Cryptic Space Station Procurement From JSC (update)
Enabling Support Equipment and Services for International Space Station as a National Lab
Keith’s 16 Aug 4:30 pm update: NASA JSC re-released the Award notice. It now says “Classification Code: 16 — Aircraft components and accessories; NAICS Code: 541712 – Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)” but it still lists the award recipient as being “Research for the Future Inc., 1616 P ST NW, Washington, DC 20036-1400” even though the awardee is actually “Resources for the Future” located at that street address. I guess the name of the company isn’t important in NASA awards.
Earlier posts below.
Keith’s 14 Aug note: No details for this JSC contract are provided in this contract award notice from JSC. The award was made to “Research for the Future Inc.”. Future Research is the closest thing I could find – located in Alabama. Their website says that it is a “total solution provider committed to responding to diverse customer requirements with the most efficient / cost-effective solutions.” There is no mention of space/NASA expertise that I can find on their website. Google is not much help either. The notice says that the award to Research for the Future Inc. is for $1,275,549; classified as being for “Aircraft components and accessories”; with the NAICS code “Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities”. In other words, who knows what this is for – just check a box – any box.
Keith’s 15 Aug update: Reading the title and classifications listed, this sounds a lot like the tasks that have been delegated to CASIS for their support of the ISS National Lab. But that assumption is based on a trivial amount of information. So, I have submitted a request to PAO for a copy of the contract and statement of work. They will probably tell me that I need to file a FOIA request. Such requests can take anywhere from a few weeks to months, and in a few cases, years, to process. Stay tuned.
Keith’s 16 Aug 9:00 am update: The NASA award notice specifically says “Research for the Future Inc.” as the name of the recipient. Yet comments below refer to rff.org which points to “Resources for the Future”. The street addresses match. In other words NASA cannot even correctly identify to the public who it is giving money to. If you look at rff.org you see that they are policy-oriented – so this makes a little more sense. Yet there is not obvious space-related business evident (and again, Google offers little insight). This is not necessarily bad since fresh air is badly needed in NASA’s ISS utilization – especially given that CASIS hasn’t done much of anything – yet. Either way, regardless of the awardee’s actual name, there is still no description of what this award is for and contrary to NASA’s claim, it clearly does not involve “Aircraft components and accessories” as is stated in the award notice. Not even remotely.
I found this PDF via their website, for a contract they have with the army.
http://www.future-research….
Most of the document is generic and covers how the procurement process works, but the few pages about this specific contract makes me think they’re some sort of middleman or project management service for general IT support. If that’s true they’ll be doing ordinary bureaucratic stuff.
If this is so, how does an unknown outfit like this get a station contract over many other players?
The procurement process seems to put extra weight on minority-owned, women-owned and veteran-owned businesses. They’re minority-owned and have a lot of other preferred businesses as their subcontractors, so that might be part of it. It also says $1.28 million, which doesn’t seem like that much – can’t be more than 10 man years for government contracting and overhead, I’d think?
Also, do we know that this is specifically to do with the station, or just part of the big amorphous blob of organisational “support” that is an inevitable part of this national lab stuff?
That this is a set-aside is not an issue – the total lack of clarity as to what the contract is *for* is.
That’s what I was trying to figure, whether this was a big deal in and of itself, or just because it’s another symptom of the much bigger problems around govt contracting.
They say as little as they can get away with because it makes their work day easier – until someone complains, that is.
Keith and Steve,
Clarity should be provided by releasing the scope of work. I’m not sure why NASA doesn’t just go ahead and do so in an appropriate forum.I can tell you w/certainty that this was not done “for justification purposes after the fact”; it was done to better discern between hi and lo value research. Citation strength measurement is not new (as evidenced by Bell Labs usage 40 yrs ago), but when you combine it with contemporary data mining and linking (not statistics) it becomes very valuable for directing limited resources to the most productive areas of R&D.It’s worth noting that these are industrial R&D management techniques, not just classical peer reviewed science. The sooner it’s recognized that basic and applied research are NOT managed by the same methods, the sooner ISS productivity will begin to increase.
