Article Efficiency Research after
Ct 8 16 06
AIAA-2006-7224
Space Research: Organizing for Economical Efficiency*а
A. Johnson
J&A
Co., New York , USA
Abstract
а At present time the
а The author worked for many years
within the
*Accepted as AIAA-2006-7224 by Conference "Space-2006", 19-21
September 2006, San Jose, California, USA.
аа Key words: Organizing
scientific research, planning of research, funding research, funding new ideas
(concepts), funding inventions and innovations, estimating research cost,
assessment of research results, research efficiency criteria, innovation in
organizing of scientific R&D.
аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Support of new concepts
3. Studies of Innovation
4. Government relation
5. NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts)
6. NASA (National Aeronautic and Space
Administration)
7. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency)
8. NSF (National Science Foundation) and
Government Research Laboratories
9. SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research
10. Publications
11. Patenting
12. Summary
1. Introduction
аSince beginning of the Twentieth Century,
science and technology have held the main role in human progress. Humanity
created more new knowledge more than during many previous centuries. People
researched aerodynamics, flight dynamics and the design of aircraft. Trained people
developed rocket theory and traveled to outer space and the Moon.а Organized research focused on nuclear physics
began the exploration of nuclear energy and the creation of powerful computers,
which help in further study of Nature.а
AstronomyТs devices allow humans to see and study worlds located
millions of the light years beyond Earth.
а The power and influence any modern State in
our World is defined by its science, technology, and industry. The
а If the people of the
аThe second very important side of scientific
R&D is the efficient use of available funding. The financing of any project
is limited everywhere, every time. Unlimited funding is inconceivable. The
right organization of scientific funding and research is a very important
element of scientific progress. That includes: organizing and selection of the
most feasible prospective ideas and innovations for research, selection of a
Уcan doФ principal investigator ‑ scientists who is the author or
enthusiast of this idea, right estimation of the project cost, reached results
and perspectives of applications.а
а All these problems are very complex for investigations.
However, there are common criteria that help to solve these problems of
selection and organization and save a lot of money and achieve practical
success in short period of time.
а The investigation of these macro-problems is
impossible without consideration of current systems and uncovering (critics)
its disadvantages. The author suggests new criteria and new forms of organizing
science funding that were tested/applied in limited cases and which show a high
efficiency.а He also offers new criteria
for estimation of science results which allows more evenly to estimate the
honesty of finished scientific work reports by specialists and to separate
pseudo-scientific or non-honest works.
а For customers, leadership and management is
also very important for correct estimation of the cost of an offered research,
a capability of principal investigator, group, or organization to do this
research. Unfortunately, the practice shows mistakes occur very often and they
cost millions of dollars. The author suggests a set of simple rules that allow
avoiding the big mistake and big slips in planning of research works.
а The human element is very important in the
selection and distribution of limited funding. In many organization we observe
and comment on the situation when large government money distributionЧmoney
shifted from all taxpayers to just one man. As the result he begins to give
money to his friends, to his colleagues or worse ‑ to take bribe. He
keeps elementary information about the activities of his organization secret.
The author offers a method for selections making this practice difficult to
initiate or continue, allowing avoidance of criminality.
2. Support of new concepts
The monetary support of new aviation and
space concepts is the basic component of technical progress. All useful things,
which we see around us everyday, were developed from new concepts, ideas
researched in past. What is the situation now? Consider the state of affairs
now.
а
Science and technology are very complex and have very high level now.
The production of new valid concepts and ideas, and the effort to fully
substantiate them, can ONLY be done nowadays by highly educated people.а The
а In
all countries the composers, writers, artists receive a royalty for performance
of their musical compositions, books, works of Art. Why must scientists gift
their hard work on new concepts, ideas, theories, and equations for
computations? It is just if companies used their method of computation to pay a
small ($1000) royalty for author.
3. Studies of Innovation
The development of new
concept and idea can be presented in 4 stages (fig.1). Efficiency, E, is possible profit, P, divided by cost, C, of realization.
ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа E=P/C. аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (1)аааааа
аааааааааааааааааа 
аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Fig.
