Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Congress:”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1972

The adversary process in technology assessment

An Agency which would act as a responsible technological ombudsman is proposed for inclusion in the technology assessment mechanism. The agency would be charged solely with the function and responsibility to probe and identify the negative factors and present them to Congress and the public. It is felt that in the development of technology in private sectors there are assessments and controls exerted by the public. However, in governmental technology, the agencies involved tend to emphasize the useful and beneficial aspects, and it is pointed out that the administrative agencies also tend to develop unwholesome affinities to the industries they regulate. It is also felt that scientific and engineering experts have a bias in favor of accomplishing what they think can be accomplished. The proposed devil's advocate agency would investigate the areas of hazards and potential hazards, and would subject Congress to the pressures of public opinion.

Green, H. P.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Aeronautics research and technology. A review of proposed reductions in the FY 1983 NASA program

Reductions in the Fiscal Year 1983 program from the original proposal to the levels of the appropriation request submitted to Congress are reviewed. The request asked for an assessment of the national criticality of the excluded programs and, for each one, the risk (probability of success) associated with achieving the objectives sought and the degree to which it might be assumed by the private sector. Based on this request, a charge comprising an assessment of those aeronautics projects excluded from the FY 1983 budget request to Congress, the likelihood that industry would undertake them, the impact of their not being done, and the more general question of the need for government to bridge the gap between the aeronautics research and technology base and early application was developed. The charge further specifies that the assessment is to encompass considerations of safety, national defense, efficient transport, and the national economy.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1986

Space Shuttle development

The technical-planning and decision-making processes involved in the initiation of the NASA Space Shuttle program in 1970-1972 are briefly discussed, responding to the critical evaluation of Logsdon (1986). The complex nature of the interactions among White House, OMB, DOD, and NASA; the difficulty of making long-term commitments under the U.S. system; the positive technological achievements of the program; and the need for unemotional evaluation of the policy options available after the loss of the Challenger are stressed. In a reply by Logsdon, it is argued that the structuring of the policy process itself and the presentation of the Shuttle to Congress as a relatively inexpensive routine launch system for virtually all government needs were directly related to its failure to gain continuing full funding from Administrations and Congress. It is suggested that a strong proposal of bold scientific and exploratory objectives for the space program could be more successful in gaining such long-term support.

Fletcher, J. C.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Present state of knowledge of the upper atmosphere 1988: An assessment report

This document was issued in response to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Public Law 95-95, mandating that NASA and other key agencies submit biennial reports to Congress and EPA. NASA is to report on the state of our knowledge of the upper atmosphere, particularly the stratosphere. This is the sixth ozone assessment report submitted to Congress and the concerned regulatory agencies. Part 1 contains an outline of the NASA Upper Atmosphere Research Program and summaries of the research efforts supported during the last two years. An assessment is presented of the state of knowledge as of March 15, 1988 when the Ozone Trends Panel, organized by NASA and co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, NOAA, FAA and the United Nations Environment Program released an executive summary of its findings from a critical in-depth study involving over 100 scientists from 12 countries. Chapter summaries of the International Ozone Trends Panel Report form the major part of this report. Two other sections are Model Predictions of Future Ozone Change and Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Stratospheric Modeling. Each of these sections and the report in its entirety were peer reviewed.

Watson, R. T.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Shuttle Rocket Motor Program: NASA should delay awarding some construction contracts. Report to the Chair, Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives

Even though the executive branch has proposed terminating the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) program, NASA is proceeding with all construction activity planned for FY 1992 to avoid schedule slippage if the program is reinstated by Congress. However, NASA could delay some construction activities for at least a few months without affecting the current launch data schedule. For example, NASA could delay Yellow Creek's motor storage and dock projects, Stennis' dock project, and Kennedy's rotation processing and surge facility and dock projects. Starting all construction activities as originally planned could result in unnecessarily incurring additional costs and termination liability if the funding for FY 1993 is not provided. If Congress decides to continue the program, construction could still be completed in time to avoid schedule slippage.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1992

Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the U.S. economy

In April 1985, as required by Public Law 98-371, the NASA Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) reported to Congress the results of its studies on advanced automation and robotics technology for use on Space Station Freedom. This material was documented in the initial report (NASA Technical Memorandum 87566). A further requirement of the law was that ATAC follow NASA's progress in this area and report to Congress semiannually. This report is the fifteenth in a series of progress updates and covers the period between 27 Feb. - 17 Sep. 1992. The progress made by Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Space Station Freedom in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology is described. Emphasis was placed upon the Space Station Freedom program responses to specific recommendations made in ATAC Progress Report 14. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for Space Station Freedom.

