Should NIAC be Revived?

Oh c'mon now Frank...that $4M served a good cause over in Constellation. Why lets see, at $3 B a year budget heading to $6 B a year after Shuttle...geez...why that's nearly half a year day of Constellations expenses this last year!

Every half day counts! (even up to just 11am by more exact calculations).

A half a day here...a half a day there, before you know it you have real money.

This group should exist. However, its objectives should be more focused on near term considerations such as

- How to effectively operate beyond LEO

- Set up continuous transportation to/from the Moon

- The development of long term manned facilities for the Moon and Mars

- Improvements to safety and efficiency of launch vehicle, and space craft designs, systems and operations.

- Space development operations such lunar mining and solar power satellites.

- Orbital propellant storage and transfer

As for revamping NASA image - do the other things and NASA's image will be stellar.

YES!!!! That's what NASA should be about! A.D.V.A.N.C.E.D.

Killing research in times of difficulty is the craziest, dumbest thing to do. Because while you try and do away with what you have, those who are not in difficulty takes a very large lead by investing in said research and come up with products far more advanced than yours. Result: Obsolescence.

You can look at stuff based on their respective TRL (http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/tt/arpa-e/pdf/TRL_definitions.pdf) and go from there. We would define the max appropriate TRL to start from inside this particular NASA group.

Now, let's dream a little: Make the budget $400M and get them to work on all areas of space exploration doing analysis and building advanced hardware/software. Not just PowerPoint research/analysis but actually building stuff whenever possible.

Frank's note: Building something-real hardware? That's TOO MUCH common sense!

My thought is that the efforts closed or used as slush funds for CxP should be revisited for cost/performance evaluation.

CxP was started under emergency conditions where unrestrained funding moves could take place without the approval of Congress or OMB. This allowed any and all efforts not "thought" to be needed in Doug Cooke's exploration plan to be cancelled or used as funding holes for CxP. Griffin just followed the lead of who thought what needed to be cancelled and/or terminated unless argued for and debated by zero funding programs year after year as this was allowed, 16billon in 4 years placed in the holding pen for CxP

The unrestrained authority is now removed and CxP is crying foul as other priorities become realized as important and have been cancelled by one swift pen movement without rational thought other then numbers on a spreadsheet.

The 4 millon was likely spent on conference tables and communication equipment that was not needed, new ODIN computers and sofware when this was not needed. This also created mistrust and anger within the agency and it is still present. Given the CxP work ethic and ability to create a productive workforce is laughable with the current CxP management completely ineffective in innovation and use of new ideas generated. Steroids take there toll and CxP is already outdated and old being next to useless at this point.

I find it most interesting SMD actually is try to promote thinking on how to use this equipment which is nothing more then smoke and mirrors

NIAC was a mess and should have been shut down. It was a perfect example of the politicians doing the right thing (shutting down NIAC) for the wrong reasons (to steal their money). Nevertheless, the way Cassanova ran NIAC was a joke and was getting worse as time went on.

Frank's note: So nothing like it at all? This type of research should be excluded at NASA?

BRING BACK NIAC!!!

cancelling NIAC was Griffin worst move. The innovative concepts coming out of that institute put NASA on the leading edge where it should be. We have concepts such as Mach Lorentz Thrusters and the EMDrive that need investigating but have few avenues available to them due to the leading edge/controversial nature of the projects. Blacklight power got it's start at NIAC and now has commercial agreements despite still being controversial. M2P2 propulsion and the chameleon suit did wonders for NASA public relations.
Yes this group should be funded.

Hi, Frank,




The dreamers still work at NASA, but their numbers have been reduced and their work focused on more near-term challenges. In the 1970s - 90s mission concepts were developed at the centers and then sold to headquarters. Generally HQ determines what missions NASA will work on these days, and they fund the dreamers to vet and innovate as they see fit. Right now most of these people I know are trying to figure out the human spaceflight problems we have today. Some of them are quite challenging.




