Space Science Management Systems, Essay Example

Since the 2^nd United Nations/Austria/European Space Agency (ESA) Symposium on Space Tools for Monitoring the Atmosphere in Support of Sustainable Development partnered conference supported by the United States, National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) in 2007, computer science inquiries into the potential of deep integration of space based SSMS (Space Science Missions Systems) as space science management systems. KMS (Knowledge Management Systems) and PMS (Plan Management Systems) have worked toward design and launch of better institutional sharing networks dedicated to the multinational space missions. In the United States, the challenge of such an effort is complex, and includes restrictions to business and scientific management on such missions, as U.S. space contracts and their proprietary information pertaining to ‘economic benefit’ to the agency and the nation is classified.

The model of SSMS information sharing used by the NASA JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) in Pasadena, California includes the OCO (Orbiting Climate Observatory) experts, and their network of aerospace partners. Initiated in 2005, the NASA Engineering Network (NEN) was formed under the Office of the Chief Engineer toward furtherance of becoming a knowledge-sharing organization. Developed in response to a benchmarked study with U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Company Command, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Boeing Corporation, the project enables “peers and experts through communities of practice, search multiple repositories from one central search engine, and find experts.”

Included in the networked database are core competencies established in the 1990s that were initially instantiated into NASA’s Competency Management System (an online system that maps individuals to their competencies).[i] The new NEN encourages invitation of Technical Fellows whom have been identified to recognize technical excellence and provide agency-wide leadership of their discipline, to facilitate their respective community of practice within the network. The portal also includes human resource tools, such as jSpace that can be utilized as an communicator/research source for professional recruitment to projects and permanent roles. Links to related associations and professional societies offer participating fellows and partners access to an integrated contact source of engineers, “while fostering an environment of sharing across geographical and cultural boundaries.” The next step in NASA NEN is incorporation into the larger NASA Enterprise Search, and potential accommodation of oft requested ITAR-restricted information.

At NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) the EOSDIS network performance measurement system, called “ENSIGHT” (EOS Networks Statistics and Information Gathering HTML-based visualization Tool) provides scientific users access to data from NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise, and to inform the various partners of the NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN). According to Loiacono et al. (2004), the EOSDIS allows institutional networks to detect and troubleshoot performance problems, track utilization of network resources, verify requirements against performance data, and forecast required upgrades. The network also monitors data transfer from DAACs (Distributed Active Archive Centers), and allows partners to diagnose related network problems within their own Science data transfer systems.

As with other forms of management systems solutions to global change management SSMS IT integration requires standard planning prompts covered by Strategic, Tactical and Operational plans. Within those considerations are time horizon, scope, complexity, impact, interdependence, and financial, duration and resource management strategies. Competent IT response to global challenges in the space industry also looks toward specific systems architecture and engineering production methodologies inherent within solving risk in launch and fiscal costs attributed to assessment and testing which often results in a lengthier, and high expense process. Accountability within the responsibilities of the various management stakeholders (i.e. Business Development, Counsel, and Senior Scientists) all contribute to oversight and input into such a system of knowledge and planning. Manufacturer partners contributing to international space missions are faced with additional complexities linked to science related, public-private SSMS infrastructure: 1) Adaptation to global market needs; 2) factors limiting competitiveness; 3) trends in rapidly changing system architectures,  engineering and production methods; and 4) future applications. In short, everyone wants a ‘cheaper’ space program from a planning perspective, yet without depth of integration of systems designs, and inputs such as time dense contribution to management sharing networks, the delivery of intelligence is uneven.

Since the beginnings of globalization in the 1980s, the expansion of the market has led to exceeding investment in knowledge integration amongst managers. Technological innovations that have instantiated much of the growth in this area correspond to the exceptional level of talent contributory to management information systems as the multinational organizations attempt to compete or meet fiscal policy derivatives through collaborative efforts with colleagues and entities around the globe. The phenomenon of globalization presents critical challenges to managers attempting to conduct business in environments that are comprised of a network of mutually dependent interests that may affect the internal or task environments of an organization’s productivity. Resultant to the landscape of possibilities is the incorporation of network sharing systems that allow an exchange of expertise and knowledge through PMS (Plan Management Systems). The development of the varied SSMS network sharing systems has enabled space agencies like NASA to share expertise on planning and execution of projects at each stage, and makes viable multilateral space relationships on international space missions by allowing share of information precedent to actual engineering that might otherwise be slowed or hindered by regulatory restrictions of U.S. federal law once underway.

