Jason Hay | Engineering Papers

NASA NTRS2023

Technology Scouting Phase 1 Report

Identifying emerging technologies is critical to a mission-oriented agency such as NASA that is always endeavoring to achieve first-of-a-kind human and scientific exploration goals. While NASA attempts to embrace faster and novel development approaches, there have been several recent examples where the Agency has been outpaced in technology research and development, especially by emerging companies. This is in part due to the democratization of space, as seen in the flood of new space companies and capital, and because capabilities and performance levels that used to be almost exclusively demanded by space missions are now scattered across many industries. Also, NASA tends to focus on technologies and techniques developed internally, within the space sector, or in clearly related disciplines. In this context, the overall goal of the Technology Scouting project is to develop an approach to conduct effective technology scouting within NASA by first assessing the need for such a capability, evaluating current and recommended approaches, and then developing a strategy to address any weaknesses in the current approach. The study was designed to be conducted in three phases, each with its own goals and objectives: - Phase 1: Validate whether NASA’s technology scouting capability is consistent with best practices from industry, academia, and other government organizations, and identify whether there is the appetite for adopting a more rigorous technology scouting capability across the Agency. - Phase 2: Identify specific opportunities and challenges to adopting a more comprehensive technology scouting program through a pilot effort. - Phase 3: Define the implementation approach for the more comprehensive technology scouting program that is in response to the information learned during the earlier phases of the study.

Ellen Gertsen↗

NASA NTRS2023

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. In light of this transition, NASA senior leadership tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions: 1) what are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms, and 2) in light of these options, what modifications would be helpful to make in the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership and the NASA management processes as NASA plans for the transition of the ISS by 2030? To answer the first question, we conducted a stakeholder-driven analysis to identify a trade space of six differentiated model options. We then evaluated their performance in three potential future scenarios, according to evaluation criteria deemed important to stakeholders. The six models are illustrative and representational of a potential trade space. Additionally, each model requires change to current legislation. To further aid in leadership decision-making, we provided considerations for how to strengthen each model by mixing and matching different model aspects. To answer the second question, we looked to strengths of the top-performing models to evolve the current ISSNL-CASIS relationship and improve NASA’s posture for success post-ISS. We identified four possible modifications to the ISSNL-CASIS partnership and NASA’s management of these activities. By implementing these modifications early, NASA can increase the return from ISSNL-CASIS and help prepare for future models as one or more CLD replaces the ISS by 2030.

ISS↗

NASA NTRS2022

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

This work introduces and explores the concept of resiliency as it relates to future cislunar space architectures by 1) citing examples of its growing demand across government; 2) describing potential characteristics of resilient systems; 3) introducing a framework for evaluating the linkages between resilient capabilities and visions for future cislunar architectures; and 4) exercising the framework to identify and evaluate resiliency-enabling technical capabilities for cislunar space architectures. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggerate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗

NASA NTRS2022

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRS2021

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), foresight is a coordinated, iterative, and continual process for making informed decisions. NASA faces diverse and relatively unique challenges and opportunities as the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration. To address these challenges and leverage opportunities, NASA uses foresight to strategically plan technology development across four mission directorates: Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Space Technology Mission Directorate, Science Mission Directorate, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. The mission directorates leverage a broad community of experts and partners to incorporate technology foresight into mission and program planning. Through this process NASA realizes tangible benefits to the agency’s science, technology, and exploration programs. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy and advocacy at the agency, enabling future missions and advancing U.S. economic competitiveness. Specifically, OCT coordinates and uses inputs from abroad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OCT develops the NASA Technology Taxonomy to standardize communication across the agency’s diverse technology portfolio and the related Strategic Technology Investment Plan that integrates priorities and informs technology investment. Through these efforts, OCT has refined elements of foresight-informed strategic planning that may be applicable to other technology-driven industries where foresight is essential for resilience. This chapter describes the processes of foresight for technology development at NASA and provides insight into the value the agency derives from these processes. The chapter further describes the role of OCT as an independent advisory office that supports NASA’s efforts to capitalize on foresight and strategic technology planning. We present these examples with consideration for how organizations in defense, security, and other technology-driven industries can operationalize foresight in their own strategic technology development.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations to Advance Space Trusted Autonomy