Today NASA is tasked with to much and funded with to little. The way out ideas are great. If we are going to work them, they will need proper funding.

Frank's note: Say the $4 mil was restored annually. Is that enough?

Frank, in my view NIAC was one of the best investments NASA ever made for the future. Projects had to take the long view to get funded, but some also looked back into forgotten NASA R&D and brought new technologies to bear on goals that were never reached and pushed them into the future. It also attracted proposals from some of NASA's currently funded PIs who had a chance to leap into the future with an idea that couldn't ever pass peer review (no peers to review?). NIAC also attracted development of cross-disciplinary teams that brought ideas and advanced technologies together across typically disconnected areas. NIAC was a great combo of DARPA, Star Trek, Advanced Technology and Advanced Visioning that is needed now more than ever. I don't think NIAC can narrow its topics since breadth of interest and application is part of the program's genius. Just think of the possibilities for pursuing long-term goals related to the increasing overlap of space technologies with green technologies - the real "spaceship earth"? If a revitalized NIAC needs to start small, it can fund fewer proposals but it should keep the scope wide open. NIAC can provide an adrenalin rush for all of NASA and its future workforce.

Absolutely should be brought back. A couple of key issues to address:

- Barriers and opportunities for low-cost, reliable access to space
- Options for sustainable exploration
- Ways to engage the public, and particularly 18-24 year olds, in space

It should be brought back, but not in its original form. What I always objected to was the assumption that only good ideas come from outside the Agency. This infuriated a lot of NASA people, who did not lift a finger to help when advocates were needed. However, the overall goal and objectives of NIAC were excellent, and something like this is desperately needed at NASA. Next time around, its scope needs to be broadened to include more respondents, especially NASA centers.

Previous posts about tying it to Constellation or any lunar program is silly. All of that will be gone 6 to 12 months from now anyway.

Frank's note: Do you think $4 mil is enough?

NASA has three "research" centers. If they were managed properly, should we need NIAC? At GRC, we don't even have an IRAD fund anymore.

Frank's note: So in your view each center should have a slice of really way-out research?

I'd like to see it brought back, at say the 20-30 megabuck level, possibly as two organizations rather than one -- with one focusing on propulsion, and the other on habitability and application issues (better spacesuits, mining methods, nanotech, variable-structure vehicles, etc). That's not a lot of funding, given that this is providing seed corn for future projects; its chief advantage is that at such level, such an institute can operate without drawing Proxmirean attention.

But if Ares V gets killed or much postponed with no replacement in sight, I'd boost the budget well north of 200 million per year.

"Previous posts about tying it (NAIC) to Constellation or any lunar program is silly. All of that will be gone in 6 to 12 months from now anyway" sc220

So, how does the agency look without Constellation or Lunar Programs, sc220.

If this comes to pass, the I'd use the freed up money on NAIC, broaden it's scope as sc220 suggests. If there is one thing there is never a lack of at NASA it's brilliant ideas; what has been lacking is the money to realize the ideas. A robust NAIC, that includes funds to formulate and implement some of the ideas, is well worth whatever funds are applied to it...but just to think of ideas without any 'go forward' possibilities seems wasteful.

NIAC helped Webster Cash at CU develop an idea for a space based observation system potentially capable of resolving objects 100 km in diameter at distances of 25 light years. I would not have believed this was even theoretically possible. This of course means MAPPING exoplanets. And try to imagine what else a system like this could see.. its staggering to contemplate. This kind of leap forward would engage and excite the public as much as, or more than the Hubble telescope has.

Need I say, I am in favor of re-establishing NIAC.

Previous posts about tying it to Constellation or any lunar program is silly. All of that will be gone 6 to 12 months from now anyway.

You think people forget this, time is not timeless. NASA changed and it will change again.

Science will make the Judgement, not stupid decisions on steroids.

Definitely, bring back NIAC.

While we're at it, let's bring back research across the board at NASA.