Do a little diligence on the “Atlas of Science” and I think it will all become more clear to those who are willing to take the time to truly understand intent and possible outcomes.
All this “hip-shooting” is dangerous in a crowded blog in the dark.
Mark
I am still waiting for an answer from NASA. Why NASA doesn’t just explain itself in the first place on things like this – instead of having to be forced/prodded to so so – continues (after 16 years) to baffle me.
What is also confusing is why JSC contracted with a firm to do things such as this with regard to research on the ISS National Lab when CASIS should be doing them. Isn’t that the point of CASIS in the first place?
WRT “shooting in the dark”: NASA set the stage for this by putting a award notice out with virtually no justification whatsoever to the people who pay for these things as to what their money is being spent on – and why.
Classifying this award as “Aircraft components and accessories” is downright deceptive to say the least if indeed it is what you say it is.
Have done “due diligence” and have asked NASA for information on this award. If they are unable to respond to this request I will file a FOIA request for that information – again, under “due diligence”. It is not my fault that NASA did not provide sufficient detail to begin with. Once they provide me with information I will post it immediately. There are some reasonable people at JSC who work these things so I am optimistic that they will provide enough information without forcing the FOIA process to be used.
16 Aug update: NASA JSC re-released the Award notice. It now says “Classification Code: 16 — Aircraft components and accessories; NAICS Code: 541712 – Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)” but it still lists the award recipient as being “Research for the Future Inc., 1616 P ST NW, Washington, DC 20036-1400” even though the awardee is actually “Resources for the Future” located at that street address. I guess the name of the company isn’t important in NASA awards.
I really don’t think that’s the reason anymore so than good ol’ boy networking is the reason for lack of details. Constellation was a pretty good example of that.
Keith brings up a good point, need more info.
It could very well be a totally justified and valuable activity. Absent any details, and based on NASA’s previous behavior, I’ll reserve judgement until I see something a bit more detailed.
Did you mean “unknown”, or just not known by you, Dennis?
I have never heard of them either. A Google search shows no discernible NASA experience. Another million dollars spent – with no one bothering (or caring) to explain to taxpayers what their money is being spent on.
It is unfortunate that contract award announcements don’t always provide sufficient information for the public to understand the work to be performed.
In this case, RFF will be providing an extremely valuable service to the ISS R&D Program — they will be developing the methodology for measuring the citation strength of scientific journal articles produced through ISS utilization. This approach was employed by Bell Labs during its historic hey days, and will strengthen ISS productivity.
RFF has also cooperated with MIT in developing powerful analytic methods for “mapping” scientific research among allied fields. For more info, I recommend review of the “Atlas of Science” — it’s an extremely worthwhile investment for anyone interested in advancing science and applications. Techniques are now available for visualizing scientific communities involved in important “mainstream” research versus those that operate in isolated backwaters of weak tidal strength. If allowed to proceed with intellectual honesty, these techniques may one day limit the influence of entrenched special interest groups that command undeserved resources due only to their political actions. Yes, even science has such groups lurking in the cellars of ivory towers.
research versus those that operate in isolated backwaters of weak tidal strength.
Need a much better definition of what the above means. At one time Quantum Mechanics and string theory were “isolated backwaters” of physics.
This would seem to be a measure of how much money is spent in a particular discipline (thus generating lots of papers), rather than the actual value of the research.
I will be submitting a request to PAO for a copy of their contract. Of course they will say that I have to file a FOIA request and that can take months – even a year or more – to get a reply.
Mark,
This clearly sounds like a statistical analysis function, a tool type which government agencies (as opposed to the old Bell Labs) typically, in my limited experience, tend to use for justification purposes after the fact, as opposed to a tool used for decision making before the fact. If that’s the case, then the cost ($400,000,000.00 ceiling over 5 years) seems to me to be awfully steep for the limited potential that it offers. Can you offer any elaboration?
Steve
At one time Quantum Mechanics and string theory were “isolated backwaters” of physics.
String theory is and will always be a backwater of physics. See Peter Woit’s blog.
Why this is obscure is to protect trade secrets.
