NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications: Process, Priorities and Goals January 1992 NTIS order #PB92-152503 Office of Technology Assessment Congressional Board of the 102d Congress GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman Senate House EDWARD M. KENNEDY JOHN 0. DINGELL Massachusetts Michigan ERNEST F. HOLLINGS CLARENCE E. MILLER South Carolina Ohio CLAIBORNE PELL DON SUNDQUIST Rhode Island Tennessee ORRIN G. HATCH AMO HOUGHTON Utah New York CHARLES E. GRASSLEY (Vacancy) Iowa JOHN H. GIBB0NS (Nonvoting) Advisory Council CHASE N. PETERSON, Chairman MICHEL T. HALBOUTY MAX LENNON University of Utah Chairman of the Board & President Salt Lake City, Utah Chief Executive Officer Clemson University Michel T Halbouty Energy Co. Clemson, South Carolina Houston, Texas JOSHUA LEDERBERG, Vice Chairman - NEIL E. HARL JOSEPH E. ROSS Professor Professor Director Rockefeller University Department of Economics Congressional Research Service New York, New York Iowa State University The Library of Congress Ames,. Iowa Washington, D.C. CHARLES A. BOWSHER JAMES C. HUNT JOHN F.M. SIMS Comptroller General of Chancellor Vice President Marketing the United States Health Sciences Center Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Washington, D.C. University of Tennessee Fairbanks, Alaska Memphis, Tennessee LEWIS M. BRANSCOMB HENRY KOFFLER MARINA v.N. WHITMAN Director of Science, Technology & President Emeritus Vice President & Group Executive Public Policy Program University of Arizona Public Affairs Staffs Group Albert Pratt Public Service Professor Tucson, Arizona General Motors Corporation Harvard JFK School of Government Detroit, Michigan Cambridge, Massachusetts Director JOHN H. GIBBONS The views expressed in this background paper are not necessarily those of the Board, OTA Advisory Council, or individual members thereof BACKGROUND PAPER NASA% Office of Space Science and Applications: Process, Priorities and Goals Office of Technology Assessment January 1992 Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications: Process, Priorities and Goals John McElroy, Chair Dean of Engineering The University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX John Bahcall Louis J. Lanzerotti Professor of Astrophysics DMTS institute for Advanced Studies Bell Laboratories Princeton, NJ Murray Hill, NJ D. James Baker John Logsdon President Director Joint Oceanographic institute Space Policy institute Washington, DC George Washington University Washington, DC David Black Director Glenn Mason Lunar & Planetary institute Professor Houston, TX Department of Physics University of Maryland - College Park Ronald Brunner Collage Park, MD Professor Department of Political Science Marsha Neugebauer University of Colorado Senior Scientist Boulder, CO Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA Claude R. Canizares Professor Simon Ostrach Center for Space Research Professor Massachusetts institute of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering Cambridge, MA Case-Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH Harry C. Holloway Deputy Dean Eugene Parker Health Science S. Chandrasekhar Dist. Service Professor Uniformed Services University Departments of Physics, Astronomy Bethesda, MD and Astrophysics University of Chicago Noel Hinners Chicago, IL Chief Scientist Martin Marietta Civil Robert Smith Space and Communications Historian Denver, CO Department of Space History National Air and Space Museum Washington, DC NOTE: OTAappreciates thevaiuabie assistance and thoughtful critiques provided bythe workshop participants. The views expressed in this OTA background paper, however, are the sde responsibiiityof the Office of Technology ltssessment. Participation in theworkshop does not imply endorsement of the background paper. 9 NASA S Office of Space Science and Applications: Process, Priorities and Goals Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Alan Shaw, Intenational Security and Commerce Program Manager Ray A. Williamson, Project Director Contractor Ronald Konkel Administrative Staff Jacqueline Robinson Boykin Madeline Gross Louise Staley Acknowledgments This background paper has benefited from the advice of individuals from the Government and the private sector. OTA especially would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance and support. The views expressed in this paper, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment. Joseph Alexander Joseph Kerwln Assistant Associate Administrator Program Manager Space Science and Applications Manned Systems Programs NASA Headquarters Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. Houston, TX Peter Banks Mark Settle Dean Manager of Exploration Resources College of Engineering ARCO Exploration and University of Michigan Production Technology Ann Arbor, Ml Piano, TX Daryl Chubin George Siscoe Senior Associate Professor Office of Technology Assessment Department of Atmospheric Science Washington, D.C. UCLA Los Angeles, CA Thomas Moss Dean of Graduate Studies and Research Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications: Process, Priorities and Goals INTRODUCTION This Background Paper summarizes a one-day workshop convened to assess the effectiveness of the planning and priority-setting mechanisms used by NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) in carrying out its diverse scientific program. The workshop was requested by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and was structured to provide input to a study by the Committee’s Task Force on the Health of U.S. Research. This examination of the NASA Space Science and Applications program is one of several case studies by the task force.l Workshop participants included a representative group of practicing scientists, research administrators, and policy analysts who discussed how OSSA sets its goals, plans its programs, and evaluates progress toward achieving goals and objectives. They also discussed how OSSA responds to changes in the external environment that require modification to its ongoing programs and to its long-term strategic planning. In addition, the workshop deliberations provided insight into current issues of OSSA program management and of the difficulties facing NASA as it adjusts to an era of fiscal stringency following a significant five-year expansion of the OSSA budget. In preparation for the workshop, OTA developed a detailed set of issues pertaining to OSSA’s planning, priority-setting, and performance assessment procedures for purposes of focusing the workshop discussions. The issues were drafted to meet the general needs of the broader House Task Force study while reflecting the specific characteristics of OSSA’s scientific program. These issues were discussed by telephone with all of the invited participants and modified to reflect suggestions for clarifications and additional topics 1 The Task Force is also examining, among others, fusion and mathematics research. page 2 NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (App. A). The agenda for the workshop followed the broad groupings of the issues list. Prior to the workshop, OTA invited each participant to write a short (3 -5 pages) response to selected issues. This brief summary of the workshop proceedings incorporates material from the discussions at the workshop, from the participants’ issues papers, and from the background materials provided to OTA by the Office of Space Science and Applications. OTA has sought to make this summary useful for those who may not have detailed specialized knowledge of the programs, plans and organization of NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications. OTA prepared an initial draft of this paper, which was then sent to workshop participants and other knowledgeable individuals for review. NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications page 3 FINDINGS Finding 1: The OSSA strategic planning process has proved effective in garnering improved funding for space science projects because it has successfully involved a broad cross section of the space science community in setting science priorities within the scientific disciplines. Yet, in its planning for future projects, OSSA often fails to be realistic about probable future budgets. OSSA also needs to find better mechanisms for containing cost and schedule growth after projects are underway. OSSA committees, composed of discipline specialists, set scientific priorities for each discipline OSSA supports. OSSA has used the priority-setting process, in which proposed projects are closely scrutinized by teams of scientists, to build a strong constituency for its projects within the Administration and within Congress. As currently structured, the process is geared to steady increases in funding, but has difficulty responding to funding decreases. However, the Appropriations Committees’ Conference Report for fiscal year 1992 limits NASA’s 1993 funding allocations to increases of no more than 5 percent,2 which is much less than the increases OSSA has recently experienced.3 Hence, OSSA will have to adjust its planning and priority-setting processes accordingly. OSSA could improve its priority-setting process by developing improved methods for establishing priorities across disciplinary boundaries. This will not be easy because it involves making judgments about the relative value of projects from widely different fields. A report from the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences