isos summit 033005

Industry Panel Report: 

Industry Panel Report Dennis Granato Industry Panel Study Lead March 30, 2005

Outline: 

Outline Background Why AIA ISOS Charter Organization Methodology General Findings/Recommendations Sub-Panel Reports Summary

Background: 

Background In June 2004 AIA was approached by NASA Space Operations to facilitate the creation of the ISOS Industry Panel. AIA assisted NASA in outreach through: AIA Member Companies Coalition for Space Exploration US Chamber Space Foundation

Why AIA: 

Why AIA AIA serves as a primary voice of the aerospace industry, with nearly 300 member companies of the Aerospace Community AIA has a standing Space Council with over 30 members AIA Space Council has provided previous inputs in a number of related activities: Aldridge Commission National Space Transportation Policy National Remote Sensing Policy Spectrum Allocation Congressional Interface

AIA Space Council Member Companies: 

AIA Space Council Member Companies Hexcel Honeywell ITT Kistler Aerospace L-3 Communications Lockheed Martin MOOG Northrop Grumman Orbital Sciences Parker Aerospace Raytheon Rockwell Collins Rolls Royce Space X Swales United Technologies Vought W.L. Gore 3M American Pacific Analytical Graphics Aerojet ATK BAE SYSTEMS B.H. Aircraft Boeing Curtiss-Wright Ducommun Dupont General Dynamics General Electric GKN Aerospace Goodrich Harris

Industry Panel Participants: 

Industry Panel Participants Aerojet Honeywell AIA Kistler ATK Lockheed Martin Boeing Northrop Grumman Booz-Allen Hamilton Pratt & Whitney General Dynamics Spacehab * Georgia Tech * Stellar Solutions Hamilton Sundstrand United Space Alliance * The ISOS Industry Panel was formed of members of the US industrial community that work with NASA on a daily basis to facilitate spaceflight and exploration. Panel population was not limited to AIA member companies. * Not AIA Member Companies

ISOS Industry Charter : 

ISOS Industry Charter The Industry Panel will determine how best to integrate and implement aerospace approaches, resources, and capabilities to support SSP, ISS, and future needs. Industry Panel will be formed of members of the U.S. industrial community and co-sponsored by well-recognized industry groups that work with NASA on a daily basis to facilitate space flight and exploration. Industry Panel will investigate the following: Determine the current and future industrial base capability to support SSP, ISS, and future needs. Investigate the ability of Industry to support the recommendations of the Aldridge Report. Evaluate the human capital, training capacity, and national support necessary to successfully meet SSP, ISS, and future needs. Determine how best to maintain the current U.S. world lead in innovative technologies.

Organization: 

Organization Chair – John Douglass, CEO AIA Study Lead – Dennis Granato, NGC Four Teams Rick Golde, ATK Andy Aldrin, Boeing William Gregory, Honeywell Steve Moore, ATK Facilitator – Andrew Barber, AIA Integration – Sue Hegg, Boeing Executive Secretariat – Stephen Pitotti, NASA

Methodology: 

Methodology Utilized expertise of sub-panel members as well as historical data, SSP and ISS planning documents and previous NASA and industry studies Utilized NASA derived decision tools wherever possible In the case of the Strategic Risk/Alternatives Future Assessment, Industry did not adopt this explicitly. Report vetted through a three-step process: Step 1: Sub-panel reports vetted through specific sub-panel Step 2: Consolidated draft report vetted thru Industry Team participants Step 3: Final draft report vetted through AIA and participating companies

Industry’s General Concerns: 

Industry’s General Concerns Shuttle flight rate assumptions through 2010 for the Baseline may be somewhat optimistic given recent past experience Alternative futures taking into account only SSP and ISS may lead to decisions that impact future exploration goals No evidence that ISOS considered either future political or fiscal impacts in their deliberations Use of SSP derivations alone for ISS sustainment may not be cost effective Current SSP fly-out plan decision timelines may not be as timely as needed

Industry PanelOverall Recommendations: 

Industry Panel Overall Recommendations NASA should investigate the impact of a lower yearly average launch rate for Shuttle through 2010. The transportation assets within the Exploration Vision, together with SSP and ISS, should be considered in defining alternative futures. Future Strategic Risk/Alternative Futures Assessments should consider both the political dimension and changes to NASA future year funding levels. The full complement of launch vehicle options (e.g., commercial and international) should be considered for sustainment of ISS NASA must more aggressively formalize and implement an SSP fly-out plan to assist in assuring 100 per cent mission success for the shuttle manifest through its final flight

Industry Team 1: 

Industry Team 1 Industrial Base Capabilities Rick P. Golde, ATK Thiokol Team 1 Lead

Team 1 Introduction: 

