy since 1897 ! Rocket Development Program in the 1970s! AGILA-2 Telecommunications Satellite in 1990s! Committee on Space Technology and Applications (COSTA)! Philippine Space Science Education Program! 10-Year Baseline Research of Space Science and Technology Applications (SSTA)! Philippine Microsat Program and PEDRO Project! National Space Development and Utilization Policy and National Space Agency! National SPACE Development Program! Cost Benefit Analysis of a National Space Program Who conducts space research? Major universities through various programs -mostly through degree programs not directly related to space; ! Government agencies and institutions - as end-users and more focused on applications ! Private companies and NGOs - supports academe and government in R&D ! SSTA 10-Year Baseline Research Outcomes Functions of a space agency is distributed to various government agencies and units.
  • Kennedy's Quest: Leadership in Space

    Kennedy's Quest: Leadership in Space

    Kennedy’s Quest: Leadership in Space Overview Topic: “Space Race” Grade Level: 9-12 Subject Area: US History Time Required: One class period. Goals/Rationale: The decision by the Kennedy Administration to make a manned lunar landing the major goal of the US space program derived from political as well as scientific motivations. In this lesson plan, students do a close reading of four primary sources related to the US space program in 1961, analyzing how and why public statements made by the White House regarding space may have differed from private statements made within the Kennedy Administration. Essential Questions: How was the “Space Race” connected to the Cold War? How and why might the White House communicate differently in public and in private? How might the Administration garner support for their policy? Objectives Students will be able to: analyze primary sources, considering the purpose of the source, the audience, and the occasion. analyze the differences in the tone or content of the primary sources. explain the Kennedy Administration’s arguments for putting a human on the Moon by the end of the 1960s. Connections to Curriculum (Standards) National History Standards US History, Era 9: Postwar United States (1945 to early 1970s) Standard 2A: The student understands the international origins and domestic consequences of the Cold War. Historical Thinking Skills Standard 2: Historical Comprehension Reconstruct the literal meaning of a historical passage. Appreciate historical perspectives . Historical Thinking Skills Standard 4: Historical Research Capabilities Support interpretations with historical evidence. Massachusetts History and Social Science Curriculum Frameworks USII [T.5] 1. Using primary sources such as campaign literature and debates, news articles/analyses, editorials, and television coverage, analyze the important policies and events that took place during the presidencies of John F.
  • Roundup LYNDON B

    Roundup LYNDON B

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Roundup LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER Winter | 2014 JSC 2.0.13: A LOOK BACK JSC Director In this edition… I’D LIKE TO START OFF 2014 by relating a couple of JSC 2.0 stories. The 3 ISS Science Corner first one involves the External Relations Office taking a fresh look at how 4 Orion sets the stage in 2013 they communicate about the International Space Station on NASA TV. They for Exploration Flight Test-1 determined they could more effectively and efficiently communicate by morphing the daily one-hour show called “Space Station Live” into a daily half- 6 Milestones hour show, primarily aimed at media representatives who follow NASA closely 8 2013 Social Media Spotlight and are interested in details, plus a weekly two-minute video called “Space to 10 NASA’s ‘what’s next’ team Ground” designed for the general public. The snappy “Space to Ground” has the advantage that it can be easily used in a variety of venues, including the 12 NASA hails success of NASA home page, outreach events, airport kiosks, museums/science centers, commercial space program, traveling exhibits and various social media. The changes allow us to reach plans readied for astronauts more people, produce products better suited to two different audiences and overall make better use of our resources. We’re getting good feedback on the PHOTO changes, but one of the first responses came in an email from a woman who NASA/ said her 79-year-old mother, who is a big NASA fan and avid watcher of NASA TV, was very disappointed that her 60-minute show had been cut in half! While I don’t like disappointing anyone (and I’ve sent a signed photo to the mom in a gesture of goodwill), it’s actually a nice reminder that there are people everywhere who are inspired by what we do and really want to hear all about it.
  • Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

    Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

    Final Constellation Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES The potential environmental consequences of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) to continue preparations for and to implement the Constellation Program, and the No Action Alternative, not continue preparations for nor implement the Constellation Program, are summarized in Chapter 2 and are presented in detail in this Chapter. In addition, this Chapter presents in Cumulative Impacts (see Section 4.3) the potential environmental consequences of two overlapping but individual NASA actions: implementing the Constellation Program and close-out of the Space Shuttle Program. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Under the Proposed Action, NASA would continue preparations for and implement the Constellation Program. This Program would involve activities at many U.S. Government and commercial facilities. Although detailed aspects of the Constellation Program and the full scope of the activities that might occur at each facility are not fully known, the activities described in Section 2.1 present enough information to broadly estimate the nature of the potential environmental impacts that might occur if NASA implements the Proposed Action. Figure 2-2 presents a high-level summary of the major Constellation Program activities that would be expected to occur at each of the primary U.S. Government facilities, as well as commercial facilities with the potential for significant environmental impacts. Given the long-term nature of the Constellation Program, and NASA’s desire to utilize as much of the Space Shuttle Program infrastructure as practicable, it is expected that over time, many of the existing facilities currently used by the Space Shuttle Program and planned to be used for the Constellation Program would require maintenance, upgrading, renovation, and/or replacement.
  • Options and Issues for Nasa's Human Space Flight Program

    Options and Issues for Nasa's Human Space Flight Program

    OPTIONS AND ISSUES FOR NASA’S HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT PROGRAM: REPORT OF THE ‘‘REVIEW OF U.S. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT PLANS’’ COMMITTEE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 Serial No. 111–51 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51–928PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas BARON P. HILL, Indiana HARRY E.
  • NASA Customer Service Plan 10-20-2011

    NASA Customer Service Plan 10-20-2011

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Customer Service Plan October 20, 2011 NASA Customer Service Plan – 2011 Executive Summary The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a long tradition of enabling professionals, interested amateurs, educators, students, and the general public to actively participate in its missions of research and development, science, discovery, and human exploration. The goal of such public engagement is to provide opportunities for active involvement of individuals in the experience of, as contributors to, and collaborators in, NASA’s research, science, and discovery activities. These opportunities deepen the public’s understanding, appreciation, and ownership in NASA Mission. In turn, these opportunities tap into the nation’s creativity and capabilities. The spectrum of activities ranges from passive receipt of routine information, to citizens using their computers to help collect satellite data for programs, to direct hands-on activities such as students building and operating experiments and/or flight hardware, to citizen scientists collaborating on interpretation of data and discoveries. The Agency is uniquely positioned to introduce a broader community to the benefits of aeronautics and space research and development. The emergence of new communication technologies, computer and mobile applications, high definition imagery, social media, and an emphasis on greater transparency in government activities provides NASA a new environment for increasing engagement opportunities. In Executive
  • Do NASA's Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities Serve

    Do NASA's Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities Serve

    NEWS RELEASE RESEARCH BRIEF CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS Do NASA’s Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities Serve National Needs? RAND RESEARCH AREAS he nation has invested billions of dollars in CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE wind tunnel and propulsion test facilities— Abstract EDUCATION investments that have created a testing NASA’s wind tunnel and propulsion test facil- ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT infrastructure that has helped secure the PROJECT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE ities continue to be important to U.S. com- Tcountry’s national security and prosperity through INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS petitiveness across the military, commercial, MEMORANDUM NATIONAL SECURITY advances in commercial and military aeronautics and space sectors. But management issues POPULATION AND AGING and space systems. are creating real risks. This research shows PUBLIC SAFETY Many of these facilities exist within the National SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY that NASA needs to develop an aeronautics SUBSTANCE ABUSE Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). test technology vision and plan, analyze the TERRORISM AND Over the past two decades, NASA has reduced the HOMELAND SECURITY viability of a national test facility plan, iden- TRANSPORTATION AND number of these facilities by one-third, has identi- tify and maintain its minimum set of facilities, INFRASTRUCTURE fied additional facilities to be closed, and is experi- and identify shared financial support to keep encing patterns of declining use in some facilities its underutilized but essential facilities from that suggest they too may face closure. entering financial collapse. Given these trends, the RAND Corporation was asked to clarify the nation’s aeronautic testing needs and the continuing place that NASA’s facilities have in serving these needs.