![Partnership Model – Value Proposition
[perceived benefit to cost of partnership]
High
[Ben/Cost>>1]
Innovative partnerships
Moderate
[Ben/Cost>1]
Value to NASA
Standard partnership mechanism
Low No partnership potential
[Ben/Cost<1]
Low Moderate High
[Ben/Cost<1] [Ben/Cost>1] [Ben/Cost>>1]
Value to Partner
[perceived benefit to cost of partnership]
• IPP objective should be to maximize partnership value for both
NASA and partner.
• Refer back to the partnership model for value and ask:
– What impact will this aspect of the partnership have on value?
– What are other opportunities to increase value?
9](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/comstockdoug-120725121850-phpapp01/85/Comstock-doug-9-320.jpg)
Comstock doug
- 1. Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) “What can IPP do for you?” Project Management Challenge 2007 Team Building Blocks February 6, 2007 1
- 2. Topics • What is the Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP)? • What does IPP do? • How does IPP help programs and projects? • How can I get IPP to help me? 2
- 3. Agency Organization 3
- 4. Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) • IPP provides leveraged technology investments, dual-use technology- related partnerships, and technology solutions for NASA. • IPP consists of the following program elements: – Technology Infusion which includes the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs and the IPP Seed Fund; – Innovation Incubator which includes activities such as Centennial Challenges and new efforts to facilitate purchase from services from the emerging commercial space sector; and – Partnership Development which includes Intellectual Property management, Technology Transfer, and new innovative partnerships. • IPP enables cost avoidance, and accelerates technology maturation. • IPP increases NASA's connection to emerging technologies in the external communities, enables targeted positioning of NASA's technology portfolio in selected areas, and secure NASA's intellectual property to provide fair access and to support NASA's strategic goals. • Dual-use partnerships and licensing create socio-economic benefits within the broader community through technology transfer. 4
- 5. Policy and Statutory Authority for IPP • National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 • Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 • Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 • Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 • Small Business Innovation Research Development Act of 1982 • NASA Authorization Act of 2005 • Several other statutes • NASA 2006 Strategic Plan 5
- 6. FY 2008 Budget Request 6
- 7. IPP Themes What are our primary roles? • Facilitator – Bringing parties together, both inside and outside the agency. – Bridging communication gaps to improve the value we can provide to the agency. • Catalyst – Acting as a pathfinder for implementing new things – change agent. – Creating new partnerships. – Demonstrating effectiveness of new approaches and methods. How do we approach an issue? • We are always seeking to add value towards Agency priorities and objectives • Mindset must be “No” we – “Yes” we can do this “if” can’t do this “because” 7
- 8. Partnership Model Other….. Academia National Laboratories Partnership Other Gov’t Agencies Mechanisms Industry NASA Offerings Partner Offerings • $ Funding • Technology • FAR Contracts • Facilities use • Services • Comm’l Contracts • Technology use • Innovation • Grants • Expertise access • Expertise • Coop Agreement • Brand Association • Intell. Property • Space Act Agr • Product Validation • Outreach • MOU • Space Env’t Access • $ Funding • MOA • Intellectual Property • Facilities • Licensing • Other • Other • Other … • … … A. Incurred ‘Cost’ of offerings C. Incurred ‘Cost’ of offerings B. Perceived ‘benefit’ to partner D. Perceived ‘benefit’ to NASA from NASA offerings from partner offerings Value of partnership to NASA = D/A Value of partnership to Partner = B/C 8
- 9. Partnership Model – Value Proposition [perceived benefit to cost of partnership] High [Ben/Cost>>1] Innovative partnerships Moderate [Ben/Cost>1] Value to NASA Standard partnership mechanism Low No partnership potential [Ben/Cost<1] Low Moderate High [Ben/Cost<1] [Ben/Cost>1] [Ben/Cost>>1] Value to Partner [perceived benefit to cost of partnership] • IPP objective should be to maximize partnership value for both NASA and partner. • Refer back to the partnership model for value and ask: – What impact will this aspect of the partnership have on value? – What are other opportunities to increase value? 9
