Managing Science in Human Exploration Lessons Learned From Apollo, Skylab, ASTP and ShuttleSpacelab

1
Managing Science in Human ExplorationLessons
Learned From Apollo, Skylab, ASTP and
Shuttle/Spacelab with Potential Application to
the VSEA Presentation Discussion Based
UponThe NRC Space Studies BoardCommittee on
Human Exploration1989 - 1996Dr. Noel W.
HinnersAugust 2, 2006
2
Why the Study?

• In 1989, the Apollo 20th Anniversary, Pres.
  George W. Bush Announced the Space Exploration
  Initiative
• An Ambitious Proposal to Extend Human Exploration
  to the Moon and Mars
• The Science Community, as Represented by the
  NRC Space Studies Board, Believed That This,
  Similar to Apollo, Presented An Opportunity to
  Implement High Priority Science
• The NRC Space Studies Board Recognized the SEI
  Potential, as Well as Historical Impediments and
  Antagonisms, for Productive Incorporation of
  Science in Human Space Flight Programs

3
NRC SSB Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX)

• In 1988 the National Academy of Sciences and the
  National Academy of Engineering stated in the
  report Toward a New Era in Space Realigning
  Policies to New Realities that ". . . the
  ultimate decision to undertake further voyages of
  human exploration and to begin the process of
  expanding human activities into the solar system
  must be based on non-technical factors. It is
  clear, however, that if and when a program of
  human exploration is initiated, the U.S. research
  community must play a central role by providing
  the scientific advice necessary to help make
  numerous political and technical decisions."
• The Board established the Committee on Human
  Exploration (CHEX) in 1989 to examine science and
  science policy matters concerned with the return
  of astronauts to the Moon and eventual voyages to
  Mars. The Board asked CHEX to consider three
  major questions
• What scientific knowledge is prerequisite for
  prolonged human space missions?
• (CHEX 1)
• 2. What scientific opportunities might derive
  from prolonged human space missions?
• (CHEX 2)
• 3. What basic principles should guide the
  management of both the prerequisite scientific
  research and the scientific activities that may
  be carried out in conjunction with human
  exploration?
• (CHEX 3)

4

Specific Motivation for the CHEX 3 Study

• From the Forward of the CHEX 3 Report
• The successes of joint crewed and scientific
  missions, from Apollo to the Hubble repair to
  Shuttle/MIR, show the possible benefits of
  cohabitation. Of course, there have also been
  periods of friction and consequently unrealized
  potential. This report of the Space Studies
  Board's Committee on Human Exploration examines
  U.S. spaceflight history and draws lessons about
  "best practices" for managing scientific research
  in conjunction with a human spaceflight program.
  Since NASA' s current focus is the development
  and subsequent operation of a crewed orbital
  laboratory, the International Space Station, some
  of these lessons should be immediately useful.
  The report is intended to be especially germane
  for a national decision to resume human
  exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
• Claude R. Canizares, Chair Space Studies Board
• (1997)

5
The CHEX 3 Goal

• In developing principles to guide management of
  the science covered in the first two reports, the
  committee observed that the productivity of the
  scientific component of human space exploration
  appears to be correlated with the organizational
  approach and structure used to manage the
  program. It is reasonable, then, to look back and
  try to formulate principles and recommendations
  that can strengthen the prospects for future
  success. It was not the committee's charge or
  intent to tell NASA precisely how to organize
  itself indeed, there are several possible
  organizational arrangements that would be
  consistent with the conclusions of this study.
  Moreover, no organizational arrangement can
  guarantee success in the absence of clearly
  articulated and commonly agreed on goals.
  Throughout its study,
• the committee has made a deliberate effort
  to find ways to abolish the historic dichotomy
  between space science and human exploration and
  to seek ways to encourage a synergistic
  partnership.