While the various space agencies of the U.S. federal government have distinctly different visions for future operational space systems, all share important foundational commonalities: improve mission performance, reduce mission costs, incorporate technology advances more rapidly, increase reliability and resiliency, reduce risk, and adapt to anomalies and environmental hazards. These common needs, combined with the maturation of autonomous technology and the prospect of leveraging autonomous systems to address these needs, have led each agency to consider how and when to implement increasing levels of autonomy in their space systems. Simultaneously, the related question of how to determine the trustworthiness of an autonomous system is also escalating in significance.

Christopher A Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations to Advance Space Trusted Autonomy

The interagency Space Science and Technology Partnership Forum was established in2015 to identify synergistic efforts and technologies across the U.S. government. While the various space agencies of the U.S. government have distinctly different visions for future operational space systems, all share important foundational common needs. These needs, combined with the maturation of autonomous technology and the prospect of leveraging autonomous systems to address those needs, have led each agency to consider how and when to to implement increasing levels of autonomy in their space systems, and how to determine the trustworthiness of an autonomous system. The Partnership facilitated dialogue among the partners, collected and analyzed data on current and desired future levels of capability, and identified gaps to motivate three recommendations that can be addressed within the Partnership community. These recommendations address the need for more robust documenting and socializing of anomalies in space system operations; the need to expand communication and trust within the community of developers, operators, and end users; and the need for a safe development and testing environment for maturing and demonstrating future autonomous space systems. These recommendations will facilitate both near-term programmatic actions and long-term steps for implementing enduring progress towards enabling space trusted autonomy.

Christopher A Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

The International Space Station National Lab (ISSNL) was established through Congressional authority in 2005 and has been managed by a nonprofit called the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) since 2011 to support research, development, education, and commercial activities in low-Earth orbit (LEO). NASA leadership is considering next steps for microgravity and orbital activities in LEO in preparation for the retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) and transition to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) in the 2030 timeframe. Specifically, our study team within the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy addressed the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms? To inform the trade space of potential models, we conducted over 40 discussions with stakeholders internal and external to NASA and reviewed over 35 documents related to LEO legislation, commercialization, models, and activities. Following the extensive literature review and discussions with diverse stakeholders, we defined and evaluated six models, in addition to the current ISSNL model. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios (dynamic, steady, and limited growth of the commercial LEO market and activities) and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria (ability to meet NASA’s needs, adaptability, opportunity for collaboration, market sustainability, and equity and accessibility). The six models in the future trade space were: • Government Research Broker: Customizable research efforts on transport vehicles and CLDs • Innovation Campus: Modern terrestrial campus with workforce focus • Anchor Tenant: Long-term, substantial agreement for leasing space on a single CLD • Fee for Service: Free market approach with NASA-sponsored grants and service/data buys • Matchmaker: Neutral third-party connecting users to platforms • Institute Network: Network of separate but related efforts to enable commercial scaling The Government Research Broker model performed best across the scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibited positive aspects, the two models performed most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. The six models presented in this study are representative of the potential trade space and are illustrative examples. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align to their priorities more closely by using combinations of the unique model features provided in our analysis. The optimal model is likely a combination of features from multiple models. Building upon this work to best position NASA and the diverse stakeholders of LEO activities for success post-ISS, further work will explore the near-term impact of preparing for the transition of the ISS to CLDs by identifying opportunities for modifying the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the many reviewers and discussants, internal and external to NASA, that contributed to the work.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

Resiliency is an aspirational metric, and it is a common goal for complex systems – be they engineered space architectures, geopolitical networks, or the human immune system. However, despite the ubiquitous desire for resiliency, the concept is surprisingly difficult to define and apply to future planning efforts. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggregate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post–International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. As the LEO ecosystem evolves through growth of the commercial space industry and NASA’s strategic goal to support the development of a robust LEO economy in which many stakeholders on Earth can participate, so must the way NASA facilitates government activities to ensure citizens realize the highest return on their investment in LEO. Specifically, this study aims to answer the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or -subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms?

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