Legal implications also apply to the liability factor of SSMS knowledge sharing as risk sharing, as articulated in The 2006 Center for Space Policy and Strategy National Space Systems Engineering Report prepared by, J. A. Vedda, Study of the Liability Risk-Sharing Regime in the United States for Commercial Space Transportation (Aerospace Report No. ATR-2006(5266)-1), which outlines the FAA statutory rules regarding shared aviation and space risk liability. Within the Report, coordination of the effort is summarized under a comprehensive study on the obligations of the new liability risk-sharing regime in the United States for commercial space transportation under section 70113 of Title 49, United States Code. The document includes The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-492) mandated a study on the U.S. government’s risk sharing of third-party liability for commercial space launch providers licensed by the FAA.

The joint tort liability is described in Title 49, section 70113 of the U.S. Code, was the subject of a previous congressionally directed report issued in April 2002 by the Department of Transportation (DOT) titled “Liability Risk-Sharing Regime for U.S. Commercial Space Transportation: Study and Analysis.” Mandated to supplement current risk-sharing statute, which expires at the end of 2009, the Report disseminates information toward the substantiation of the following recommendations: 1) “Objective assessment of methods by which the current liability risk-sharing regime could be eliminated or modified, including alternative steps needed to maintain a viable and internationally competitive U.S. commercial space transportation industry; 2) Evaluation of the direct and indirect impacts that elimination or modification of the regime would have on U.S. competitiveness in the world launch market, and on U.S. assured access to space; and 3) Examination of liability risk-sharing in other nations with commercial space launch capabilities, including comparisons to the current liability risk-sharing regime in the U.S.”

Much of the liability is addressed through regulatory compliance of the manufacturer partners on NASA missions. Regulatory rules of NASA, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), and ISO (International Standards Organization), all enforce constraint to the materials and production processes, as well as preface quite a bit of the research, development and engineering that goes into space innovation. The implication SSMS for aerospace partner organizations in the United States is a field of specialized management practices, applied to the NEN and the other integrated knowledge share networks that provide analysts and managers working in this capacity with an enormous repository of data. This also means that SSMS knowledge production by NASA and its competency community (i.e. engineering and scientific sharing) is continuously contributing to the sheer magnitude and density of information in certain areas; hence prompting research directors in aerospace to sometimes fine-tune the design and implementation of such projects. Methodological instruments, and modes of assessment, affect particularities in the cross pollination of data, and especially in dissemination of a project that includes both qualitative and quantitative outcomes. At the international level, the relationship between SSMS censorship and accuracy is an inherent challenge, in that news and other forms of available information can be published ad hoc by any source, and then included in the network data communications.

NASA’s Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR) Program looks at restoration project cost estimates shall be performed using its IDEAL system. Used jointly by the NASA Chief Financial Officer, the ECR addresses issues annually that may result in: “1) Any change in liability estimate in excess of $200,000; 2) New site information (e.g., scope changes, additional contamination identified); 3) Unexpected performance of restoration technology; 4) Scheduling changes (e.g., site delays); 5) Regulatory actions (e.g., Federal, state, or local regulators determine that no further action is necessary at a site); 6)  New or revised regulations (e.g.. more stringent requirements for a specific contaminant may require extended cleanup operations); 7) Improvements in technologies for assessment and treatment; 8) Identifying potential contingent liabilities; 9) Sharing lessons learned with HQ and other Centers/Component Facilities.”[ii] Data analysis and validation on the process is conducted by a SAP (Systeme Anwendungen und Programme in der Dataenverarbeitung) based MCS (Management Control System).[iii]