1. Four Stage innovation development.
The innovation development
has 4 stages:
1)
The first stage is discovery of
new concepts or idea. That stage includes an appearance of new idea and INITIAL
RESEARCH of its possibilities and main conditions that are requisite for its
practicability, initial proof of reality. A person can be only author of a new concept
or idea if he/she made initial research and showed that this idea may become a
future technical reality. A person who ONLY gave the ideaа (point 0 in fig.1) is NOT its author because
it is easy to produce a lot of ideas that are beneath or beyond realization.
For example, the fantast Jules Verne (1828-1905) penned his famous book about
the first manned flight to the Moon using a huge cannon. Is he author of the
idea for manned flight to Moon employing a big gun? No. Even primitive research
shows that a human cannot tolerate the acceleration that is caused by this
method, where the vehicle is a cannonball.
а The first stage is ONLY theoretical; strong
individual and talented enthusiast in own time without any support because
unknown concept or idea cannot be in government or company plan.
2)
The second stage started after
publication or public announcement of the primary idea during a scientific
conference. Other researchers join the investigation of the new idea and make
more detailed researches. Most of this new idea research is theoretical, and
only a small part may be experimental.
3)
The third stage includes the
production of appropriate experimental examples.
4)
The fourth stage is actual
production of marketable versions of the idea.
а We show the development of one innovation
(curve 1 in fig.1). However, any concept exhausts itself and its inherent
efficiency possibilities over time. The new concept (idea) appears which
promises even more efficiency (curve 2 in fig.1). Conventionally, in initial
time that has less efficiency then old idea, but in future the innovation
efficiency became significantly more than old idea.
а For example, as people use an idea to connect
a vehicle to horse. Later they invited a motor vehicle. Then they developed air
vehicle. At present, humanity is developing space vehicles.
а
4. Government relation
а Currently, the most important First Stage is
the most difficult situation. No Federal or reliable private sector funding, no
extraneous technical support of any kind. This work can do ONLY enthusiasts at
one's own expense. Funding of the new perspective concept or idea is needed
AFTER its initial theoretical research by a widely system of awards and prizes.
For example, the Director of NIAC, Mr. Cassanova, made a sinecure for his friends
from funding grants BEFORE theoretical research. Most NIAC works are
pseudo-scientific researches (see below in section NIAC).
Recommendations:
There is only one solution
of this macro-problem Ц the
- Given ONLY for new concepts and ideas developed by author and published
or presented in scientific conference or Internet (stage 1 in fig.1).
- The awards must be given ONLY to individuals.
- The competition must be OPEN, advertised widely in public notices.
ALL pretenders and their work and proposals announced BEFORE any awards.
- The awarding Committee must be from independent well-known
scientists in given field.
а The same awards may be also in stage 2
(developing new concept or idea by non-author of this idea if the author of
idea is awarded; or non-author make significant innovations which develop or
solve problems important for progress this idea). In stage 3 the grants can be
given ONLY for experiment or model.
аа
5. NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts)
а The non-experienced reader
objects - there exists NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts) that must
support new concepts and ideas in aerospace. The World press
wroteЧsometimes--that NIAC Director Mr. Cassanova made from this good idea the
sinecure for his friends, protégés and useful people (http://NASA-NIAC.narod.ru).а
а Mr. Cassanova invented new method
of aggravated theft of Government money: he awards his friends with millions of
а Mr. Cassanova (NIAC) announced
that every proposal is reviewed by 6 reviewers (3 internal + 3 external
reviewers), but he refuses to identify or present these reviews. Why?
аа The explanations are very simple: NO
review panels, NO peer reviewers, NO scientists who took part in the review
process, NO voting, NO scientists who see the proposals! Everything is just fabricated
fiction. There is only just Mr. Cassanova in NIAC who changes all reviewers,
all scientists (in all scientific fields!), all panels, and all debates. Who
distributes un-enumerated millions government (taxpayers) money to friends and
insiders.
аа What kinds of proposals are
awarded money supports by Mr. Cassanova? An important part of the answer to
this question can be easily found by the reader at a website: http://NASA-NIAC.narod.ru and others.