Lum, Henry, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the U.S. Economy

In April 1985, as required by Public Law 98-371, the NASA Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) reported to Congress the results of its studies on advanced automation and robotics technology for use on Space Station Freedom. This material was documented in the initial report (NASA Technical Memorandum 87566). A further requirement of the law was that ATAC follow NASA's progress in this area and report to Congress semiannually. This report is the thirteenth in a series of progress updates and covers the period between 14 Feb. - 15 Aug. 1991. The progress made by Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Space Station Freedom in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology is described. Emphasis was placed upon the Space Station Freedom Program responses to specific recommendations made in ATAC Progress Report 12, and issues of A&R implementation into Ground Mission Operations and A&R enhancement of science productivity. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for Space Station Freedom.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1947

Some Recent Contributions to the Study of Transition and Turbulent Boundary Layers

The first part of this paper reviews the present state of the problem of the instability of laminar boundary layers which has formed an important part of the general lectures by von Karman at the first and fourth Congresses and by Taylor at the fifth Congress. This problem may now be considered as essentially solved as the result of work completed since 1938. When the velocity fluctuations of the free-stream flow are less than 0.1 percent of the mean speed, instability occurs as described by the well-known Tollmien-Schlichting theory. The Tollmien-Schlichting waves were first observed experimentally by Schubauer and Skramstad in 1940. They devised methods of introducing controlled small disturbances and obtained measured values of frequency, damping, and wave length at various Reynolds numbers which agreed well with the theoretical results. Their experimental results were confirmed by Liepmann. Much theoretical work was done in Germany in extending the Tol1mien-Schlichting theory to other boundary conditions, in particular to flow along a porous wall to which suction is applied for removing part of the boundary layer. The second part of this paper summarizes the present state of knowledge of the mechanics of turbulent boundary layers, and of the methods now being used for fundamental studies of the turbulent fluctuations in turbulent boundary layers. A brief review is given of the semi-empirical method of approach as developed by Buri, Gruschwitz, Fediaevsky, and Kalikhman. In recent years the National Advisory.Commsittee for Aeronautics has sponsored a detailed study at the National Bureau of Standards of the turbulent fluctuations in a turbulent boundary layer under adverse pressure gradient sufficient to produce separation. The aims of this investigation and its present status are described.

Dryden, Hugh L↗
NASA NTRS1993

Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the U.S. economy

In April 1985, as required by Public Law 98-371, the NASA Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) reported to Congress the results of its studies on advanced automation and robotics technology for use on Space Station Freedom. This material was documented in the initial report (NASA Technical Memorandum 87566). A further requirement of the law was that ATAC follow NASA's progress in this area and report to Congress semiannually. This report is the sixteenth in a series of progress updates and covers the period between 15 Sep. 1992 - 16 Mar. 1993. The report describes the progress made by Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Space Station Freedom in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology. Emphasis was placed upon the Space Station Freedom Program responses to specific recommendations made in ATAC Progress Report 15; and includes a status review of Space Station Freedom Launch Processing facilities at Kennedy Space Center. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for Space Station Freedom.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

CSTAR support for the commercial Launch Voucher Demonstration Program

Congress mandated a Launch Voucher Demonstration Program (LVDP) in the NASA FY 1993 Authorization Bill. This program was to have been put into place by October 1, 1993 and would end on September 30, 1995, with a report to Congress on January 31, 1996. CSTAR was asked to provide a participatory relationship to NASA concerning the Launch Voucher Demonstration Program, specifically due to CSTAR's COMET experience and knowledge of the CCDS payload and transportation planning, budgeting, and contract management process. This paper describes CSTAR's involvement in the development of the Launch Voucher Demonstration Program.

Myers, Carter H.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Vannevar Bush 2: Science for the 21st Century. Why Should Federal Dollars be Spent to Support Scientific Research?