Let's look at all of the cutbacks of the Griffin era, and restore what shouldn't have been cut:

- Robotic science across the board (planetary science, Earth observations, heliophysics, astronomy)
- New Millenium technology demos
- Centennial Challenges (hasn't had new funding for years)
- Space Station science
- Aeronautics

I'm sure there are more examples.

Then, let's take respond to new opportunities and challenges:

- Support the ISS with more commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, more spares, and new capabilities like frequent sample return to Earth
- Take advantage of commercial space services and encourage the creation of new commercial space services: cargo and crew transport, space labs and stations, reusable suborbital rockets, data purchase from probes and satellites, hosted payloads on satellites, small lunar landers, smallsats, new information services, and more
- Develop demos of space infrastructure like reusable tugs and orbit-to-orbit transport, reusable lunar landers, propellant depots, satellite servicing, and more
- Small, focused X planes

We can do ALL of this if we scale back, commercially-orient, or if necessary cancel, Constellation ... and with the space infrastructure, robotic missions, and commercial services I mentioned, we'll do better on the Moon, too.

Yes. We need the NIAC. It's what NASA should be about anyway.

"Previous posts about tying it (NAIC) to Constellation or any lunar program is silly. All of that will be gone in 6 to 12 months from now anyway" sc220

Why will all of that be gone in 6 to 12 months?

NASA is not just about dreaming stuff up. They need to put theory into practice for us to get the full value out of these ideas and to maintain their status as a government entity.
I think we are unfortunately at a time where the space program itself is at risk. In a predicament where we need more money for them to accomplish a broader list of objective, everyone is putting the squeeze on.

Given the choice between logging accomplishments now and planning for tomorrow, the future often loses out to more immediate concerns.

One more vote for returning NIAC, but this time with a budget that is at least $20 million/yr that includes more phase-II and -III follow-on studies with hardware built and tested where needed. And the idea of having two versions of NIAC with one specialized in advanced power and propulsion developments and the other in all the other disciplines makes very good sense as well. And who pays for it? Why Constellation of course! Or better yet, take part of it out Griffin's NASA retirement account...

I see the range of thoughts that others have shared, and I see that they have their merits; there definitely should be a place within NASA that allows open and unconstrained thinking. But in order to be of real value, it has to be complemented with hard thinking (as opposed to being hard-headed) and strong decisions from NASA leadership itself. What is the overall game plan that incorporates manned vs. unmanned initiatives, LEO, aeronautics, science, international partners, mission life-cycle cost constraints, the role of the commercial sector, education, public outreach, etc., and how much of each plays in the total mix? There has to be a solid, definitive agency vision and a comprehensive strategy that provides productive direction to the creative thought process, and it has to be something that you are going to stick with instead of taking liberties in gutting certain things to make up for the shortcomings in others.

@Frank:

Look, I know I got carried away day-dreaming, me foolish raver. Anyway. $4M is always good to take but like anything, we do it seriously or we better not do it. $4M/yr are what 20 FTEs? May be 30. What do you think you can actually accomplish with that? A lot of thinking for sure if you get the right people. But nothing beyond that if we are talking ADVANCED concepts.

Considering that $150M for COTS seems too much I would not hold my breath here again...

Obsolescence on the way! Full steam ahead!

Well, the very fact that Griffin was so easily be able to kill it shows that it SHOULD NOT be revived within NASA.
As a separate entity with separate budgets, maybe under DARPA or so, yes.
Actually this again points to that anything that we really care about should be tranferred out from NASA.

It should definitely come back. It's all about expanding the realm of the possible, and for the small (in the grand scheme of things) budget, it was worth the bet.

Whether it should work like before organisationally, I don't know - not familiar with the internals of NASA - but it's very important to have blue-sky research funded.

"I’d still like to know if you all think its original $4 mil per annum budget was adequate…"

In as much as one of the core NASA activities should be developing advanced space concepts $4 mil is not adequate.
Perhaps $40 mil or more would be more appropriate given the nature of the task. Some of this funding should be also be used solicite ideas from outside of NASA as well.