Overview:а The NIAC spent more 40 millions dollars in 8
years, but they did not really put forth any really new concepts or ideas! The
most NIAC final УresearchФ reports are idle talk (no scientific results, no
pre-production models, no correct scientific report, the final reports content
a lot of scientific mistakes, and so on). For example, the final reports donТt
have any scientific results: Space Elevator (award about 1 millions dollars),
Bio Suite (awards about 1 millions dollars), Chameleon Suit (award about 1
millions dollars), Weather Control (awards about 1 millions dollars), Winglee
M2P2 MagSail (award about 2 millions dollars), Cocoon vehicle (work contains
only scientific mistakes), anti-matter sail (empty useless non-scientific 7
pages work), and so on (see Final Reports in http://NASA-NIAC.narod.ru).
Now the NIAC is
just a private manger for УfriendsФ and has spent 90% of government-issued
taxpayers money not very effectively, and specifically in fraudulent and
criminal ways (see http://NASA-NIAC.narod.ru).
аа For example, Mr. Robert Cassanova awarded
four times millions of dollars to the following persons: Howe S., Colozza A., Nock K., Cash W., Dubowsky S.а He also awarded three or four times millions
of taxpayer contributions to these persons: Hoffman
R. Maise G., McCarmack E., Rice E.,
The Science Committee of the organization
"Citizens Against Government Waste"
(CAGW) awarded NIAC and
Mr. Cassanova the "Pseudo-Nobel
Prize-2005" for wasting
millions of taxpayer dollars by pseudo-scientific works (GOTO: http://www.geocities.com/auditing.science
or http://auditing-science.narod.ru).
Recommendations:
The President
and Congress of the
In this saddening and costly national situation, it is the best decision, to stop the wasteful and ineffective financing of NIAC and pass their functions to Independent Committee created from well-known scientists, or NASA can create its own Committee from eminent volunteer scientists or to pass selected managerial functions to the National Science Academy, or National Science Foundation and to send awards only to finished scientific works in OPEN competition, or pass these vital functions to the growing and historically relevant and important International Space Agency Organization (http://www.international-space-agency.org or http://www.isa-hq.net) which would be better suited, and able, to stimulate, enable, and promote advanced space launch, propulsion, power, orbital, and planetary grant disbursements, R&D and implementation.а This is based on an ever-increasing need for global cooperation, collaboration, common effort, and universal viewpoint.а The International Space AgencyТs Directives, Charter, Purpose, Goals, and Certificate of Incorporation reflects this reality far better than the USRA or NIAC directives or charters. The many millions in Government-dispensed tax monies & private sector money and other relevant resources would be better used under the management and oversight of the International Space Agency Organization.
The CAGW Science Committee has available already an offer to NASA for a detailed plan on how to improve the work of NIAC, making it more open and its product more useful, and to change the dismal situation when one too-powerful and influential person, exemplified in the person of Mr. Cassanova personally distributes tens millions of taxpayer money with no safe guards or oversight.а
This plan includes three conventional conditions:
1. Independent selection Committee having widely-known E-mail address.
2. Open competition with publication of all nominated scientific works on Internet, including assessments made by scientists before any funding awards.
3. Awarding ONLY MADE scientific works not supported from other sources.
Discussing
а The
CAGW Science Committee considered, in detail, seven of about two hundred awards
made by Mr. Cassanova (GOTO: http://www.geocities.com/auditing.science
or http://auditing-science.narod.ru).
Amazingly, 90% of the Уfinal reportsФ are just idle talk giving the impression
to readers that there are NO talented scientists in the
The USA National Research Council (NRC) and
ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated Universities) found the best solution of this
problem Ц one send scientists to government research centers or laboratories
and they works full time 1-2 years into it.
аConclusion
The best way is to withdraw this function and
this money from NASA-NIAC-USRA, pass them to Special Government (or the
The Nobel Committee is not awarding the
person who only promised to make notable research. Why does Mr. Cassanova give
out millions of American taxpayer dollars to his friends without any control
and government auditing? Any non-scientist can see that their Уfinal reportsФ
are idle talk, non-scientific works and do not cost the gigantic money which
Mr. Cassanova gives his protégé.