In commercial corporations, minimalist strategies learnt through space science are informing industry systems planning and architecture in other sectors. The streamlining of processes by way of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have become increasingly popular, yet are presenting challenges of their own. Executive management, as in the case of the International Business Controller, EU Region Headquarters of Think Pink expressed, “Location doesn’t matter anymore . . . You don’t need to be physically close to the plants [and]  . . . the customer, you just need good connections within the different systems you operate.”[iv] Multinational Organizations (MNO) like Think Pink have sometimes opted for ERP models that have paradoxically led to partial failure in accountability and control. Incorporation of a Management Control System (MCS) at Think Pink, SAP – the German software with ability to integrate operations across business functions and geographical areas – did lead to new interpretation of coordination at spatio-temporal distance between segments, but to the effect that it altered visibility. The MCS failed to accurately link responsibility to accountability; hence diminishing control to a few independent variables (i.e. the factory, or standard monthly deadlines).

As the market expands and the globe contracts, SSMS data sharing amongst all contributors to space agency projects within the knowledge and planning chain has become increasingly important. Logistics networks are intended to improve quality of product, to market timing, and ultimately performance. KMS, PMS and MCS like SAP are not only adding to optimization of the entire supply chain through knowledge sharing, but are frontline technologies to ensure continuance of competitive edge in some regional markets such as the EU, that have begun to stagnate as other sites accelerate the “better, cheaper, faster” model of aerospace development.[v] From engineered innovations, to eliminating discrepancies by control and monitoring of the system, to sustaining regulatory and trade compliance on multinational missions, the distributive flow of information enabled by integrated SSMS management systems is under pressure from market forces and, especially in respect to robust technological development in the space programs. Innovations achieved through the space missions also contribute to those on Earth, and translation of systems architecture and the integration of those knowledge sharing competencies via multi-mission satellites further other technological industries, such as the interface of telecommunications. Ultimately, the management strategies derived from these cost cutting, and innovation focused networks link market competitiveness with the highest caliber intelligence toward global solutions that only promise to enhance a new generation in oversight.

[i] Enhancing collaboration among NASA engineers through a knowledge sharing system, 5/10/2010, 2010.

[ii] NASA Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR) Program, NPR 8590.1. NASA Procedural Requirements, June 14, 2007-2012. Retrieved from: http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8590_0001_&page_name=Chapter4

[iii] Ibid i.

[iv] Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2004). A ‘time-space odyssey’: management control systems in two multinational organizations. Accounting Organizations and Society, 30(2005). Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd., 752.

[v] Pacific RIM: A Rapidly Expanding Space Market, 1999. Acta Astronautica, 44 (7-12), April-June 1999, Pages 745-754.

References

Atzei, A. (1999). Innovations for competitiveness: European views on “better-faster-cheaper” Acta Astronautica, 44(7-12), 745 <last_page> 754. doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(99)00086-7

Chaizy, P. A., Dimbylow, T. G., Hapgood, M. A., & Allan, P. M. (2009). Plan management system for space science mission systems Advances in Space Research, 44(1), 1 <last_page> 22. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2009.03.022

Enhancing collaboration among NASA engineers through a knowledge sharing system Retrieved 5/10/2010, 2010, from http://www.computer.org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/SMC-IT.2009.29

European business school (EBS) – research Retrieved 5/9/2010, 2010, from http://www.ebs.edu/index.php?id=858&L=!

Leigh, P. et al. (1999). Knowledge Management Strategies that Create Value. Outlook, 1.

Loiacono J, et al. (2004). Network performance measurements for NASA’s Earth Observation System. Computer Networks. The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 46 (3), 299 -320. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com

Network performance measurements for NASA’s earth observation system (2004). Computer Networks, 46(3), 299 <last_page> 320. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2004.06.017

Pacific RIM: A Rapidly Expanding Space Market, 1999. Acta Astronautica, 44 (7-12), April-June 1999, Pages 745-754

Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2004). A ‘time-space odyssey’: management control systems in two multinational organizations. Accounting Organizations and Society, 30(2005). Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd.,

Topousis, D., et al. (2009). Enhancing Collaboration Among NASA Engineers through a Knowledge Sharing System. Third IEEE International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology. doi: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org

Vedda, J.A., (2006). Study of the Liability Risk-Sharing Regime in the United States for Commercial Space Transportation (Aerospace Report No. ATR-2006(5266)-1). Washington D.C.: Center for Space Policy and Strategy National Space Systems Engineering.