On July 5, 1945, Dr. Vannevar Bush delivered a report to President Truman known as 'Science: The Endless Frontier'. In the report, Dr. Bush stated that 'scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress'. Bush addressed job creation, the independence of basic research, the ties between research and application, and the nations's need for new talent. In 1995, there are strong similarities between the issues addressed in the Congress, Administration, and the public and those following World War 2. Federal funds and research funding are under severe pressure, including that from fiscal constraints in the federal budget due to the large and growing deficit and the escalating cost of health care. Defense conversion is addressed in the Congress and in industry, where many jobs are at stake. Conversion of the national laboratories, particularly nuclear weapons laboratories, has been a subject of a governmental commission and is the subject of draft legislation. Health care costs and the appropriate role of the federal government in funding basic and applied research has become a major topic of debate. Discussion on education in science has grown from the issue of how to produce more Ph.D.'s to how to improve the understanding of technology and science among the general public.

Miller, Kate↗
NASA NTRS1999

NASA Performance Plan

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed by Congress and signed by the President in 1993 provides a new tool to improve the efficiency of all Federal agencies. The goals of GPRA are to: Improve citizen confidence in Government performance; Improve Federal program management, effectiveness, and public accountability; and Improve congressional decisionmaking on where to commit the Nation's financial and human resources. The Act directs Executive Branch agencies to develop a customer-focused strategic plan that aligns activities with concrete missions and goals. The first plans were submitted in September 1998 as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99) budget process. These budget submissions were expected to support the goals expressed in the agency strategic plans. The Act also directs agencies to manage and measure results to justify congressional appropriations and authorizations. Six months after the completion of the fiscal year, agencies will report on the degree of success in achieving the goals and evaluation measures defined in the strategic and performance plans. The plans required by GPRA have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress. Copies of NASA plans are available from the Office of Policy and Plans at NASA Headquarters and can be accessed on the i nterinet web sites identified in the Appendix.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

To Boldly Go: America's Next Era in Space. The Universe Now and Beyond

Dr. France Cordova, NASA's Chief Scientist opened this, the third session in the NASA Administrator's Seminar Series, by asking the following question: 'What would be a bold and aspiring agenda for America's next era in space?' It aimed at answering the following questions: What do we know about the universe? How do we know it? (Dr. Cordova also mentioned that the first seminar was about the definition of cellular life and how to recognize it, and featured as speakers, Dr. Lynn Margoles and Dr. Leslie Orgle.) Administrator Daniel S. Goldin was introduced; he welcomed the attendees, and remarked that NASA personnel have a critical need to explain to Congress and the public why a space program is important. Congress and the public pay for the space programs. Therefore the programs' importance cannot remain in the sole domain of scientists. The first speaker, Dr. Vera Ruben of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institute of Washington, was introduced as an art historian expert in cosmology and an observational astronomer. Dr. Ruben brought up a number of questions regarding the substance, location, and origin of dark matter, radiation, galaxies, and the lumpy structure of galaxies in space, as well as the age and density of our universe. The next speaker was Dr. Bohdan Paczynski, a theoretical astrophysicist from Princeton University's Department of Astrophysical Sciences. The final speaker, Dr. Linda Schale is a cosmologist from the University of Texas at Austin. She was said to be a 'paleontologist of the human mind' who tries 'to understand mechanisms people use to understand the world'. The concluding discussion centered on why NASA scientists don t communicate better with people who are not highly educated. This is a big concern because to continue its work, NASA needs to communicate the importance of its goals to the average person. Additional information is included in the original extended abstract.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1959

Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Administrative Report Including Technical Reports Nos. 1342 to 1392

In accordance with act of Congress, approved March 3, 1915, as amended (U.S.C., title 50, .sw 151), which established the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the Committee submits its Forty-fourth Annual Report for the fiscal year 1958. This is the Committee's final report to the Congress. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-568) provides in section 301 that the NACA "shall cease to exist" and "all functions, powers, duties, and obligations, and all real and personal property, personnel (other than members of the Committee), funds, and records of the NACA shall be transferred to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The aforesaid act provides that "this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this act, or on any earlier date on which the Administrator shall determining and announce by proclamation published in the Federal Register, that the Administration has been organized and is prepared to discharge the duties and exercise the power conferred upon it by this act." The Administrator, Hon. T. Keith Glennan has advised the Committee of his intention to issue such proclamation, effective October 1,1958.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

