|
We are at a crossroads today with large and complex missions, known as flagships: while much has been achieved to lower their size, weight, and power demands, there are science questions that cannot be answered but through the exquisite measurements characteristic of flagships. We need an approach to a resilient flagships program for science: 1) One, conduct an assessment of the fundamental science questions and concept feasibility study to define the core science requirements (those that, if not met, render the mission unnecessary), and the corresponding technology challenges. 2) Two, fund technologies to TRL 6, including systems engineering and system integration approaches, and also ways to determine the impact of science requirements on the mission concept (complexity, cost, schedule). 3) Three, mature the system concept prior to prototyping of manufacturing and test activities. 4) Four, review science requirements in light of systems level interactions that are driving complexity, cost and schedule, and re-scope accordingly. 5) Five, after the technology development is complete, develop a prototype of the system to resolve implementation issues. 6) Six, establish a not-to-exceed annual funding level that continues until a prototype is complete. As prototype development is nearing completion, provide a realistic estimate of the scope of remaining work. 7) Seven, obtain Congressional approval for all remaining development funds (similar to the approach for Navy capital ships). 8) Finally, develop and deploy the mission following an optimal funding profile. When evaluating contracting approaches, it is important to contemplate a NASA Center serving as prime and evaluate contractors’ abilities to execute one-off payload elements.
|
