Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “community leadership”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Science and the Constellation Systems Program Office

An underlying tension has existed throughout the history of NASA between the human spaceflight programs and the external scientific constituencies of the robotic exploration programs. The large human space projects have been perceived as squandering resources that might otherwise be utilized for scientific discoveries. In particular, the history of the relationship of science to the International Space Station Program has not been a happy one. The leadership of the Constellation Program Office, created in NASA in October, 2005, asked me to serve on the Program Manager s staff as a liaison to the science community. Through the creation of my position, the Program Manager wanted to communicate and elucidate decisions inside the program to the scientific community and, conversely, ensure that the community had a voice at the highest levels within the program. Almost all of my technical contributions at NASA, dating back to the Apollo Program, has been within the auspices of what is now known as the Science Mission Directorate. However, working at the Johnson Space Center, where human spaceflight is the principal activity, has given me a good deal of incidental contact and some more direct exposure through management positions to the structures and culture of human spaceflight programs. I entered the Constellation family somewhat naive but not uninformed. In addition to my background in NASA science, I have also written extensively over the past 25 years on the topic of human exploration of the Moon and Mars. (See, for example, Mendell, 1985). I have found that my scientific colleagues generally have little understanding of the structure and processes of a NASA program office; and many of them do not recognize the name, Constellation. In many respects, the international ILEWG community is better informed. Nevertheless, some NASA decision processes on the role of science, particularly with respect to the formulation of a lunar surface architecture, are not well known, even in ILEWG. At the recent annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, I reviewed the evolution of the program as a function of Agency leadership and the constraints put on NASA by the President in his 2004 announcement. I plan to continue my long-time ILEWG tradition of reporting a personal view of the state of development of human exploration of the solar system, this time coming from within the program office tasked to implement the vision for the United States. The current NASA implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration is consistent with certain classical scenarios that have been discussed extensively in the literature. I will discuss the role of science within the Vision, both from official policy and from a de facto interaction. While science goals are not officially driving the implementation of the Vision, the tools of scientific exploration are integral to defining the extraterrestrial design environments. In this respect the sharing of results from international missions to the Moon can make significant contributions to the success of the future human activities.

Mendell, Wendell↗
NASA NTRS2004

NASA's Geospatial Interoperability Office(GIO)Program

NASA produces vast amounts of information about the Earth from satellites, supercomputer models, and other sources. These data are most useful when made easily accessible to NASA researchers and scientists, to NASA's partner Federal Agencies, and to society as a whole. A NASA goal is to apply its data for knowledge gain, decision support and understanding of Earth, and other planetary systems. The NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Geospatial Interoperability Office (GIO) Program leads the development, promotion and implementation of information technology standards that accelerate and expand the delivery of NASA's Earth system science research through integrated systems solutions. Our overarching goal is to make it easy for decision-makers, scientists and citizens to use NASA's science information. NASA's Federal partners currently participate with NASA and one another in the development and implementation of geospatial standards to ensure the most efficient and effective access to one another's data. Through the GIO, NASA participates with its Federal partners in implementing interoperability standards in support of E-Gov and the associated President's Management Agenda initiatives by collaborating on standards development. Through partnerships with government, private industry, education and communities the GIO works towards enhancing the ESE Applications Division in the area of National Applications and decision support systems. The GIO provides geospatial standards leadership within NASA, represents NASA on the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Coordination Working Group and chairs the FGDC's Geospatial Applications and Interoperability Working Group (GAI) and supports development and implementation efforts such as Earth Science Gateway (ESG), Space Time Tool Kit and Web Map Services (WMS) Global Mosaic. The GIO supports NASA in the collection and dissemination of geospatial interoperability standards needs and progress throughout the agency including areas such as ESE Applications, the SEEDS Working Groups, the Facilities Engineering Division (Code JX) and NASA's Chief Information Offices (CIO). With these agency level requirements GIO leads, brokers and facilitates efforts to, develop, implement, influence and fully participate in standards development internationally, federally and locally. The GIO also represents NASA in the OpenGIS Consortium and ISO TC211. The OGC has made considerable progress in regards to relations with other open standards bodies; namely ISO, W3C and OASIS. ISO TC211 is the Geographic and Geomatics Information technical committee that works towards standardization in the field of digital geographic information. The GIO focuses on seamless access to data, applications of data, and enabling technologies furthering the interoperability of distributed data. Through teaming within the Applications Directorate and partnerships with government, private industry, education and communities, GIO works towards the data application goals of NASA, the ESE Applications Directorate, and our Federal partners by managing projects in four categories: Geospatial Standards and Leadership, Geospatial One Stop, Standards Development and Implementation, and National and NASA Activities.