KSC SBIR/STTR 2004 Program Year Report

The Kennedy Space Center Level III SBIR/STTR management staff is under the Technology Transfer Office within the Spaceport Engineering and Technology Directorate. The SBIR and STTR programs provide an opportunity for small high technology companies and research institutions to participate in Government-sponsored research and development (R&D) programs in key technology areas. The SBIR program was established by Congress in 1982 to provide increased opportunities for small businesses to participate in R&D programs, increase employment, and improve U.S. competitiveness. The program's specific objectives are to stimulate U.S. technological innovation, use small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs, increase private sector commercialization of innovations, and foster and encourage participation by socially disadvantaged businesses. Legislation enacted in December 2000 reauthorized the program and strengthened emphasis on pursuing commercial applications of SBIR projects. An SBIR Phase I contract is the opportunity to establish the feasibility and technical merit of a proposed innovation. Selected competitively, the Phase I contract lasts for 6 months and is funded up to $70,000. SBIR Phase II contracts continue the most promising Phase I projects based on scientific! technical merit, expected value to NASA, company capability, and commercial potential. Phase II contracts are usually for a period of 24 months and may not exceed $600,000. NASA usually selects approximately 40 percent of Phase I projects to continue to the Phase II level. Phase III is the process of furthering the development of a product to make it commercially available. The STTR program awards contracts to small business concerns for cooperative R&D with a nonprofit research institution. Research institutions include nonprofit research organizations, Federal laboratories, or universities. The goal of the program established by Congress is to facilitate the transfer of technology developed by a research institution through the entrepreneurship of a small business. The STIR program is smaller in funding than the SBIR program. While the proposal is submitted by the small business concern, at least 30 percent of the funding and work must originate with the research institution. STTR Phase I projects receive up to $100K for a one-year effort, and a Phase II contract receives up to $600K for two years.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1959

First Semiannual Report of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The First Semiannual Report of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 206 (a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-568) to provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, which states: The Administration shall submit to the President for transmittal to Congress, semiannually and at such other times as it deems desirable, a report on its activities and accomplishments.

Glennan, T. Keith↗
NASA NTRS1939

A Glimpse of Scientific Research on Fundamental Problems of Military and Civil Aeronautics

Among the outstanding accomplishments of the last century is man's conquest of the air. That conquest began in 1903 when the Wright brothers made the first successful flight of an airplane at Kitty Hawk, N. C. Five years later the United States Government purchased its first airplane for the use of the Army, and began the training of officers for military flying. During the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the World War the Government and a meager aircraft industry had made important progress, but the Government, practically the only customer, had purchased less than 100 airplanes. In the meantime, leading European nations, sensing acutely the potentialities of aircraft in warfare, had made greater progress and had begun laying the foundations for the new science of aeronautics. The World War gave a remarkable impetus to the development of aeronautics and emphasized the need for organized research on the fundamental problems of flight. By act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was created and charged with the duty of supervising, directing, and conducting fundamental scientific research and experiment in aeronautics. With the farsighted support of the Congress the Committee has led the world in the development of unique aeronautical research facilities in its laboratories at Langley Field, Va. The research programs include problems initiated by the Committee and its subcommittees and also investigations requested by the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Aeronautics Authority. The results of researches conducted under one control, serve without duplication of effort, the needs of all branches of aviation, civil and military, and exert a profound influence on the progress of aeronautics by improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of aircraft. A brief description of the results of some of the committee's researches and of the equipment employed will be found in the following pages.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2015

Success Factors in Human Space Programs - Why Did Apollo Succeed Better Than Later Programs?

The Apollo Program reached the moon, but the Constellation Program (CxP) that planned to return to the moon and go on to Mars was cancelled. Apollo is NASA's greatest achievement but its success is poorly understood. The usual explanation is that President Kennedy announced we were going to the moon, the scientific community and the public strongly supported it, and Congress provided the necessary funding. This is partially incorrect and does not actually explain Apollo's success. The scientific community and the public did not support Apollo. Like Apollo, Constellation was announced by a president and funded by Congress, with elements that continued on even after it was cancelled. Two other factors account for Apollo's success. Initially, the surprise event of Uri Gagarin's first human space flight created political distress and a strong desire for the government to dramatically demonstrate American space capability. Options were considered and Apollo was found to be most effective and technically feasible. Political necessity overrode both the lack of popular and scientific support and the extremely high cost and risk. Other NASA human space programs were either canceled, such as the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), repeatedly threatened with cancellation, such as International Space Station (ISS), or terminated while still operational, such as the space shuttle and even Apollo itself. Large crash programs such as Apollo are initiated and continued if and only if urgent political necessity produces the necessary political will. They succeed if and only if they are technically feasible within the provided resources. Future human space missions will probably require gradual step-by-step development in a more normal environment.

Success factors↗