6
CHEX 3 Members

• NOEL W. HINNERS, Lockheed Martin Astronautics,
  Chair
• WILLIAM J. MERRELL, JR., H. John Heinz III Center
• ROBERT H. MOSER, University of New Mexico
• JOHN E. NAUGLE, National Aeronautics and Space
  Administration (retired)
• MARCIA S. SMITH, Congressional Research Service
• Data Gathering Process
• Written Histories (Newell, Naugle, Compton)
• Solicited Views of Past and Present Space Science
  and Human Exploration Personnel
• Views and Judgments of CHEX and SSB Members

7
Historical Funding and Management of Science in
Human Exploration -1

• Apollo -
• Ranger, Surveyor Science Missions (initiated in
  1959)
• Eventually Redirected to Support Apollo Site
  Certification
• Responded to OMSF Requirements for Data in
  Support of Project Apollo (As did LO)
• Funded and Managed by Office of Space Science,
  JPL Project Management
• Follow-on Science Missions Cancelled
• Lunar Orbiter
• Requirements Set by 1962 Joint OSS/OSMF Working
  Group (for Site Selection and Certification)
• Funded and Managed by Office of Space Science
  (Including Overruns), Langley Research Center
  Project Management
• LO 1-3 Completed Acquisition of Data to Support
  Initial Apollo Missions
• LO 4 and 5 Dedicated to Science Surveys
  (Including Advanced Site Selection

8
Historical Funding and Management of Science in
Human Exploration - 2

• Apollo 11- 17 Science ALSEPs, Corner Reflectors,
  Science Site Selection (Post Apollo 11 missions),
  Lunar Surface Traverse/Sample Activity, CSM
  Orbital Science, Lunar Rover
• NASA Hq Apollo Program Office Funded and Managed
  Science through Apollo Lunar Exploration Office
  Project Management Largely at JSC and MSFC
• Science based a lot upon SSB Iowa Summer Study
  (1962) and NASA Falmouth Woods Hole Study (1965).
• Apollo Data Analysis Program (initiated in 1973)
• Initiated, Managed and Funded by Office of Space
  Science Post-Apollo
• Skylab - Apollo Telescope Mount (1973 1974)
• Replaced Cancelled Advanced Orbiting Solar
  Observatory ()
• Experiments Transferred to Skylab
• Located in Skylab Program, Jointly Reported to
  OMSF/OSS as in Apollo
• Funded and Managed by OSMF
• Apollo-Soyuz Test Program (1975)
• OSS Selected Experiments
• OMSF Funded and Managed
• False Start (Euphemism) to Expedite Experiment
  Selection
• Recovery with Two Month Competitive Selection

After a Lot of Turmoil and Evolution, A Good
Science Management Model Emerged
9
Science Management in the Apollo Program
10
Historical Funding and Management of Science in
Human Exploration - 3

• Space Transportation System (Shuttle)/Spacelab
  1972
• Spacelab (ESRO Supplied) Replaced Proposed Space
  Station
• Not Uniformly Supported by Science Community
• A Major Change in Management Model
• Science Requirements Were Only a Portion of a
  Larger Set - Technology, DOD, Satellite Launch
  (Including Upper Stage) and Repair (Hubble
  Baseline)
• OSS Selected, Managed and Funded Space and Life
  Science Experiments and Operations (MSFC POC)
• OSS Organizational Element
• OSS Selected Payload Specialists
• OMSF Provided Transportation, Crew Support
  (Mission Specialists), Data Streams, etc.

11
Findings of CHEX 3

• 3 Broad Management Principles
• 10 Management Recommendations
• 3 Relating to Science Prerequisites for Human
  Exploration or Enabling Science
• 3 Relating to Science Enabled by Human
  Exploration
• 4 Relating to Institutional Issues

Following the Management Principles and
Implementing The Management Recommendations
Should Lead to a More Synergistic, More
Productive and Less Antagonistic Integrated Human
Robotic Exploration Program
12
CHEX Broad Principle 1

• INTEGRATED SCIENCE PROGRAMThe scientific study
  of specific planetary bodies, such as the Moon
  and Mars, should be treated as an integral part
  of an overall solar system science program and
  not separated out simply because there may be
  concurrent interest in human exploration of those
  bodies. Thus, there should be a single
  Headquarters office responsible for conducting
  the scientific aspects of solar system
  exploration.

