1. DeterminingPotential Metricsfor Political Risk
in the Space MissionCampaign Process
AnthonyHennig, TheGeorgeWashington
University,Washington D.C
Dr. Dale Arney, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton,Virginia
Dr. ChrisJones, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton Virginia
Overview
In 2006, the writersof the ExplorationSystems
Architecture Studyrecognizedthatpoliticalrisk
playedarole in the space missioncampaign
process. Technologypolicywriterssuchas
RogerHandbergidentifiedthatspace missions
and “bigscience”policyprograms (withregards
to the ISS andSuperConductingSupercollider,
2001) withdistributedeconomicimpacttendto
succeedincomparisontofocusedinvestment
as well.Discussionswithvariouslegislative
affairsanalysts,NASA LangleyResearchCenter
missionanalystswithinthe Space Mission
AnalysisBranch,andgroups like the Office of
Chief Financial Officerof NASA Langley
ResearchCenterreflectthe same,butthere has
beennosufficientwaytomeasure these risks
or understand the linkage betweenfunding
missionelementdevelopmentandrisksatthe
NASA Centerlevel.
Ultimately,the goal of thissummerworkperiod
was to figure outa methodtoproduce
quantitative andcomparable measure of the
political risksassociatedwithagivencampaign
and choice of options todevelopandproduce
necessarymissionelements.
Methods-EconomicImpactAnalysis
The firstattemptto developthistool focused
on recreatinganEconomicImpact Analysis(EIA)
suite,suchas IMPLAN (IMpact analysisfor
PLANing),tomeasure the potential direct,
indirect,andinducedeffectsof fundinga
missioncampaign.Inthe process,usingBudget
requestsforNASA andhistorical databooks
(NASA SP-4012),a map of missionelement
capabilitieswasdevelopedthatcouldbe used
to predicthardware capabilitylocations.
However,evenwiththismap andattemptsto
create economicregions,uncertaintyprevented
EIA fromproducing meaningful results.
Methods-Production ImpactEngine
Insteadof lookingatthe total production
systemformissionelements,the second
attemptfocusedonsimplymodelingthe impact
of changingbudgetsonthe fundingforcenters.
UsingFTE employmentnumbersgenerated
fromWorkforce InformationCubesforNASA
and the annual Federal Budget,aswell as
assumingfunddistributionwasproportional to
FTE distribution,the breakdownof project
fundingbycenterwascreated. There wassome
error fromverifiedfunding levelswhichwas
mostlikelycausedbyunmeasuredinvolvement
of contractorsthroughcenterslike NASA
Headquarters andthe JetPropulsion
Laboratory.
Ultimately,thissystemprovideda “whatif”
analysisforspace missionarchitectures to
understandthe effectof programmaticfunding
changes,theirimpactat the centerlevel,and
changesovertime as a campaignmaturesfrom
technologydevelopmenttosustainment.
Outcomes, Conclusions, and NextSteps
The ProductionImpactEngine ultimatelycould
provide insightsintothe longtermchangesat
the centerlevel withregardstofunding as
space policyandmissioncampaignmanifests
change.From thisinitial work,one linkage of
the largerspace missionarchitectingand
agendasettingprocessbecame betterknown.
Thiscouldbe implementedwithinthe Space
MissionAnalysisBranchtoprovide more insight
intothe political process orto be usedto
compare betweentechnologydevelopmentand
fundingoptionsforagivenmissioncampaign
and architecture.