- 10. Innovative Partnerships Program Office Director Deputy Director Secretary Staff Functions Resources Management Administrative Officer Chief Technologist Communications Innovation Incubator Partnership Technology Infusion Development Enterprise Engine Technology Transfer SBIR/STTR Centennial Challenges Intellectual Property Seed Fund New Activities New Innovative Partnerships IPP Offices at each of NASA’s Field Centers ARC DFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC 10
- 11. SBIR/STTR: 3-Phase Program • PHASE I – Feasibility study – $100K award – 6 months duration (SBIR) – 12 months duration (STTR) • PHASE II – Technology Development – 2-Year Award – $750K (SBIR/STTR) • PHASE III – Technology Infusion/Commercialization Stage – Use of non-SBIR Funds – Ability to award sole-source contracts without JOFOC based on specific SBIR authority – NASA and NASA primes 11
- 12. SBIR Programmatic Profile * FY06 program Budget Awarded in FY07 (September 06) ** FY07 President’s Budget Request 12
- 13. STTR Programmatic Profile * FY06 Budgeted Awards actually made in FY07 (September 06) ** FY07 President’s Budget Request 13
- 14. SBIR Transition • Focus on Technology Infusion • Work closely with Mission Directorates to incorporate SBIR investments as an integral component of their technology roadmaps • New Level III Centers will have key roles in performing this work with the Mission Directorates, providing a decision support and analysis role to help the Mission Directorates prioritize and make the best technology investment decisions. • Proposed alignment is a hybrid approach with key relationships between Level III Centers and Mission Directorates, but also some crosscutting areas assigned to Level III Centers that require coordination and prioritization across multiple Mission Directorates. Level III Ctr. GRC JPL ARC LaRC Mission Dir. ARMD SMD SOMD ESMD Crosscutting Comm Smallsats (SOMD/ESMD/SMD) (ESMD/SMD/SOMD) Human Life Sciences (ESMD/SOMD) 14
- 15. SBIR Technologies on Mars Exploration Rovers Yardney Technical Products of Pawtucket, Connecticut developed lithium ion batteries with specific energy of >100Wh/kg and energy density of 240 Wh/l and long cycle life. Subsequently, they won a large Air Force/NASA contract to develop batteries for space applications. They are supplying the batteries for the 2003 Mars Rovers. Maxwell Technologies of San Starsys Research of Diego, California fabricated and Boulder, Colorado tested an ASCII chip with single developed several paraffin event latch up protection based heat switches that technology. Innovation enables the function autonomously. use of commercial chip technology Heat switches control in space missions, providing higher radiator for electronics performance at a lower cost. package on Mars 2003 Supplying A to D converter for Rovers. Mars 2003 Rovers. 15
- 16. 16
- 17. NASA SBIR Contributions to the AURA Mission Composite Optics Provided light weight, large aperture reflector of graphite reinforced composite material with high surface accuracy for the MLS DeMaria Electrooptics Under a $6.5 million contract with JPL, the company provided a terahertz radiometer for the MLS Spaceborne The company supplied two correlator chips that make the Seaspace analog to digital signal conversion and clean up the Corporation signal received by MLS Developed low cost system that makes it possible for universities and other purchasers to receive the data transmissions from AURA 17
- 18. 18
- 19. SBIR Technologies on Deep Impact Mission Barr Associates Scimeasure Analytical Systems Provided optical filters for filter wheels The highest quality images from a ground observatory and a dichroic beam splitter located in were made possible by wave front sensor cameras from mission instruments on the flyby Scimeasure Analytical Systems. These cameras are key spacecraft. These instruments gathered to the adaptive optics at the Palomar Observatory where images that will be used to analyze the astronomers continue to track the consequences of the results of the material ejected by the impact on comet Tempel 1. impact and the crater created by the impact. Composite Optics High Resolution Instrument Provided three telescope structures constructed from light weight, thermally stable composite materials. The structures were for the medium and high resolution imaging instruments on the flyby spacecraft and the telescope (not shown) on the Medium Resolution Instrument impactor. 19
- 20. Miniature Cryogenic Turboalternator (for Hubble Space Telescope) INNOVATION • Developed miniature, high speed, vibration free turboalternator ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Creare, Inc of Hanover, NH developed high speed shaft in cryogenic gas bearings; high precision, and automated miniature rotor fabrication techniques. • Demonstrated operations at 50° Kelvin. • Successful installation and operation of a 75° Kelvin cooler on Hubble Space Telescope NICMOS instrument. 20