Team 1 Introduction CHARTER: “Determine the current and future industrial base capability (required) to support SSP, ISS, and future needs” Industrial Base Capabilities Team (Team 1) assembled with representation from all major SSP elements, projects and disciplines – full technology spectrum Team 1 Mission: Identify those Industrial Based Capabilities that are in danger of becoming ‘extinct” if not properly utilized and/or retained and are “likely” to be required for future missions (use it or lose it)

Team 1 Organization: 

Team 1 Organization Rick Golde – ATK Thiokol, Promontory, Utah (Team Lead) Ed Banas – Honeywell, Glendale, AZ Fritz Kuck– Boeing Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA Dan Ferrari - Lockheed Martin Co, Michoud, LA Terry Sickler – Lockheed Martin Co, Michoud, LA Frank Carlos – United Space Alliance, Houston Kevin Morrow – Hamilton Sundstrand, Windsor Locks Paul Diggins – Boeing, Houston, TX Steve Wright – Booz Allen Hamilton, Houston, TX (Co-Team Lead) Chris Hagger – Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, FL Tara Larson - Hamilton Sundstrand, Rockford, IL Dennis Bayon– NASA Space Exploration (KSC) Sam Gunderson – Boeing, Houston, TX

Team 1 Execution: 

Team 1 Execution Each team representative identified those capabilities that were unique and critical to accomplishing NASA’s goals Major capabilities that are critical for mission success and would be very difficult / time consuming / expensive to replace or duplicate Timing or severity of loss could be offset via retention versus replacement Unique, one-of-kind capabilities of most concern Capabilities that help maintain overall technical leadership

Team 1 Decision Tools: 

Team 1 Decision Tools Information was gathered from each Team Member (company, element, project, system) Identified unique/critical resources / capabilities by element / sub-system element Compiled into Industrial Base Capabilities matrix To ensure a comprehensive assessment was conducted, all capability categories were considered Materials and Processes Components and Suppliers Facilities and Tooling Infrastructure Technology Human Capital

Team 1 Findings: 

Team 1 Findings Loss of Human Capital is biggest issue we face Second biggest issue is degradation or complete loss of certain aspects of supplier base Fate of some Supplier / Contractor (and NASA) facilities / tooling is critically tied to current programs

Team 1 Recommendations: 

Team 1 Recommendations Decide as early as possible what the future Space Exploration architecture will look like Transitioning SSP/ISS capabilities to meet Exploration needs must be tightly integrated Transition of SSP/ISS capabilities need to be as smooth as possible – keep operational “gaps” to a minimum (if not totally eliminate them) Prudent use of existing assets, balanced with selected renewal, will reduce overall program cost and allow NASA to “Do More With Less”

Industry Team 2: 

Industry Team 2 Aldridge Commission Andrew J. Aldrin, Boeing Team 2 Lead

Team 2Introduction: 

Team 2 Introduction Charter: Investigate the ability of Industry to support the recommendations of the President’s Commission on the Implementation of the United States Exploration Policy “NASA’s relationship to the private sector… must be decisively transformed”

Team 2Organization: 

Team 2 Organization Team membership (Andrew J. Aldrin – Team Lead) Aerojet Jim Long ATK Don Sauvageau Boeing Andrew Aldrin/Mike Shaw Hamilton Sun. Bill Keenan Honeywell Bill Gregory Kistler Will Trafton/Debra Lepore SPACEHAB Michael Bain Stellar Solutions Michael Lencioni USA Craig Lovell

Team 2Execution: 

Team 2 Execution Requirements Legal and Policy Barriers Review Existing Models Develop Alternative Approaches Evaluate Approaches

Team 2 Findings: 

Team 2 Findings Industry already performs most space operations Goals of Commission go beyond transition operations There are useful models for further privatization but none go as far as the Commission goals There are significant opportunities for increasing efficiency through new contractual forms but the barriers to achieving these could be significant NASA has received significant amounts of information through RFI’s and we see results coming out in NASA documents

Team 2Findings: 

Team 2 Findings No formal lines of communications between government and private sector for coordination of investment incentives and commercial activities. Assuring property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure is critical. There remain a number of U.S. policy and legal barriers facing international participation however both ISS and JSF models provide useful lessons

Team 2 Recommendations: 

Team 2 Recommendations Establish constructive dialogue between Industry and NASA on implementation of President’s Commission recommendations Assign organizational responsibility within NASA for coordinating with industry Continue to search for an appropriate model for international cooperation, which explicitly address technology transfer from a multi-lateral perspective Form a “Space Public Institute” to expand and institutionalize public support for space exploration through objective analysis and active engagement

Industry Team 3: 

Industry Team 3 Human Capital William Gregory, Honeywell Team 3 Lead

Team 3 Introduction: 