I agree with an earlier post. A distributed NIAC should be created across the 3 research centers. There still is some NIAC-like activity going on in the agency. It is just all underground currently. The other poster who indicated that any revived NIAC ought to have a near-term focus simply does not get what NIAC was all about.

The research centers need to have a healthy research program and content instead of subsisting in a quasi-developmental role. Each of the research centers should have 1% of their total annual funding set aside, right off the top, for completely discretionary research activities.

Is that too much to ask for what they are expected to do - create the future? Everyone else can go build a rocket or something.

NASA should be very big on research, across the board.
Most Americans, especially the kids, assume that this is being done already. They are just awaiting the announcements of the new techniques and discoveries. You cannot do anything real (ie produce hardware) with only $4M.
Derek Webber

NASA has three research centers... Use Them!


The research center's discretionary budget should not be 1% per Z, but 15% should be held by the Center's Board of Directors. This 15% should be allowed to be spent in-house/or on contract.


Finally, the research centers should NOT be viewed as aeronautics only research centers; but as aerospace technology centers. Their research content should mirror the responsibility of the agency.


The intellectual capability of NASA's research centers is the most under-appreciated, under-utilized, and under-awarded capability in this Nation. I am convinced, in my old age, that there is not one problem these centers could not solve for our great nation if given the charter; and if NASA senior management (i.e. the politicians internal to NASA) were gotten out of the way of the science and engineering.

Yes NAIC is a good idea, but not to just weed through all the crazy schemes from all the individuals in the country for the "needle in the hay stack". It should be organized like DARPA is for the DoD. Let folks and companies propose ideas.

The first item on the list should be advanced studies and prototypes for stoichiometric mixture ratio rocket engines. There are enormous potential benefits for modest investment in things like materials science for high temperature/pressure combustion. Building prototypes and testing would be necessary.

here are the numbers, millions
556,500
133,900

returned to basic research for nasa and the healthcare reform program. 50%each

if Shelby does not use the 1billion soon, it goes to health care reform

The 4 NASA research centers can preform the NIAC function just fine, The structure is begining to form as I type.

"I’d still like to know if you all think its original $4 mil per annum budget was adequate…"

Most parts of NASA's budget for the past 35 years have been adequate -- to scrape by. No part of it has been adequate for doing the job right.

LEGAL DISCLOSURE (Conflict of interest): I favor such things (NIAC) because I do such things. Next, my comments represent only myself, not my employer. Now with that out of the way...

My cohorts and I were another small visionary part of NASA that got axed: "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP)." I am delighted to report that despite the cuts, we completed a comprehensive book: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" (AIAA 2009).

Regarding NASA's future: 'technological prowess' and 'human spaceflight' were synonymous in the 60s, but today human spaceflight uses legacy technology. Technological prowess has been cut (like NIAC and BPP). Without budget increases, NASA cannot do both anymore, so it's time to take your pick.

Dear citizens;
* Which do you prefer NASA emphasize: getting astronauts on the Moon and beyond now, or advancing the sciences and technologies to make such adventures (and all those unmanned probes) more effective, affordable and rewarding?

Frank,
To answer your question, yes I would be in favor of each of the three research centers be given funding for advanced research. NRA's could be used to solicit ideas outside of the agency. An avenue should exist where ideas can percolate up from the researchers (internal or external) rather than being imposed on them from above by a Soviet style system. NASA should be much more worried about people playing in the jewelery store (ARES, ISS, X-33, etc.) than playing in the sandbox!
K

Here's a vote to bring NIAC back. But I don't agree that the NASA research centers should be allowed to compete directly with NASA outsiders. Ultimately the outsiders will lose. The centers should fund this work internally and an organization like NIAC should exist to fund ideas from outside NASA. Once upon a time NASA did these things and should do them again. The problem is that basic research and advanced technology budgets are not insulated from the big NASA projects. $4M for advanced concepts is not enough. Congress should mandate that a minimum percentage, perhaps 5 or 10%, of NASA's budget go to basic research, including advanced concepts.