- 21. Phase III SBIR Contracting • Congress provided authority to allow funding of SBIR firms with Phase III contracts on a sole-source basis without need for a JOFOC. • Congress specifically intended that not only NASA, but prime contractors be able to easily utilize SBIR firms for subcontracts. • The SBA’s SBIR Policy Guide indicates that: – “…Congress intends that agencies or…..Government prime contractors that pursue R/R&D or production developed under the SBIR program, give preference, including sole source awards, to the awardee that developed the technology.” • If an SBIR firm has a technology that is appropriate for use under a prime contract, the Prime can non-competitively award a subcontract and use the SBIR Phase III status as justification. • The Policy Guide states “The competition for SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards satisfies any competition requirement of …the Competition in Contracting Act…..” • This may simplify the documentation required for a subcontract and expedite award. 21
- 22. IPP Seed Fund • The IPP Seed Fund has been established to enhance NASA’s ability to meet Mission capability goals by providing leveraged funding to address technology barriers via cost-shared, joint- development partnerships. • The IPP Office at NASA HQ provided a Seed Fund Announcement of Opportunity to all NASA centers and received 76 proposals. • All Seed Fund proposals, to be executed over a period of one year, were developed through the collaboration of three principal partners: – a Partnership Manager (Center IPPO); – a Co-Principal Investigator (NASA Program or Project Office); and – an External Co-Principal Investigator (Private Sector, Academia, Government Lab). • There were three principal criteria for selection: – relevance and value to NASA Mission Directorates, – scientific/technical merit and feasibility, and – leveraging of resources. • All proposals were reviewed by a HQ team of IPP and Mission Directorate experts, and 29 proposals were selected for funding. 22
- 23. IPP Seed Fund • The technology landscape covered by the successful proposals embraced the needs of all four of NASA’s Mission Directorates. • An additional highlight of the Seed Fund effort was the leveraging of funds as a result of contributions from the three partners. – $6.6 million of IPP Office funds, – $7.5 million came from Program, Project, Center funds, and – $14.2 million came from External Partner funds. • An investment of $6.6 million by IPP facilitated the generation of 29 partnerships and was leveraged by more than a factor of four, providing a total of $28.3 million for the advancement of critical technologies and capabilities for the Agency. • The IPP Office plans to continue the Seed Fund with an annual process for selecting additional innovative partnerships for funding, to address the technology priorities of NASA’s Mission Directorates. 23
- 24. Seed Fund TRL Advancement 10 9 Current TRL 8 TRL Post-Seed Fund 7 Numbers of Seed Fund Projects 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9 24
- 25. IPP Seed Fund – Proposals Selected IPP Center Proposal Title $ (K) ARMD ESMD SMD SOMD ARC Electronic Progonostics for Critical Avionics Systems $250 Integrating Sensor Suites and Rover Systems for Surface Prospecting: Enabling ISRU by ARC Human-Robot Teams $250 A Lunar Communication and Navigation Satellite Network Architecture--Internet Protocol, ARC Lasers and Small Satellites $250 Concept Study for the Application of Phase Diversity-Only Adaptive/Lightweight Optics to ARC NASA Science Missions Mission Directorate Table The Development and Investigation of the First Stage Of a Highly Reliable Reusable Launch $250 DFRC System $250 GRC Alternative Fuels for Next Generation Combustor Applications $250 New Lithium-ion Batteries with Enhanced Safety and Power Density for Future NASA and GRC Aerospace Missions $250 Lunar Communications for Exploration Activities Inside Craters: Non-line of Sight GRC Communication of the Moon without a Lunar Relay $250 Infusing Environmental Knowledge into Decision Support and Planning Tools for Exploration GSFC Mission Operations $242 GSFC Lightweight, Cryostable, Low-Cost Mirrors for the Next Generation of Space Telescopes $241 GSFC Development of a Continuous ADR and Integrated Control Electronics $175 GSFC Large Focal Plane Technology For Simultaneous Imaging and Guiding $250 JPL High Performance Amplifiers for Science Instruments $250 JPL Joint Hardware in the Loop Solid Propulsion Landing System Demonstration $250 JPL Real-time multi-mission autonomous onboard GN&C Instrument $400 JSC Multi-Terrain Loader for Lunar Surface Requirements Development $250 JSC Exploration/National Science Foundation (NSF) Habitat Field Demonstration $250 KSC Self-Healing