I’ve heard of them. Take a look at the principals and their bios. With a little bit of due diligence, now the whole contract engagement makes sense.
It’s their skills in mapping, economic analysis and the assessment of complex constellations of inter-related science applied across a variety of domains, including in this case – space, that is relevant. The award amount makes sense now too. If it was double the $ amount, it would still make sense.
It will be interesting to see the end-result of their efforts, meaning – the exact content of their work.
If the ways and means RFF uses to produce qualitative and/or quantitative results, processes or tools that enable and ensure increases in utility and/or maximization of science that translates to real & tangible value, then the activity will be a strong ‘win’.
As Mark stated, an effective methodology for measuring citation strength (with respect to space and ISS utilization) is key. If RFF can provide that tool it will be as valuable as a tape measure and level are to a carpenter.
Clearly the RFF task relates to certain aspects of the ISS National Lab and responsibilities of its management. It relates specifically to the prioritization of science and payloads and to the quantitative estimate and projected value of science on the ISS, in a mapping sense, in a citation strength sense, and in even more critical, determinate ways (which are a separate discussion).
It makes sense that an award would be directed to an entity that possesses expertise in these areas. It would be inefficient to have an organization like CASIS create or grow the competency internally. In a make/buy decision context, using RFF is a ‘buy’ action which looks to be the most efficient path.
Save yourself some time and skip the FOIA action on the front-end explanation. What you really will want to see is the RFF deliverable. It’s the deliverable, the methodology, that is golden.
It is heartening to see that JSC put this out. To expect this from CASIS is probably premature; they are still too new, too focused on or distracted by other things, and frankly high-end expertise in the RFF arena isn’t likely to be in their skill toolbox, not now or ever. Besides, JSC, all of NASA, and all U.S. agencies may find value in the outputs from the RFF effort, so better a JSC action than a CASIS action.
One caveat: To me the RFF effort, the development of a methodology to measure citation strength, etc. is important and valuable. But after its all said and done it will only provide about 2/3rds of the needed solution. When the 2/3rds of it is in-hand, a follow-on effort to create the remaining 1/3rd will become obvious to both the operational folks and the $ controlling decision makers.
That’s all well and good but neither you or Mark Uhran represent NASA. I’m not withdrawing my request to PAO nor ruling out a FOIA request. NASA needs to start telling people what it is spending their money on to make a $60-100 billion research investment actually DO something. They couldn’t even get the name of the company right and confused research citation studies with aircraft parts. I’m sorry. a “world class” research facility needs to do a lot better than this to inspire confidence in itself.
FOIA away Keith, I just don’t think it will result in much for you. My bet is, you’ll FOIA and it won’t really answer your questions and will just aggravate you more and breed 50 more “why can’t the PAO tell me everything” questions.
The listing as Aircraft Components and Accessories is strange. I can see why that bothers you. Maybe they’re thinking of lowering the ISS altitude to 30,000 feet and reclassifying it as an immense aircraft laboratory – or would that be a football field sized glowing reentry fireball? (bad humor).
You’re right about NASA needing to tell people what it’s spending $60B on. Your complaints on this are surely an unceasing irritant, but you’re simply an examplar voicing what is of broad concern. They’ll either learn how to transmit the essential infomation soon or wind up as congressional budget roadkill.
My take on the RFF thing is that it will produce a methodology that enables the analysis of the worth of science that can be performed on the ISS and that the method will then be useful for science payload prioritization. It’s that simple.
NASA and ISS others need a tool that is capable of sorting out high value and low value science, in a defendable and rigorous manner. If they don’t have it, how on Earth will they be able to spend even a dollar of the billions that you mention, effectively? Absent that tool, you can see why they, or anyone, would be reluctant to ‘tell people’ anything about what they are spending $60B on, because whatever they described would be subject to review and attack. Does that make sense to you?
Are you sure that link to the company is correct? It has neither the same name nor address as the one referenced in the announcement. Is it related? Just wondering.
