Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions

on

  • 413 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
413
Views on SlideShare
413
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions Presentation Transcript

  • Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions Space Studies Board National Research Council Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Committee Co-Chair D. James Baker, The William J. Clinton Foundation, Committee Co-Chair Arthur Charo, NRC Space Studies Board, Study Director December 8, 2010
  • Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation in Earth and Space Science Missions
    • D. JAMES BAKER, The William J. Clinton Foundation, Co-Chair
    • DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado, Boulder, Co-Chair
    • DAVID A. BEARDEN, The Aerospace Corporation
    • CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University
    • STACEY W. BOLAND, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
    • ANTONIO J. BUSALACCHI, JR., University of Maryland, College Park
    • CARLOS E. DEL CASTILLO, Johns Hopkins University
    • ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation
    • MARGARET FINARELLI, George Mason University
    • TODD R. LaPORTE, University of California, Berkeley
    • MARGARET S. LEINEN, Climate Response Fund
    • SCOTT N. PACE, George Washington University
    • MARK R. SCHOEBERL, 1 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
    • GRAEME L. STEPHENS, Colorado State University
    • ANNALISA L. WEIGEL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    • MICHAEL S. WITHERELL, University of California, Santa Barbara
    • A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)
    • 1 Resigned from the committee on August 28, 2009
  • Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation in Earth and Space Science Missions Study Charge
    • The Space Studies Board will establish an ad hoc study committee to prepare a report that will:
    • Assess impediments , including cost growth, to the successful conduct of interagency cooperation on Earth science and space science missions;
    • Identify lessons learned and best practices from past interagency Earth science and space science missions; and
    • Recommend steps to help facilitate successful interagency collaborations on Earth science and space science missions.
    View slide
  • Impediments to Interagency Collaboration in Earth and Space Science Missions
    • Study approach:
      • Case studies, agency briefings, and existing reports, and committee members’ personal knowledge and direct experience
    • Bottom line:
      • Candidates for multiagency collaboration are often intrinsically complex and, therefore costly, and a multiagency approach in developing these missions typically results in additional complexity and cost.
      • Advocates of collaboration have often underestimated the difficulties and associated costs and risks of dividing responsibility and accountability between two or more partners while also neglecting the possibility of increased risk in meeting performance objectives
    View slide
  • Types of Collaboration Examined via Case Studies
    • Cooperation
      • NPOESS
      • OSTM/Jason-3
      • Fermi/GLAST
      • JDEM/Omega
    • Coordination
      • Landsat-7
      • LCDM
      • C/NOFS
    • Procurement of services
      • GOES-R
    • Use of resources
      • ACE
  • Case Study: Use of Resources
    • Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE)
    • Merging of NASA research interests with NOAA & USAF operational needs for real-time data on the upstream solar wind for warning & forecast of severe space weather events
    • NASA spacecraft & instruments, NOAA $ to enable real-time data link to DOD ground stations
    • Managed by NASA
    • Development completed under budget
    • Initiated in 1991, launched in 1997, still operating
    • The government has not been able to initiate a follow-on mission that transfers this NASA research capability into operational status under NOAA or DOD management.
  • Case Study: Procurement of Services
    • GOES-R
    • NOAA sought procurement of next-generation GOES spacecraft. NASA sought possible transition of GIFTS instrument to advanced sensor for GOES-R.
    • NOAA provides direct oversight for the GOES-R Program, Flight and Ground Segment. NASA responsible for procurement, management, and execution of the Flight Project in accordance with overall NOAA guidance.
    • Initiated in 2004; launch planned for 2015
    • Significant cost overrun has required reduction from planned 4 satellites with 5 sensors to 2 satellites with 4 sensors.
  • Case Study: Coordination
    • Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2
    • Continuing partnership to measure sea-surface height
    • French CNES provided spacecraft bus, 2 instruments, and early on-orbit checkout. NASA provided 3 instruments and launch. NOAA and EUMETSAT provided ground command and control operations.
    • Initiated in 2002 and launched in 2008 on time and within budget.
  • Case Study: Cooperation
    • National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
    • Established to eliminate financial redundancy while continuing to satisfy U.S. operational requirement for polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems.
    • Joint DOD-NOAA-NASA integrated program office with DOD and NOAA sharing development costs and NASA supporting technology infusion.