6.
NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration)
аThe NASA announced that it invites
new concepts and ideas and publicizes the address where scientists can send
their researches and proposals. I personally know excellent scientists who have
sent more than twenty R&D proposals documents to this address:
NASA HEADQUARTERS, Unsolicited Proposal Coordinating Office
Attn: Sandy Russo, proposal coordinator, Code 210.H
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt , MD 20771
Sandra.R.Russo@nasa.gov
аSome of them included in their
letters a US Postal Service green return receipt postal card.а But some months they have not received not
only reply from NASA but they cannot receive their postal card ‑
confirmation about receiving research and proposal. That means ‑ all NASA
appeals about innovations are FICTION. NASA became a gigantic organization that
spends huge taxpayer money and has the lowest scientific efficiency in the
World.
а Example #1: The former
а Example #2: In 1998 one scientist proposed a means to send to Mars a
probe containing hundreds cheap micro-balloons. Every balloon was to have a
micro-camera, other devices and radio-translator connected to the planet
orbiting main Mars satellite. The balloon can sustain flights for months and
transmit detailed close-up Mars pictures. However, the NASA spent tens millions
dollars in non-scientific project of small model of aircraft which can make
only one non-controlled flight of a couple of miles. Why?а The reason is simple and apparent ‑ in
2003 it will be 100 years of Wright brother flight and for public propaganda
needs NASA sought a quick propaganda "achievement". Result: NASA
spent about 100 millions dollars but cannot send the model of aircraft.
а Real scientists who have in the
past and still today cooperate with NASA quietly note the low skill level of
many NASA employees. I know very highly educated (two Ph.D.), experienced
scientist (author more 100 scientific works and tens inventions, who applied in
NASA open position of project manager. The personnel department informed him
that he doesn't have a needed score for possible candidate. He applied in three
open NASA positions of research engineers. The answers were same. He tried to
get Government investigation of this case. Commission ascertained: the NASA
took these positions the people having only B.D., did not have experience,
published scientific works, patented inventions.аа
аа After collapse of the
Recommendations:
1. NASA must be
separated into two independent, rival organizations. The funding of them must
depend solely on their progress in Space.
2. The leaders
of programs and leader-scientists must be selected in OPEN competition on limit
time (time of project). The open competition means that the data of applicators
must be published on the Internet BEFORE selection of them by scientific
Committee. Now everywhere in the USA (in state and government positions) the
open competition of applicants is absolute fiction because of the public
absence of data of any selected candidate (education, experience, number of
publications and awarded patents).
3. NASA must create the independent Scientific Committee for OPEN consideration the scientific works and proposals that are presented to NASA, awards for useful MADE researches and recommends perspective works for subsequent investigation. NASA can advance funding only research that use special equipment or make a model. NASA must install the NASA prizes for individual researchers who have openly offered new concepts and ideas.а
1.
7. DARPA (Defense Advanced Project Agency)
а DARPA is special government
organization for promotion and development of new concepts and ideas. I know
scientists that sent their proposals to DARPA for consideration. They received
an exceedingly strange answer: "Your proposal no in out plan!" How
new (unknown anybody!) concepts or idea to be in DARPA plan? That is sent for
consideration and including in plan! That means the DARPA is operating out its
main purpose - careful consideration of serious proposals and their financial
support. The plan makes not Science Committee from well-known scientists. That
makes bureaucrats according with corporative interests who spent hundreds
millions of dollars for projects which cost in hundreds times less.
а Example. The DARPA decided to produce a micro-craft that allows the
soldier to see what is behind a building, bushes, forest, etc. That is very
important for saving the lives of soldiers in conditions of wartime and
policemen during peacetime. The industry produced micro TV camera (volume is 1
cm3, weight 3-5 g together
with battery), radio control for small aircraft models (you have seen the
children radio control cars).
аHow will experienced man do it?
There are millions of hobby model aircraft constructors in the USA. They do not
know high science. But they can produce many models and experimentally select
from the best. Experienced officer announced a prize ($100 ‑ 200K),
after 6 months make a competition, selected and to get a product ready.аа
а What do DARPA bureaucrats make?