Weir, Patricia↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Framework and Training - Shifting the View of HSI for Better Implementation

The Implementation of Human Systems Integration (HSI) presents challenges within the acquisition community for two reasons. The first is that misconceptions of HSI still exist, with many Program Managers (PMs) and leadership uncertain of the value or where to begin. The second is due to an unbalanced approach to HSI in its own framework. These implementation challenges lead to barriers in the early prevention of mishaps. Understanding HSI practices and how they should be implemented in the Acquisition Product Life Cycle (PLC) has been a challenge across the government, leaving the value of HSI unknown and misunderstood with Program Managers. In the case for many acquisition programs, HSI is not implemented in early design, losing the perspective on human capabilities and limitations, creating impacts on human-centered design. Expectations in human performance are not clearly set and operations are baselined with no margin for changes in technology and processes that will affect system performance. The HSI framework addresses total system performance holistically using collaboration as the primary tool. The goal is to create a system with efficiencies while minimizing risk to the operators, maintainers, and support personnel, as well as any collateral personnel and systems. To accomplish this, HSI should be implemented as part of preemptive measures to minimize potential human error and mishaps during the operation phase. Investigative and assessment tools exist that consider events, issues, and other outside influences of a system that may not fall under the current construct of the HSI domains, leaving gaps in early HSI implementation and affecting the prevention of human errors and mishaps. This presentation will outline what NASA HSI is doing to support Early HSI implementation and Operational Performance shifts that affect human performance.

Anthony T Thomas↗
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 NTRS2010

Unique Education and Workforce Development for NASA Engineers

NASA engineers are some of the world's best-educated graduates, responsible for technically complex, highly significant scientific programs. Even though these professionals are highly proficient in traditional analytical competencies, there is a unique opportunity to offer continuing education that further enhances their overall scientific minds. With a goal of maintaining the Agency's passionate, "best in class" engineering workforce, the NASA Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL) provides educational resources encouraging foundational learning, professional development, and knowledge sharing. NASA APPEL is currently partnering with the scientific community's most respected subject matter experts to expand its engineering curriculum beyond the analytics and specialized subsystems in the areas of: understanding NASA's overall vision and its fundamental basis, and the Agency initiatives supporting them; sharing NASA's vast reservoir of engineering experience, wisdom, and lessons learned; and innovatively designing hardware for manufacturability, assembly, and servicing. It takes collaboration and innovation to educate an organization that possesses such a rich and important history~and a future that is of great global interest. NASA APPEL strives to intellectually nurture the Agency's technical professionals, build its capacity for future performance, and exemplify its core values~alJ to better enable NASA to meet its strategic vision~and beyond.

Forsgren, Roger C.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Achieving And Sustaining Human Exploration of Mars The Fourth Community Workshop (AM IV)

About a half decade ago, several professionals working mainly in industry on scenarios for initial human exploration of Mars exploration together recognized that, under generally similar assumptions, there was a fair degree of similarity among these scenarios. Moreover, opportunities should be sought for greater community input into NASAs own scenario-building for the future of human space flight. A series of focused community workshops were considered to be effective to critically assess the increasingly sophisticated scenarios. Explore Mars, Inc. the American Astronautical Society agreed to support them. Four workshops to date each involve about sixty professional scientists, engineers, technologists, and strategists from NASA, academia, aerospace corporations, the National Academies, consulting organizations, and potential international partners. Each workshop produced a series of presentations and reports briefed to NASA leadership and other stakeholders.

Achieving Sustaining Human Exploration of Mars The↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Growing the NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Workforce of Tomorrow

The NASA Safety Center (NSC) was established in2006 in response to Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations to strengthen NASA’s safety program. The NSC supports all NASA centers and facilities. The NSC fosters world-class Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) support for NASA programs and projects through professional development activities and the advancement of the following SMA technical disciplines: - Aviation Safety - Operational Safety - Quality Engineering - Reliability and Maintainability - SMA Technical Leadership - Software Assurance - System Safety The NSC’s Technical Excellence Office (TEO) is charged with encouraging technical excellence in NASA’s SMA community primarily through professional development products and services. TEO’s first initiative was the SMA Technical Excellence Program (STEP). STEP is a career-oriented, professional development roadmap for safety professionals, which is designed for the employee to learn specific knowledge and skills to improve performance in their current role.