This place has the same address as in the announcement and a clear space resume. I think there may have been a mistaken company name in the announcement, emphasizing Keith’s point about bad info I guess. http://www.rff.org/
If I take what Mark and npng have said above as accurate, and it sounds quite reasonable to me, then I would say we’ve got a good/bad trade-off here, from a “space” point of view.
On one hand, it appears that a system is being put into place which will attempt to optimize the return from the US National Lab by providing a relative “value” gauging between programs/projects that have been implemented at the Lab. This, I think, is a good move, assuming that the RFF methods are effective, since it will allow a more directed approach to identifying future programs/projects likely to be of most “value.”
On the other hand, the concept of “value” remains entirely subjective and will become a very generalized measure (presumably defined in terms of citations and dollars alone), instead of being weighted in favor of specifically space-related research activities. This is just my opinion, of course, but let me explain why I see it this way.
I recognize and accept that NASA is not now, and has never been, exclusively about “space,” but “Aeronautics and Space” are supposedly its main areas of activity. One of NASA’s current-day problems, in my opinion, is that this main focus has become lost and diluted. Application of NASA’s work has been seen in many different branches of science and industry, and NASA’s total “output” seems to be becoming less and less “Aeronautics and Space”-oriented in makeup every year. Between this increased tendency towards generalization and the continuous killing-off of NASA “space” programs (particularly HSF) through political interference and incompetence, NASA’s ability to work towards creating a multi-planet species, conquering space, colonization, and all of those other lovely-sounding phrases which to pertain to mankind living and working in space, become ever more the stuff of fiction, instead of the new reality. This RFF contract may well make the US National Lab, and perhaps the ISS as a whole, more productive and efficient in a generic sense, but I can see it making the Lab/ISS increasingly less effective as a space research facility, an that I personally consider to be a bad trade.
I may be looking for goblins where none exist, but I see this as yet another indication that the bland indifference towards conquering space that has long infected the general public is becoming more and more endemic amongst the people who control NASA’s activities, often the very same people who were its champions in the past. I don’t think it’s because people no longer care as much about NASA, but rather that people who care are at wit’s end trying to find ways to “save” NASA and bring back the NASA of bygone days. The latter is, of course, a mistake; Apollo will never happen again, and it shouldn’t, but we live in an age where nobody has any control, at all, over either NASA or the goals and ideals that it was created to fulfill. NASA is in the worst position possible — it has no enablers, people capable of revitalizing it and leading a new charge; but it has many detractors, people who can stifle it and put up endless roadblocks. And for the masses who are not willing to think for themselves, it has become much easier to be critical and dismissive than to offer constructive ideas. Any fool can kick the fence down; but it takes skill and willingness to make a fence.
NASA has become a product/service provider with a dwindling marketplace (despite the appearance of the opposite) and no marketing department. I think that this RFF contract is, at best, an attempt to mitigate the erosion that NASA has been experiencing for decades because it is no longer, in general, seen as relevant. I think society overall sees NASA as an expensive hobby rather than a necessary tool for racial survival. And while this RFF contract may succeed in making part of NASA operate a little more effectively than it currently does, I don’t see it as a fix or progress of any kind; it’s just a Band-Aid trying to reduce the amount of bleeding. I would be extremely pleased to find out that I’m completely wrong about both the general attitude of people and the Band-Aid analogy, but I’m not holding my breath.
Steve
That’s a pretty good assessment, Steve. I agree with much of it, but let me also offer a minor refinement…
It’s an incredibly big space station. I suspect some may have trouble grasping the sheer magnitude of the user resources and accommodations. Most of the research history was on Spacelab missions, while the ISS is roughly equivalent to flying more than 10 Spacelabs simultaneously and continuously, year in and year out. There’s room for 200-400 individual research instruments, size dependent, by the time all the internal/external sites are outfitted. The reason that I mention this is because it’s entirely realistic to accomplish BOTH the space-related R&D necessary to advance human exploration AND space-independent R&D applicable to other US national needs that don’t advance NASA’s mission. Trust me on this because I did those analyses for >20yrs and set those mission performance specs at CDR in 1993 (Keith can bear witness since he was a participant). It’s an awesome capability and damn well should be for 60 billion $US.