    • Initiated in 2002 with original launch date in 2008. Substantial cost overruns.
    • Program descoped from 6 to 4 spacecraft with reduced payloads.
    • Program cancelled in 2010.
  • Cost Growth (left) and Schedule Delay (right) for Missions With & Without Collaboration
  •  
  • Impediments to Interagency Collaboration in Earth and Space Science Missions
    • This committee’s principal recommendation is that agencies should conduct Earth and space science projects independently. This approach should not change unless:
      • Cooperation will result in significant added scientific value to the project over what could be achieved by a single agency alone; or
      • Unique capabilities reside within one agency that are necessary for the mission success of a project managed by another agency; or
      • The project is intended to transfer from research to operations necessitating a change in responsibility from one agency to another during the project; or
      • There are other compelling reasons to pursue collaboration, for example, a desire to build capacity at one of the cooperating agencies.
  • Impediments to Interagency Collaboration in Earth and Space Science Missions
    • Recommendation 2 : If OSTP, OMB, or the Congress wishes to encourage a particular interagency research collaboration, then specific incentives and support for the interagency project should be provided.
    • Recommendation 3 : The following key elements (found in successful past collaborations) should be incorporated in every interagency Earth and space science collaboration agreement:
      • A small and achievable priority list
      • A clear process to make decisions and settle disputes
      • Clear lines of authority and responsibility for the project
      • Well-understood participation incentives for each agency and its primary stakeholders
      • Single acquisition, funding, cost control, and review processes
      • Adequate funding and stakeholder support to complete the task
  • Questions To Address Before Collaborating
    • Evaluation: Deciding Whether to Collaborate
    • Why is the collaboration being contemplated? What are the arguments for and against separate missions?
    • How real are potential synergies? What assumptions, if changed, would cause significant increases in cost and complexity?
    • What does each agency bring to the table? Examples include expertise in acquisition, insight/oversight capability, and technical skills.
    • What happens if one partner leaves the collaboration? What can be done to minimize the impact of one agency’s default?
    • What is the level of support from the agency’s workforce or from the scientific community for the collaboration?
    • How will agreement (e.g., on the scope and funding of a proposed collaboration) be secured among administration, legislative, and agency stakeholders? 
    • Who will be tasked with building and maintaining consensus?
  • Questions To Address Before Collaborating
    • Policy: Setting Priorities and Resolving Disputes
    • How high does the cooperative project rank on each agency’s priority list?
    • What level of leadership support is available for the project at each agency?
    • How will project decisions be made?
    • Are there clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability?
    • Is there an agreed upon decision-making process that includes an effective dispute resolution approach?
    • Are the respective organizations adequately defined and structured in accordance with agreed upon roles and responsibilities?
    • How will funding be provided to and from each agency? 
    • How will cost overruns be paid for?
    • What are the criteria for terminating the project?
  • Questions To Address Before Collaborating
    • Systems Engineering: Achieving Mission Success
    • Is there an agreement on a single process for systems engineering? If so, what is the process?
    • Is there an agreement on a single process for requirements definition, and what is the process?
    • How will project decisions be made, and who is empowered to make them?
    • How will the interfaces and work breakdown between agencies be determined?
    • To what extent are the mission systems defined at all levels so that each participating agency understands how its roles and responsibilities translate into work and products?
    • To what extent does each participant understand what they need to provide to the other team members and when? Is there a written plan (e.g., project plan) including this level of detail?
  • Questions To Address Before Collaborating
    • Acquisition: Achieving Technical and Programmatic Success
    • Which agency’s acquisition process will be used?
    • Are there independent cost estimates at each major milestone, and is there a process for reconciling differences between the project office’s estimates and independent estimates?
    • Which agency’s quality assurance process will be used?
    • Which agency’s spaceflight project and/or flight instrument selection process will be used?
    • Operations: Successful Mission Execution
    • Is there an agreement on a single operational concept, and if so, what is it?
    • To what extent do good, open communications exist between all parties?
    • To what extent do the parties trust and respect each other, and are they committed?