Safety and Mission Assurance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Outcomes of a Mini Technical Interchange Meeting Concerning the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease from Exposure to Space Radiation

The NASA Human Research Program’s (HRP) Space Radiation Element (SRE) funds research to characterize and mitigate adverse health outcomes from exposure to space radiation to enable deep space exploration and sustained human presence in space. Damage to the cardiovascular system has been observed after exposure to clinically relevant doses of ionizing radiation. However, an association between lower radiation doses and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains controversial, and questions pertaining to dose thresholds, radiation quality and dose-rate effects, and gaps in characterizing the mechanisms and major pathways of CVD remain. To solicit new ideas for characterizing and mitigating this risk, the SRE is organizing a series of miniature technical interchange meeting (Tiny-TIM) that provide a venue for HRP-funded investigators and thought leaders to present ongoing work and engage in open discussion on relevant topics. The initial Tiny-TIM: Upping the Ante on Characterizing and Mitigating Cardiovascular Disease Risk from Space Radiation Exposure, held at the NASA HRP Investigators’ Workshop (IWS) earlier this year, consisted of two 90-minute sessions; the first focused on current knowledge of CVD risk from space radiation exposure, and the second focused on innovative ideas, and newer approaches and techniques to accelerate research. The second session was followed by an open, spirited discussion amongst peers on the current issues impeding the characterization of CVD risk. SRE leadership facilitated the discussion using a set of pressing questions and gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed by the scientific community. This poster presents the outcomes of the Tiny-TIM, along with proposed future workshops and the SRE’s other initiatives.

Janapriya Saha↗
NASA NTRS2004

Office of Equal Opportunity Programs

The NASA Glenn Office of Equal Opportunity Programs works to provide quality service for all programs and/or to assist the Center in becoming a model workplace. During the summer of 2004, I worked with Deborah Cotleur along with other staff members to create and modify customer satisfaction surveys. This office aims to assist in developing a model workplace by providing functions as a change agent to the center by serving as an advisor to management to ensure equity throughout the Center. In addition, the office serves as a mediator for the Center in addressing issues and concerns. Lastly, the office provides assistance to employees to enable attainment of personal and organizational goals. The Office of Equal Opportunities is a staff office which reports and provides advice to the Center Director and Executive Leadership, implements laws, regulations, and presidential executive orders, and provides center wide leadership and assistance to NASA GRC employees. Some of the major responsibilities of the office include working with the discrimination complaints program, special emphasis programs (advisory groups), management support, monitoring and evaluation, contract compliance, and community outreach. During my internship in this office, my main objective was to create four customer satisfaction surveys based on EO retreats, EO observances, EO advisory boards, and EO mediation/counseling. I created these surveys after conducting research on past events and surveys as well as similar survey research created and conducted by other NASA centers, program for EO Advisory group members, leadership training sessions for supervisors, preventing sexual harassment training sessions, and observance events. I also conducted research on the style and format from feedback surveys from the Marshall Equal Opportunity website, the Goddard website, and the main NASA website. Using the material from the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs at Glenn Research Center along with my previous research, I created four customer satisfaction surveys. Additional information is included in the original extended abstract.

Chin, Jennifer L.↗
NASA NTRS2023

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 (recently separated into the new Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate and Space 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 Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides strategic advice, supported by independent assessments and rigorous analysis, to inform NASA senior leadership on key areas to align mission and agency-level activities. OTPS serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy at the agency to enable future missions. Specifically, OTPS coordinates and uses inputs from a broad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OTPS develops and maintains 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, OTPS 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 OTPS 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

A Review of Options for a National Lab for Microgravity/Orbital Activities in LEO

NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) performs data-driven assessments to inform the Agency’s development of policy and strategy. OTPS works across NASA, the US government, industry, and academia to incorporate relevant stakeholder input to data-driven assessments regarding the future of NASA. OTPS conducted a study with the goal of identifying potential models to ensure that NASA and its government-sponsored user communities can successfully complete activities in low-Earth orbit (LEO) in a post-International Space Station (ISS) (i.e. 2030s) timeframe. Given the expectation that one or more Commercial LEO Destinations will replace the ISS by 2030, NASA leadership is considering next steps for microgravity research and other activities in LEO. This task is particularly challenging due to the uncertain future of the LEO ecosystem. Future scenarios may range from a robust environment with multiple platform options and new activities to an austere environment with few platform options and deflated momentum among user communities. Both extreme futures, along with any number of scenarios in between, have serious implications for the future of LEO and NASA’s role in it. It is therefore imperative that NASA consider its prioritized activities for the 2030 timeframe and identify potential business and operating models that will provide continuity for government-sponsored activities. The results of this NASA OTPS study will be presented, along with a discussion of how specific engagement models could enable NASA and other entities to achieve their goals in the 2030 timeframe.