Team 3 Introduction Charter Evaluate the human capital, training capacity and national support necessary to successfully meet SSP, ISS and future needs Team Approach Develop strategy and methodology upon which NASA can use to identify resources required to meet current and future program needs Identify issues, risks, and mitigations associated with achieving future resource needs

Team 3 Organization: 

Team 3 Organization Team Members: Lead: Bill Gregory / Honeywell Denny Noh / Boeing Scott Hartwig / USA Debra Bailey / Boeing Rodney Wilks / ATK Thiokol Sandra Carney-Talley / AIA Industry Team 3 collaborated with other identified groups (I.e., Transition Team)

Team 3 Execution: 

Team 3 Execution Retreat Discussions – ISOS Super Team Meeting Face-to-Face Team Meetings Collaboration – Transition Team, NASA HR / KSC Issue Identification Resource Assessment Methodology / Tool Development

Team 3 Decision Tools: 

Team 3 Decision Tools Existing workforce competency and demographic data Critical competencies Attrition (retirements, etc.) Products from other human capital assessment efforts Workforce Competency Dictionary / NASA (CMS-DOC-01) Transition Team – demographics analysis Forecasted skills required to meet Space Exploration vision Forecasted skills available in the market place Gap analysis Develop risks and mitigation

Team 3 Decision Tools- NASA Core Competency Dictionary -: 

Team 3 Decision Tools - NASA Core Competency Dictionary - NASA Core Competency Dictionary Five Knowledge Domains Competency Suites Individual Competencies Engineering & Technical Knowledge Domain Example Engineering of Systems Suite Design & Development Engineering Systems Analysis & Mission Planning Suite Advanced Mission Analysis - Structural - Electrical - Propulsion - Aerospace - Mission Analysis - Mission Flight Design NASA Core Competency Dictionary Rolls Required Resource Skills and Competencies Upward Into Five Knowledge Domains

Team 3 Decision Tools: 

Team 3 Decision Tools Example – industry / company human capital resources can be mapped to the Five Knowledge Domains (concept offered by Transition Team) ~ approximate / estimated numbers – a hypothetical company ~

Team 3 Decision ToolsHuman Capital Requirements Mapping Methodology: 

Team 3 Decision Tools Human Capital Requirements Mapping Methodology NASA Core Competency Dictionary Map Resource Base for Five Knowledge Domains Company 1 NASA Core Competency Dictionary Serves As Common Basis For Rolling Current Program Resources Upward and Estimating Resources for Future Needs Company 2 Company 3 Industry Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 NASA

Slide34: 

Team 3 Decision Tools Evaluating Demographic Data Against Concerns Sample age-demographic data for a representative company in 2005 Region of Concern

Slide35: 

Team 3 Decision Tools Evaluating Demographic Data Against Concerns Sample age-demographic data for a representative company in 2010 Region of Concern

Slide36: 

Team 3 Findings Finding 1: Approximately 60 % of all terminations occurred in the age group of 20–40, with an average seniority of ~ 15 years. Significance: Indicative of groups from 1st time career (new hires) to second and even third time career employees who acquire skill, experience, and expertise before moving on. Finding 2: Overall average workforce age is approximately 46 with an approximate seniority of 14 years Significance: Mean of this workforce is not yet close enough to qualifying for retirement benefits, such that the impending STS program closure leaves little choice other then for them to carefully consider, plan, and decide upon a course of action in response to the impending closure event.

Slide37: 

Team 3 Findings Finding 3: Approximately 75 % of all terminations (~780) occurred in the age group of 40 and less, with an average seniority of ~ 12 years experience. Significance: Indicative of groups from 1st time career (new-hires) to third time career employees who acquire skill, experience, and expertise before moving on. The Engineering Competency suite is a critical area where the long-term retention of critical skills is highly desirable. Finding 4:  Even under years where there was no defined pending threat to the longevity of the STS or ISS programs, a high degree of volatility existed in these key technical ranks. Significance: The expectation is that as we move closer to Program closure, the volatility will increase, causing more instability, and unpredictability of available staffing levels

Slide38: 

NASA further pursue data gathering and measurement to enable a decision making process to mitigate the anticipated issues and risks cited herein. NASA should assess whether a skills retention incentive program intended to identify and retain personnel across the program viewed as critical to continued program viability is required. NASA should carry out an assessment of the forecasted labor market and, as a result of that effort, develop risks and mitigations Team 3 Recommendations

Industry Team 4: 

Industry Team 4 U.S. Lead in Innovation Steven E. Moore, ATK Elkton Team 4 Lead

Team 4 Organization: 

