NASA Advising

1. NASA Advising 27 November 2017

3. Why Does NASA need Advice? • Even the smartest managers can not have the time and expertise to plan, organize and execute the Space Program • Public officials are still ultimately responsible • Although science discoveries can not be planned, NASA has a mission • Provide communication channel from providers and customers • Similar benefits as from commercial competition: What the experts want; They compete the various alternatives and offer advice on the best path

4. A week and a half ago, NASA announced that the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope would be delayed from October 2018 to the spring of 2019. That announcement took many by surprise, given that NASA has publicly said on many occasions that the telescope remained on schedule. For those who follow NASA’s advisory committees, though, the news was less surprising. At a July meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s science committee, members discussed concerns about a potential delay in the mission because of both declining schedule reserves as well as a potential schedule conflict with an ESA mission, BepiColombo, that also planned to launch on an Ariane 5 in October 2018. (NASA didn’t cite the BepiColombo conflict in its announcement of the delay, although it was increasingly clear that the ESA mission, with its narrow launch window, would take priority.)

5. How does NASA get Advice? • NASA gets internal advice from NASA Advisory Council (NAC) and external advice from National Academies of Science (NAS) • Recent news provides examples of the insights that can come from NASA’s complex network of advisory groups, ranging from the NASA Advisory Council and its committees and subcommittees to the National Academies and the studies it is chartered to do for NASA. In Science Advice to NASA, the latest publication in the Monographs in Aerospace History series by NASA’s History Office, Joseph Alexander offers a thorough examination of how NASA has solicited and received advice on its science programs throughout the agency’s history.

7. One of the most significant sources of advice for NASA science programs is the series of “decadal surveys” conducted for major science disciplines. “The decadal surveys may have been lauded to the point of exhaustion, but the fact remains that this course of advisory activities has had an indelible impact on the direction of U.S. space science,” he writes. This is very true: the studies, developed as part of a lengthy process that incorporates input from the scientific community, are treated with almost biblical reverence once published, not only by scientists but also members of Congress. That influence is all the more notable given that, outside of astrophysics, where decadal-like surveys date back to the 1960s, the decadal survey approach was adopted only at the turn of this century.

8. NASA Advisory Council • The NASA Advisory Council members are chosen by NASA and serve at the pleasure of the NASA Administrator. They provide consensus advice and make recommendations to the NASA Administrator. NASA also receives advice from two other external independent advisory committees, the National Academies' Space Studies Board (SSB), and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB). The chairs of these two Academy Boards serve as ex officio nonvoting members of the NASA Advisory Council to provide continuity and insight. • NASA Advisory Council Meetings  • The NASA Advisory Council is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Consequently, the meetings of the Council are open to the public unless they deal with specific matters qualifying for exemption under the Government in the Sunshine Act. Meetings are announced in advance by NASA in the Federal Register. • The Council meets several times a year for fact finding and deliberative sessions. Meetings are held at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, as well as at NASA Centers across the country. Committee meetings may be held immediately prior to full Council meetings, or at different times and locations.

10. National Academies of Sciences • The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership   in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes • Chartered originally by President Lincoln to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.  The National Academies' service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.

14. Those surveys, and other major reports usually conducted by the SSB, differ from the advice from NASA’s own advisory council. “The NASA Advisory Council is… what I think of as tactical advice,” John Grunsfeld, the former associate administrator for science at the agency, said in an interview for the book. For strategic advice, he said, “that’s what the National Research Council Space Studies Board does.” But the NASA Advisory Council’s ability to provide tactical advice has waxed and waned over the years. Some scientists interviewed for Alexander’s book were critical of NASA’s use of the council when Sean O’Keefe and Mike Griffin were administrators. One former chair of the council called it a “rather pathetic observer” when O’Keefe was in charge, while the council’s science committee as shaped by Griffin developed an “adversarial relationship” with science staff at NASA Headquarters. That relationship improved to a degree with Charles Bolden as administrator, and the book notes that the latest NASA authorization act, signed into law in March, includes a section calling for a review by the National Academy of Public Administration on the effectiveness of the council and recommendations for any reforms.

15. History of NASA Advising The use of advisory groups at NASA predates the agency itself, as its predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, itself provided advice to the government while making use of various committees. That helped create “a tradition and culture in which the agency’s operations were guided by an independent advisory body,” Alexander writes. Those advisory bodies have evolved over the nearly six decades of NASA’s existence. For much of its early history, it relied heavily on the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Academy of Science, including the board in formal organization charts for years. That formal reliance on the SSB faded in later years, as NASA established its own advisory council and committees, with shifting roles, responsibilities, and influence over the years.

16. With the creation of NASA in 1958, the NACA was abolished, and its research centers Ames Research Center, Lewis Research Center , and Langley Aeronautical Laboratory were incorporated within the new space and aeronautics agency along with some elements of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy, then engaged in rocket-related work. The tradition of turning to nongovernment sources for independent judgment and guidance survived, however, as NASA established new advisory committees to assist it with planning for its new and continuing responsibilities in aeronautics, space technology, space science and applications, and human space flight.

19. Effects of NASA Advice on Space Science • “The decadal surveys may have been lauded to the point of exhaustion, but the fact remains that this course of advisory activities has had an indelible impact on the direction of U.S. space science,” Alexander writes.

20. To reduce the discrepancy between the overall size of NASA's budget and its current portfolio of missions, facilities, and personnel, the report says, the White House, Congress, and NASA, as appropriate, could pursue any or all of the following four options:  • Institute an aggressive restructuring program to reduce infrastructure and personnel costs and improve efficiency;  • Engage in and commit for the long term to more cost-sharing partnerships with other U.S. government agencies, private sector industries, and international partners;  • Increase the size of the NASA budget;  • Reduce considerably the size and scope of elements of NASA's current program portfolio to better fit the current and anticipated budget profile.

21. What Advice Works and What Does Not • Advice has propelled major science accomplishments • Active advice provides feedback and course correction • Great Observatories, Mission to Planet Earth, Discovery Program were big successes • Attention from Congress and Administration provides for collaboration • Program restructuring has rescued over-budget programs: Spitzer, Chandra, Webb (but not ISPM, CRAF), and put off Reagan efforts to end planetary exploration (although Mariner Mark 2 and Planetary observers proved not feasible) • Advice against the Space Station had negative consequences

22. Future NASA Advice • The NASA advisory ecosystem faces some challenges because of continuing tension between national goals and science interests; and because of limited budget and uncertain political direction • FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) makes for much more public debate, limiting the ability to reach decision after heated argument, and slowing down advice • Lack of short-term advice • Volunteers have bigger work loads and limited time • Coordinate with international programs and schedules • Should continue to be driven by science quality and merit: peer review and balance are essential • Coordinate internal and external advice • Depends on leadership and partnership on both sides

23. WASHINGTON — Without a national consensus on strategic goals and objectives for NASA, the agency cannot be expected to establish or work toward achieving long-term priorities, says a new report from the National Research Council.  In addition, there is a mismatch between the portfolio of programs and activities assigned to the agency and the budget allocated by Congress, and legislative restrictions inhibit NASA from more efficiently managing its personnel and infrastructure.  The White House should take the lead in forging a new consensus on NASA's future in order to more closely align the agency's budget and objectives and remove restrictions impeding NASA's efficient operations.

25. Summary • NASA and NACA have received external advice throughout their history • This has evolved into a complex ecosystem, involving NAS, NAC, OMB, Congress and NASA • Advice is limited by FACA, difference in goals, limited budget and changing administration • The process has many successes and some failures • Partnership and collaboration is essential to future success