Erica Marie Rodgers Heusinkveld↗
NASA NTRS1991

Civil tiltrotor missions and applications. Phase 2: The commercial passenger market

The commercial passenger market for the civil tiltrotor was examined in phase 2. A market responsive commercial tiltrotor was found to be technically feasible, and a significant worldwide market potential was found to exist for such an aircraft, especially for relieving congestion in urban area-to-urban area service and for providing cost effective hub airport feeder service. Potential technical obstacles of community noise, vertiport area navigation, surveillance, and control, and the pilot/aircraft interface were determined to be surmountable. Nontechnical obstacles relating to national commitment and leadership and development of ground and air infrastructure were determined to be more difficult to resolve; an innovative public/private partnership is suggested to allow coordinated development of an initial commercial tiltrotor network to relieve congestion in the crowded US Northeast corridor by the year 2000.

Thompson, P.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methods for Developing Successful Systems Engineers

Systems Engineering (SE) is a complex and challenging field that incorporates the knowledge of systems engineering processes, the ability to synthesize a wide-range of engineering disciplines, and the ability to lead a team of people to successfully accomplish the goals of a project. It requires hard technical skills and soft-skill leadership savvy. As a result, three main development needs are identified: 1) Knowledge of SE processes, the benefits of these processes to a project and their tailored application 2) Knowledge of a wide-range of engineering disciplines, how they interrelate in a system, and the development of sound technical judgement 3) Team leadership to direct and motivate a team of subsystem and discipline experts This paper describes the establishment of a comprehensive training and development program for Systems Engineers at NASA Ames Research Center that addresses in part each of these three areas from the perspective of the implementing manager. A variety of methods have been utilized including the establishment of a SE Community of Practice, a unique and innovative web tool, on-line videos, classroom training in NASA’s 17 Common Technical Processes, guidance on the tailored application of these processes, monthly technical talks, mentoring in both technical judgment and team leadership, and NASA’s Leadership Development Programs. While much of professional SE development must come through project experience, the approaches listed above can accelerate development. The diversity of skills required of Systems Engineering demands a multi-faceted approach to successfully train and develop this critical skill.

development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methods for Developing Successful Systems Engineers

Systems Engineering (SE) is a complex and challenging field that incorporates the knowledge of systems engineering processes, the ability to synthesize a wide-range of engineering disciplines, and the ability to lead a team of people to successfully accomplish the goals of a project. It requires hard technical skills and soft-skill leadership savvy. As a result, three main development needs are identified: 1. Knowledge of SE processes, the benefits of these processes to a project and their tailored application 2. Knowledge of a wide-range of engineering disciplines, how they interrelate in a system, and the development of sound technical judgement 3. Team leadership to direct and motivate a team of subsystem and discipline experts This paper describes the establishment of a comprehensive training and development program for Systems Engineers at NASA Ames Research Center that addresses in part each of these three areas from the perspective of the implementing manager. A variety of methods have been utilized including the establishment of a SE Community of Practice, a unique and innovative web tool, on-line videos, classroom training in NASA’s 17 Common Technical Processes, guidance on the tailored application of these processes, monthly technical talks, mentoring in both technical judgment and team leadership, and NASA’s Leadership Development Programs. While much of professional SE development must come through project experience, the approaches listed above can accelerate development. The diversity of skills required of Systems Engineering demands a multi-faceted approach to successfully train and develop this critical skill.

development↗
NASA NTRS2008

Space Studies Board Annual Report, 2008

The year 2008 was an historic one for both our country and the Space Studies Board (SSB). The United States elected a new president. His first task has been to cope with an economic crisis of historic proportions. In the same year, the United States celebrated the 50th anniversary of its first spaceflight, and the SSB celebrated its 50th anniversary. As we in the space community looked back, we also looked forward. The year 2008 was truly a year of transition, for the country and for the space enterprise. Under Lennard Fisk's continued leadership, the SSB completed its year-long seminar series, Forging the Future of Space Science, which highlighted the accomplishments of space science over the past 50 years and looked ahead to the next 50 years of discoveries that await us. During the first half of the year, events were held in Tallahasse, Florida; Austin, Texas; Paris, France (in conjunction with the Committee on Space Research, which is headquartered here); Boulder, Colorado; and Fairmont, West Virginia. The series culminated in a celebration at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., on June 26, .50 years to the day after the SSB was created. At that event, the Board presented its first James A. Van Allen Lectureship to Frank McDonald. The recent economic crisis has made it obvious that the U.S. economy does not stand alone. The global economy is becoming more and more integrated. The space enterprise cannot avoid this trend. In November, the SSB conducted a workshop in conjunction with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board entitled 'Future International Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World'. Its goals were to assess the current state of international cooperation and competition in space and to discuss ways in which new and emerging space powers might be better integrated into the global space community.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Diversity and Inclusion in Spacecraft Science Teams: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

Introduction: Not only does the planetary science community lack diversity [1-3], the subset of the community that participates on spacecraft science team is even less diverse than the community as a whole [1, 4]. Results of 2020 Workforce Survey: Previous studies of the diversity of members of spacecraft science teams made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the data before collecting the data. Those analyses assumed a binary gender and ignored the existence of planetary scientists who are neither men nor women [4-6]. We present here results where demographic data was collected without assumptions; each individual surveyed supplied their own answers to demographic questions. The April 2020 survey of Planetary Scientists, which was conducted by the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and funded by the American Astronomical Society (AAS)’s Division of Planetary Science (DPS) asked participants their gender with 4 possible responses: Woman, Man, Another identify (please specify if you wish), and Prefer not to answer. 32% of respondents chose Woman, 67% chose Man and 1% chose Another gender identity [1]. The survey also asked demographic questions on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, and disability. For a full list of questions, see https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/2020/survey2020_questionnaire.pdf. In addition to demographic questions, the 2020 Workforce survey asked how many times respondents had been involved in Mission proposals as a Principal Investigator (PI) and, separately, as a Co-Investigator (CoI) [1]. Answers to questions about mission involvement were correlated with answers to demographic questions and the results show that members of historically underrepresented groups (non-white scientists, women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled scientists) were less likely to be involved in spacecraft mission proposals than were members of historically overrepresented groups [1]. The figures below show the correlated responses for four different axes of underrepresentation [1]. Note that while the figure on gender shows only Women and Men (due to the small percentage of folks answering “Another gender”), non-binary respondents are included in the LGBTQ+ community figure. Conclusion: Being part of a spacecraft science team is a goal for many planetary scientists. With it comes brand new data, more stable funding, and a sense of awe and exploration. It can lead to a cascade of opportunities from conference and public presentations, to membership in subsequent mission teams, and prestige in the community [4]. As a result, participation in spacecraft teams can be used a measure of success within the field. From the survey results, we see that members of historically excluded groups, even after they have overcome barriers to participating in the field, are still experiencing barriers to success within the field itself. Why?: The diminishing percentage of members of underrepresented groups as a career progresses has been referred to as a “leaky pipeline”. However, this fails to adequately capture the experiences of the members of these underrepresented groups as it implies a passive process. In order to capture the active processes (bias, discrimination, harassment, and other exclusionary behaviors) that contribute to low retention in the workforce, the term “Hostile Obstacle Course” is more useful [7,8]. It is these processes that need to be addressed in order to retain valued members of our community. Moving Forward: In order to broaden participation in planetary science, particularly mission science teams, we need to address conditions that create hostile workplace climates. What can mission teams and other groups do to address these conditions? First, each group/team needs to evaluate their own members to determine what specific barriers exist in their own interactions. One tool to accomplish this would be an anonymous survey designed to understand how team members feel about working within the group. Working with professionals who know how to create and analyze such surveys (often called “climate surveys” when applied to University students, for example) would ensure that the survey meets its goals and does not make assumptions that counter the meaningfulness of the results. Such professionals in EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) and workplace culture can make suggestions for policy changes that would eliminate hostile workplace conditions. Policy changes that are often suggested include instituting professional EDIA training for the team and/or for team leadership, instituting and following a code of conduct [9], including more interactive group activities in group meetings, etc. Training and information on EDIA is available for all members of the planetary science community. The first place to look would be in your University or Institution’s EDIA or human resources offices. Bystander Intervention is often offered as part of other meetings [10]. A newer offering is a Workshop on EDIA for Leaders in Planetary Science led by Julie Rathbun (first author of this abstract) and JA Grier (https://edialps.psi.edu/). This 3-day workshop gives participants the tools they need to enact positive change in their personal and professional spheres. The first workshop was help in November 2022 and another workshop will take place in the late spring 2023 with exact dates to be announced soon.

J. A. Rathbun↗
NASA NTRS2011

Portfolio Management

Enterprise Business Information Services Division (EBIS) supports the Laboratory and its functions through the implementation and support of business information systems on behalf of its business community. EBIS Five Strategic Focus Areas: (1) Improve project estimating, planning and delivery capability (2) Improve maintainability and sustainability of EBIS Application Portfolio (3) Leap forward in IT Leadership (4) Comprehensive Talent Management (5) Continuous IT Security Program. Portfolio Management is a strategy in which software applications are managed as assets

Information Technology Applications↗
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↗