Now, consider what the effect would be if ISS were successful with the “non-space” R&D portion (e.g., just 50% of the available user resources & accommodations). What if, pharmaceutical products, drug design services, advanced glasses, ceramics, polymers and metallic alloys, regenerative tissue growth services, and hyperspectral LEO imaging were to all demonstrate significant competitive advantages under microgravity conditions or w/LEO vantage points?
NASA, and all the participating space agencies, would be lauded worldwide for the stunning success. So much so, that private stations would start emerging at an increased rate (Bigelow et al would succeed), and the 21st century “age of spaceframes” would eventually replace the 20th century “age of airframes”. Yes, I’m talking about an industrial revolution not unlike the ones created by the emergence of vacuum processing (microelectronics), liquid fuel rocket motors (satellite telecommunications), or the airfoil (winged aviation). That’s what disruptive technologies do. The ISS is a potential disruptive technology, but the politics of entrenched special interest groups and the weakness of NASA leadership are choking this potential like a desperate man the night before a prostatectomy.
If you don’t believe this scenario is plausible (the competitive advantage scenario, not the desperate man), just look at the evidence already on the table – over 800 microgravity-related patents granted in past 30 yrs and over 500 further patent applications in last 10 yrs. The patent rate has grown from 3-5 per year (1980) to ~ 60 per year (2010)!
If the non-space R&D were allowed to thrive and succeed on ISS, NASA wouldn’t have to worry about public funding appropriations for human space flight R&D for at least a decade.
One enables the other…but the ISS clock is quickly running out and it may already be too late to recover.
Mark
Thanks Mark.
This puts things into a much better light. So, if it works out well, assuming it’s not already too late, the only remaining concern I have — with the concept; as opposed to the execution — is manpower. It seems to me that anything approaching the numbers you suggest becomes possible only if all of these experiments and instruments are self-sufficient, not requiring any man-power from station staff. But there must be some requirements, even if only placement and removal. Are power and other systems monitored or are all packages required to take total care of themselves as a qualifier for acceptance for the Lab?
Steve
Good observation. So, currently there’s about 1 crew-person equivalent dedicated to R&D which amounts to ~ 35 hrs/week on average, not counting voluntary time that the crew contributes because they actually like to do R&D. That’s still very constraining on research ops, which means you have to select R&D objectives with crew-time limits in close consideration. Some tasks are very crew intensive (e.g., human/animal biology), while other tasks can be more automated (e.g., materials processing and cellular/molecular biology).
Of course, there a large scope of hi-value R&D that requires hi crew-time, but you have to live with reality so its important to balance the portfolio accordingly. There’s NO SHORTAGE of equally hi-value research that can be substantially automated, and you can’t allow the entrenched special interest groups to continue demanding greater resources be allocated to highly crew intensive tasks. It doesn’t work and just irritates the bear.
The system was very consciously designed to minimize crew time requirements for payload installation via standard “plug-in” interfaces at multiple levels — rack, drawer, locker, nanocube). There’s also remote monitoring, commanding, and tele-operations capability.
The engineers used intelligent design, now the research needs to evolve w/increasing intelligence.
BTW…it was the late Nobel laureate Barry Blumberg, who was for a time NASA Chief Scientist, that first advised me there was plenty of hi-value research that didn’t require hi-crewtime. But, that was before the leader at the time of the entrenched special interest groups drove him out of HQ.
I am very skeptical of the value of numerical scales in prioritizing research. They tend to reward grantsmanship, not science. If you know the field, yet are open to new ideas, you can identify good proposals almost immediately from the nature of the idea, not the number of publications the PI has or the one-to-one correspondence between the requirements in the RFP and the bullets in the proposal.
It’s very difficult to really keep abreast of a field, not just on paper but by personal experience. But if you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be judging proposals.
Is the issue not the failure of the ISS National Laboratory Reference Model, the procurement and its resultant award? Now NASA is trying to cover up a gusher of a wound with a Band-Aid. For this to still be going on; trying to “figure out” how to sell the unique research capabilities of the ISS at this late date is dereliction of duty.