They go conventional way, enlisting the usual universities and the usual
scientist-professors. DARPA spent many millions of dollars on research
committed by professors and big-name universities. They received tons of
equations and not a single flight model!
аAfter the reckless waste of $100
millions the DARPA passed this project to Air Force Laboratories. They continue
this wrong innovation method by spending even more millions of the American
taxpayers money. I took part in summary reports of universities. What is
typical situation? The university got a grant (about $100K). They present the
report with equations, model made in Air Force Laboratory. They reported about
8 tests of this model (5 times is successful, 2 times is partially successful,
and 1 time unsuccessful). I offered to go out from building and repeat test Ц
to reveal what is behind a certain building. They would not agree. Why? Reason:
all testing were not successful, model is not control and cannot do the needed
function (recognizing).а
Recommendations: Special Science Committee
for consideration of proposals, open competition and publication of Abstracts
of all proposals.
8. NSF (National Science Foundation) and Government Research Laboratories
аAll problems of DARPA have place
in NSF and Government Research Laboratories. See Recommendation above.
9. SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research
а All problems above are same for
SBIR. The SBIR considers practically only proposals corresponding plan, topics
of given department. Idea of SBIR is funding innovations of small business
(group, individuals). But its small business is definition is an organization
having 500 employees! That allows the universities and big companies separated
their department and presented it as "small business". We have a
similar situation with NIAC - employees have salary and not interested in given
innovation, hard works.
а
Common note: Most universities, small business and proposed work
project initiators are interested ONLY in getting money grants. They do not
have need scientists (especially enthusiasts), needed experience in given
field, needed equipments. In most cases, the grants are given on the quiet. It
is essential to have coattails.а As the
result, the customerЧthe American taxpayerЧreceives empty works,
pseudo-scientific research.
а Example.
аI want to give one example of
relation of noted organizations to revolutionary innovations.
а I personally know one Moscow,
Russia university professor. He is a well-known specialist in structural
strength, having many scientific works and books. He invented a new location of
stringers on thin casing which increases a shellТs stability by 2 - 3 times
(that means a decreasing weight of aircraft, missile, ships structure of about
20 ‑ 30%а ‑ surely a
revolution in aviation, rockets, ships). He TESTED his innovations in Moscow
and received excellent results. He arrived in the USA and began to offer his
innovation to NASA, DARPA, Air Force, Department of Defense, NAVY, commercial
and military aviation companies. He did not ask immediately for a research
grant, he merely asked only to test conventional structures and his stronger
panels and make sure of his findings. He spent some years seeking such help.
Everywhere, he doesn't receive answers, or received empty formatted replies, or
answer ‑ his innovation absents in plan.
а That means: all noted
bureaucratic organizations retard progress by the USA.а
а
10. Publications
а There are well-known organizations
such as the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. One makes a big
work, organizes aerospace conferences and publishes a series of aerospace
journals. But it doesn't have support from government and NASA and it became a
strictly commercial organization. For example, the cost of participation in
AIAA conferences is very high. That means only employees of government and big
organizations can take part in scientific forums. But they show only
conventional R&D plans.а The new
revolutionary ideas and researches are made by talented individuals,
enthusiasts in their free time. They can make a revolutionary research, but
they do not have a lot of money (some thousands of dollars) for payment of
trip, hotel and conference fee. Literally, the
а Editors of AIAA journals do not
get salary for their arduous efforts. That means they want to see their name in
every copy of journal, but they do not want to work as editor. They pass
article to reviewer and pass review to author. That function can be done via
computer. Some of them converted the journal in private edition for their
friends and protégé. For example, all 20 revolutionary researches
published in recent comprehensive book "Non-Rocket
Space Launch and Flight", Elsevier, London, 2006, offered for
publication inа AIAA "Journal of Power and Propulsion" (JPP), but all were
rejected by editor-in-chief Vigor Yang as researches
are written non-American style and having poor English. What is "American
style" he cannot explain, English the readers can see the book and decide:
is it important reason in refusal in revolutionary innovations? For some last
years the "JPP" have not published any revolutionary ideas, but
published many articles having principle scientific mistakes. The same
situation with AIAA "Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets" (Editor-in-Chief Vincent
Zoby).