Team 4 Organization Steve Moore – ATK Elkton, Elkton, MD (Team Lead) Fritz Kuck – Boeing Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA Mitchell Fletcher – Honeywell, Glendale, AZ Carla Bossard – Aerojet, Huntsville, AL Cynthia Austin – Stellar Solutions, Palo Alto, CA Tara Larson – Hamilton Sundstrand, Rockford, IL Tom Kmiec – Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, FL Rick Davignon – United Space Alliance, Cape Canaveral, FL Dr. Erian Armanios – Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA Additional Support Charlie Bown – ATK Thiokol, Promontory, UT John Ku – Stellar Solutions, Palo Alto, CA D.K. Sachdev – Stellar Solutions, Palo Alto, CA Susan Ahrens -- United Space Alliance, Houston, TX

Team 4 Execution: 

How did we decide on the scope of this study? Initial proposal to Industry Panel and converged on current approach Team 4 Execution Assumptions President’s Vision is adopted by the nation ISS and STS have a finite, defined lifetime Large portion of reduced Ops funding will be diverted to technology Exploration is focused on achieving sustained human presence on the Moon and Mars Team 4 Scope

Team 4 Final Report Themes: 

Team 4 Final Report Themes Theme 1 – Sustained, coordinated investment is required to advance innovative technology. NASA must support Industry decisions to justify reasonable returns on Industry investments. Theme 2 – NASA cannot be responsible to maintain the world lead in every technology area. NASA must prioritize which technologies are necessary to be developed in the United States. NASA technology roadmaps must be a cooperative effort between NASA and Industry. Theme 3 – Basic Research is not being funded at the same levels as in years past. The definition of “research” has devolved to develop near-term, incremental solutions vs. long-term innovation.

Team 4 Findings: 

Team 4 Findings Historically, NASA has not created an integrated technology plan that was focused on agency-wide goals and objectives. NASA’s Advanced Planning and Integration Office is working to create integrated strategy and capability roadmaps that are an important first step to guide NASA and Industry investments for space exploration. Prize schemes such as the Ansari X-Prize and Centennial Challenge prizes can encourage non-traditional sources of investment for selected technology goals or milestones. Years of NASA program starts and cancellations, as well as poor returns in DoD launch programs have resulted in poor returns on Industry’s investments. Consequently, Industry has significantly reduced its technology investments that support of launch and space capabilities of interest to NASA.

Team 4 Findings: 

Team 4 Findings NASA often chooses a “make” decision for the development of technology in order to support Center technology resources. Because of the tremendous focus on success for space missions, NASA has generally adopted a low-risk approach for most of their activity. A low risk approach is not consistent with the development of high-payoff technologies necessary to make the Exploration Initiative a success. The excitement of participation in technology advancement directly affects our ability to recruit and retain capable engineers and scientists to the Space business.

Team 4 Findings: 

Team 4 Findings The U.S. public is generally unaware of NASA’s leadership in the development of tremendous contributions to everyday technology from space investments that affect their lives on a daily basis. NASA’s investment in basic research is declining. Emphasis on short-term, applied research, as well as a reduction in research areas pertaining to Aeronautics, is adversely affecting the U.S. leadership and our competitive edge.

Team 4 Recommendations: 

Team 4 Recommendations NASA should develop a plan for sustained technology investment prioritized to agency-wide space exploration needs including how it will encourage Industry investments that result in reasonable returns to Industry’s shareholders. NASA and DoD should continue their collaboration in development of NASA’s strategy and capability roadmaps and follow through with funding of joint technology projects that are of benefit to both organizations. NASA should direct Centennial Challenge and other prizes toward lower level technology goals or milestones that will encourage a broader range of non-traditional aerospace investors.

Team 4 Recommendations: 

Team 4 Recommendations NASA must assure that Industry investments are protected and encouraged by sustaining the drive toward incremental technology advancements. NASA should internally encourage and enable the use of its technology resources, people and facilities to partner with Industry NASA must enthusiastically publicize the needs for technology development to capture the imagination and attention of the next generation.

Team 4 Recommendations: 

Team 4 Recommendations Generally, NASA must accept responsibility for communicating the benefits of space technology investments to the public. NASA needs to recommit itself to long-term, visionary and fundamental research. The formation of a “NASA Advanced Research Projects Agency (NARPA)” would facilitate this.

Industry Summary: 

Industry Summary ISOS has afforded an excellent opportunity for the Aerospace Industry to participate and offer constructive comments as NASA deliberates its future strategies for both the SSP and ISS. Significant advantage by having separate Industry panel Industry recommendations should not be viewed as criticism but rather as a way to move forward together Industry participants want to acknowledge their support of the process and applaud NASA’s vision for including an independent Industry voice.

Industry Summary: 

Industry Summary Industry Report will be found on the AIA website: www.aia-aerospace.org