13
CHEX Broad Principle 2

• CLEAR PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIESA program of
  human spaceflight will have political,
  engineering, and technological goals in addition
  to its scientific goals. To avoid confusion and
  misunderstandings, the objectives of each
  individual component project or mission that
  integrates space science and human spaceflight
  should be clearly specified and prioritized.

14
CHEX Broad Principle 3

• JOINT SPACEFLIGHT/SCIENCE PROGRAM OFFICEThe
  offices responsible for human spaceflight and
  space science should jointly establish and staff
  a program office to collaboratively implement the
  scientific component of human exploration. As a
  model, that office should have responsibilities,
  functions, and reporting relationships similar to
  those that supported science in the Apollo,
  Skylab, and Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP)
  missions.

15
CHEX Management Recommendations Directly Relevant
to Current SSB Study Others Included as Backup
16
CHEX Management RecommendationsScience Enabled
by Human Exploration

• 4. Each space research discipline should maintain
  a science strategy to be used as the basis for
  planning, prioritizing, selecting, and managing
  science, including that enabled by a human
  exploration program.

17
CHEX Management RecommendationsScience Enabled
by Human Exploration

• 5. NASA's Headquarters science offices should
  select the scientific experiments enabled by a
  human exploration program according to
  established practices community-wide opportunity
  announcements, open and equitable competition,
  and peer review.

18
CHEX Management RecommendationsScience Enabled
by Human Exploration

• 6. The offices responsible for human exploration
  and for space science should jointly create a
  formal organizational structure for managing the
  enabled science component of a human exploration
  program. relates directly to Management
  Principle 3

19
CHEX Management RecommendationsInstitutional
Issues

• 9. A human exploration program organization must
  incorporate scientific personnel to assist in
  program planning and operations, and to serve as
  an interface between internal project management
  and the external scientific community. Such
  "in-house" scientists should be of a professional
  caliber that will enable them to compete on an
  equal basis with their academic colleagues for
  research opportunities offered by human
  exploration missions.

20
CHEX Management RecommendationsInstitutional
Issues

• 10. Working through their partnership in a joint
  spaceflight/science program office, the science
  offices should control the overall science
  management process, including the budgeting and
  disbursement of research funds.

CHEX Found No Strong Correlation Between Funding
Source and Quality of Science Accomplished. Howe
ver control of the science budgets by the
science offices may, in fact, be essential to
maintain the quality of the research program and
productive balance with flight system
development in the future. CHEX 3, p32
21
BACKUP
22

CHEX Management Recommendations Science
Prerequisites for Human Exploration Enabling
Science

• 1. The program office charged with human
  exploration should establish the scientific and
  programmatic requirements needed to resolve the
  critical research and optimal performance issues
  enabling a human exploration program, such as a
  human mission to Mars. To define these
  requirements, the program office may enlist the
  assistance of other NASA offices, federal
  agencies, and the outside research community.

23
CHEX Management Recommendations Science
Prerequisites for Human Exploration -\ Enabling
Science

• 2. The scientific investigations required to
  resolve critical enabling research and optimal
  performance issues for a human exploration
  program should be selected by NASA's Headquarters
  science offices, or other designated agencies,
  using selection procedures based on broad
  solicitation, open and equitable competition,
  peer review, and adequate post-selection
  debriefings.

24
CHEX Management Recommendations Science
Prerequisites for Human Exploration Enabling
Science

• 3. NASA should maintain a dedicated biomedical
  sciences office headed by a life scientist. This
  office should be given management visibility and
  decision-making authority commensurate with its
  critical role in the program. The option of
  having this office report directly to the NASA
  Administrator should be given careful
  consideration.

25
CHEX Management RecommendationsInstitutional
Issues

• 7. Officials responsible for review of activities
  or protocols relating to human health and safety
  and planetary protection on human and robotic
  missions should be independent of the
  implementing program offices.

26
CHEX Management RecommendationsInstitutional
Issues

• 8. The external research community should have a
  leading role in defining and carrying out the
  scientific experiments conducted within a human
  exploration program.