The NASA Research Centers specialize in certain areas. For example, Glenn's expertise is in propulsion, power and communications. It would be easy to structure a program involving all four research centers around each one's areas of core expertise. It should entail a combination of in-house work, NRAs and grant-funded projects. I for one feel that peer review should play an important role in this.

As with anything, the key is the personnel selected to run this program. You need good business managers, but you also need people capable of a modicum of visionary talent. I think you can still find people like that within the Agency, but you are going to have to look outside, as well.

I reviewed proposals for NIAC for a few years and then served on the Science Council, which was chaired at the time of the organization’s unfortunate demise by Donna Shirley (of Mars Pathfinder, Sojourner, and Managing Martians fame). NIAC welcomed proposals on the full range of topics related to space exploration and it was occasionally challenging for reviewers to distinguish between the crackpot and truly creative ideas; few, if any, in the former category were funded. However, there was one disgruntled proposer who conducted a slanderous campaign to discredit the organization; his efforts might have made it easier for Administrator Griffin to eventually disband NIAC, despite his earlier indications of support. NIAC was the leanest of all government-sponsored organizations; it was designed to be a “virtual” institute, composed of a four-person staff occupying offices near Georgia Tech and connected electronically to a network of top scientists throughout the country. The $75K Phase I contracts and student prizes were intended to inspire creativity and, essentially, to take the first steps toward converting the concepts of science fiction into realities. No other organization, past or present, shared NIAC’s mandate to explore the future (DARPA solicited ideas from NIAC). NASA basked in the reflected glow of the enormous publicity that NIAC projects received, but the organization also attracted criticism because some of the concepts that were funded seemed impractical, at least in the near term. Those critics obviously missed the point. Roald Amundsen’s response to a question concerning the value of polar exploration seems appropriate: “Little minds have only room for thoughts of bread and butter.”

@Jack Stuster:

It is very sad to see that some people don't, or didn't, get the purpose of your former organization. Crackpot ideas or not are not the problem. Sometimes even the most thought out idea may look like crakpot now or infeasible. But the idea is LONG TERM AND ADVANCED. How would it have looked like to tell people in the 12th Century someone would walk on the Moon - heck some don't even believe it today!

I hope it can be revived with a real budget. Also, I am not saying let's throw away $400M, I am saying that budget allocation based on TRL level is the way to go. But instead of a paltry $4M make it so that some stuff may be built, not just analyzed.

Good luck!

I know, I know... NASA has been working on this for years... But honestly, wouldn't NIAC be best suited to work on cheap access to space? Wouldn't solving that problem be one of the biggest accomplishments of the 21st century? I know, Shuttle was supposed to do that. I think they had the right idea, but TERRIBLE implementation. There's got to be a way to get to LEO for well under $1 billion a launch (with significant tonage). I think NASA or SOMEONE should really push to solve this.

Although, I guess that's what the commercial guys are doing, huh?

So, assuming we leave it to the commercial sector, let's do propulsion. If we can solve the distance problem between planets, that opens up a lot of science, technology, and exploration to the world. Imagine, getting to Mars in 1 month instead of 6 months. Kind of makes putting a man on Mars much easier, don't you think?

Yes, it should be brought back. And it should be expanded.

I was always in favor of the NIAC approach, and urge its restoration. The tasks that were funded during its existence had stimulative effect and showed great imagination. The exclusion of NASA civil servants was a function of the existence of the Center Director's Discretionary Fund, which allowed the Center Director to fund innovative ideas without any HQ oversight. The concept of having a small amount of money (in relative terms, "small") for NIAC was tied to the premise that we were investing "seed money." Also, a small budget profile avoids the "boondoggle" rhetoric stimulated by other money-pinched competitors salivating at the prospect of getting their problems solved with "other people's money."

Note that there are lots of potential sources of funds for the phase 2 awards, such as the Small Business Innovative Research program.