аа It is bad, that the USA has only
single journal about power and propulsion system or spacecraft and American
authors must publish new ideas and researches in abroad journals.
аа It is bad that commercial
publishing houses do not want to publish scientific literature, because it is
not profitable. As a result, the scientific literature (and text-books) are
very expensive and prohibitive not only for students, but for scientists.
аа It is bad that no free
scientific Internet library and AIAA sells every scientific article for $10.
Recommendations:
1. The USA must
have minimum two rival journals in every scientific field. Every journal must
have Appeal Commission where author can complain if he/she does not agree with
editor clearly stated reasons for article rejection.
2. Every National
Conference must have small fund for supporting the individuals presented
revolutionary research and give them possibility to address a meeting.
3. Government and
NASA must support with appropriate funding the points 1-2 above (scientific
journal and scientific conferences), the AIAA (and all big old Scientific
Societies), the scientific publishing houses, the free scientific Internet
library.
4. The AIAA (and
all big old Scientific Societies) must free publish in Internet all manuscripts
presented in AIAA Scientific Conferences. аа
аThe Government, country loss more
on obstacles which exists for appearing and applications new ideas, the most of
them produced by individual talented researchers.
а
11. Patenting
а The USA Constitution proclaims a
support of science and patenting. Unfortunately, the USA PTO (Patent and
Trademark Office) had become a powerful means to extract money from inventive
people. The Payment for PTO equals some thousands dollars and prohibitive for
individuals. The patenting approval process continues for at least 1-2 years.
If the inventor complains, the PTO can sabotage all your inventions. I
personally know of a case when an inventor paid for invention but PTO did not
give a patent. The PTO creates a lot of Rules that permit the pumping of money
from people and that allows the sabotaging of the patenting process.
Recommendations:
1. Now the PTO has
rates for big Companies and for small Business. It must be a special rate for
individuals and FULL payment (application, patenting, and maintenance) must be
not more $100 for them.
2. It must be
category "important patents for Department of Defense and the USA".
If Special Committee recognized a patent application as necessary (important)
for Department of Defense or the USA, the applicant has a right to a free
patenting (he received only author certificate, the Government get all patent
rights), all USA organizations or companies can use this patent but they must
pay its author 1% and PTO 1% from cost of product used under this patent.
3. All income
received by PTO must be used for support of individual inventors.
12. Summary
аCurrent system organization and funding of science
researches is not efficiency especially for NIAC, NASA, DARPA, DoD, AF, SBIR,
NSF, PTO. They need reorganization. Main components of reformation must be the
following:ааааа
- The unwise
and wasteful practice of advance funding of primary theoretical researches
must be stopped and changed to OPEN competitions in any given field and in
given topics. NASA must stop funding NIAC and must demand from USRA to
return money held by Mr. CasanovaТs group.аа
- Government
must install 3-5 annual Government Prizes (about $100K) in every important
field of science (space, aviation, computer, physics, biology, energy,
etc.) for important THEORETICAL achievements made by individuals.
- The
company used new method of computation must pay small ($1000) royalties to
authors from every use.
- NASA must
be divided into two independent rival organizations.
- The main
method funding of research must be not funding Universities but it must be
the work of University scientists done during 1-3 years as Fellow
researchers in big Government laboratories.
- NASA,
DARPA, Government laboratories must engage a head and main specialists of
every project in OPEN concourses, preferably the authors of project
(proposal) and scientists made main contributions in the project idea or
concepts.
- The Government
must support main scientific journals, publishing houses, free Internet
scientific libraries; аindividual
scientists presented an important researches to scientific national
conferences.
- Government
must make special small rate (<$100) for individual inventors, free
patenting of important for DoD and the USA inventions and to use all PTO
profit for support individual inventors important for DoD and the USA.
Referenses
- GOTO: http://NASA-NIAC.narod.ru
- GOTO: http://www.geocities.com/auditing.science
or http://auditing-science.narod.ru