There no longer is a Director's Discretionary Fund at Glenn to fund IRAD.
K

Mixed feelings on this program. Conceptually its a good idea, but never saw how it connected with reality. To go to the Moon the first time around we didn't need NIACand don't see how it will help us get to Mars and beyond.

K: My reference to the CDDF was to provide historical context for the civil servant/in-house exclusion from the NIAC competition. What source of funds now exists for inhouse basic research?

Dear Eagle_eye;

Going to the Moon was possible because of all the pioneering work that preceded it - work that looked irrelevant and silly at the time. Tsiolkovski 1903? Remember how the NY Times derided Goddard? It took war funding for Von Braun to advance from mere model rockets to full-scale. What if Von Braun had never played with such toys?

Do you really think we've advanced as far as needed? From where will the innovations come for the decades ahead - to make human spaceflight affordable, to eventually take us to the stars? Are you just assuming that some store will open up and sell it from aisle 3?

The connection to reality is there. You just have to think farther out than the 1960's.

Marc

Mal Peterson,
Research dollars flow from the projects and most support their goals. There is no official path to fund innovative in-house research.
K

Frank -- Not really. With that budget you could produce high-level cartoons but not much else. Quick answers implies hiring senior people. Aerospace includes many disciplines.

Dear Mr. Mills,

Like I said there was no NIAC to get us to the Moon and we got there. I by no means saying that we should not think beyond today and many decades out, however, it sounds like your implying that without NIAC we can't advance beyond where we are. There are many great thinkers that have proposed and developed advanced concepts throughout the ages which are promising for enabling future space exploration in a robust way. I would argue that they were not funded by NIAC. Can you point to any "ORIGINAL" concept first developed through NIAC that has any promise? I have seen a lot of rethread ideas but no original ones that are promising. I think the concept for a NIAC program is good but how it has been structured in the past has not yielded fruit.

MIT’s J.C.R. Licklider, first head of the computer research program at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), described his concept of a “Galactic Network” for information and communications in 1962. The concept that we are using at this moment was realized more than two decades and several innovations later (e.g., TCP/IP, personal computers). Similarly, the purpose of NIAC was to stimulate the investigation of concepts with 25 year horizons. Thus, it is unfair and, more important, misses the point of NIAC’s mandate to criticize the organization for failing to “yield fruit” immediately. Despite its long-term view, NIAC-sponsored projects generated enormous publicity and interest in science. For many, it was comforting to learn that at least a miniscule element of our government was considering the tools and techniques that we might need in the future to achieve our dreams, and perhaps, even our survival.

Eagle-eye;

My point wasn't that NIAC is 'the' venue, but that venues are needed for revolutionary ideas - advancements beyond just amplifying what we already know. Steam ships were not pioneered by improving sailing ships. Transistors were not based on vacuum tubes. And those wonderful Moon voyages evolved from crazy pioneers who toyed with jets and rockets way back when respectable engineers worked on piston-propeller aircraft. There is a distinct difference between "great thinkers" and "pioneers." And there is a long gestation period before their worth becomes obvious to the rest.

When you speak of "advanced concepts... for enabling future space exploration in a robust way" are you talking grandeur applications of what we can already conceive (Cha-ching!), or are you open to the undiscovered breakthroughs that will eventually surpass all those ideas - from 'sailing ships' to 'steam ships'?

And if you're looking for NAIC results, today, I have two points for consideration:
(1) How much advancement could we have mustered for $4M/yr on, say, SSTO? Would that make much of a difference?
(2) Where were the follow-ups to apply the NIAC concepts to practice? There was no funding for that. Recall, too, that it took over 3-decades to go from in-space proof-of-concept tests of ion engines (1964) before they proved their worth on a real NASA mission (1998).

And you expect more, more quickly, for a mere $4M/yr?

Check out the book; Foster, "Innovation: The Attackers Advantage" to understand the difference between grandeur ideas, and revolutionary ideas. And notice what happened to the big sailing ship company who scoffed at steam. Their grandeur product, and their company, went under.