Wire Insulation - Preventing Wiring Failures $110 KSC Cryo-TrackerØ Mass Gauging System Hardware and Flight Qualification Risk Reduction $250 LaRC Technologies for Cabin Noise Reduction $250 Four-Dimensional Flight Management to support the Next Generation Air Transportation LaRC System (NGATS) $250 Inflatable Technologies Advancement: Aero Performance Testing of High-Mach Decelerators LaRC and Materials Development for Inflatable Aeroshells $250 LaRC Space Radiation Analysis Tool $150 Remote Sensing of Temperature and Pressure for Improved Retrievals of Atmospheric LaRC Constituents $250 Validation of Cryogenic Composite Over-Wrapped Pressure Vessels and All-Composite MSFC Cryogenic Tanks Suitable for use in New Launch Vehicles $250 MSFC Fiber Reinforced Urethane Foam Development $185 GA-ISHM Root Cause Analysis Expansion Program- Intelligent Integrated System Health SSC Management (I2SHM) $125 PWR - Test-Stand and J2X Engine End-to-End Integrated System Health Management SSC (ISHM) Capability $90 ASRC/PSU - Ground Operations Health Management (GOHM) - A Framework for Intelligent SSC Integration of Technologies $165 Total IPP Funding $6,633 $1,250 $2,417 $2,066 $900 25
- 26. NASA’s Connection to Prizes Early European Aviation Prizes Led To The Creation of NACA • The progress of European aviation due to prizes and competitions became troubling to US observers. • Dr. Albert F. Zahm, head of the revived Smithsonian aeronautical laboratory originally founded by Samuel Pierpoint Langley, was dispatched to Europe along with Dr. Jerome C. Hunsaker of MIT to study the situation there. • Zahm’s report, issued in 1914 emphasized the disparity between European progress and American inertia. • The report led to the creation of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (later known as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics or NACA), the predecessor of NASA. – Source: Bilstein, Orders of Magnitude A History of the NACA and NASA, 1915-1990, NASA SP-4406,National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, 1989.” 26
- 27. How Do Prizes Benefit NASA? Increased Participation by New Sources of Innovation Leveraging of Tax- Payers’ Dollars Innovative Technology Development to Meet NASA’s Needs Increased Awareness of Science and Technology Hands-on Training for Future Workforce 27
- 28. CC Competitions in 2007 Competition Purses Comp. Date Personal Air Vehicle Challenge Personal Air Vehicle Challenge Astronaut Glove $250K April ’07 Regolith Excavation $250K 12 May ’07 Personal Air Vehicle $250K 4-12 August ’07 Regolith Excavation Challenge Regolith Excavation Challenge Beam Power $500K October ‘07 Tether $500K October ’07 Lunar Lander $2M October ’07 MoonROx (possible) $250K Exp. June ’08 Tether Challenge Tether Challenge Astronaut Glove Challenge Astronaut Glove Challenge Beam Power Challenge Beam Power Challenge MoonROx Challenge MoonROx Challenge Lunar Lander Challenge Lunar Lander Challenge 28
- 29. Commercial Space • One of NASA’s six agency-level goals is to encourage appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. • The Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) plays an important role – as both facilitator and catalyst – towards achieving that NASA goal. • IPP has been tasked to fulfill the role of being a single point of entry into NASA, for outside organizations seeking to partner with or provide services to NASA related to commercial space. – In this role, IPP will be a facilitator, seeking to connect outside capabilities and interests with internal needs and interests at HQ and the Centers – the goal is to make it easier for outside organizations to partner and work with NASA. • IPP has also been tasked to demonstrate the purchase of services from the emerging commercial space sector – for parabolic aircraft flight and suborbital flight – with those services to be used for microgravity research, technology development and training. – IPP is working with NASA’s Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP) and the Glenn Research Center (GRC), who are preparing a solicitation to establish an IDIQ contract for parabolic aircraft services. – IPP will offer funds and seek leveraging through partnerships, to use this contractual mechanism and demonstrate the business model for purchasing services to support NASA’s research and technology needs. 29
- 30. Innovation Transfusion • There is significant potential for NASA to learn and benefit from innovation occurring outside the agency • Some potential is being realized on ad hoc basis across the agency • IPP proposes a focused activity to more strategically realize this potential – Identify strategic areas of innovation that would benefit the agency – Identify target organizations to transfuse that innovation from – Identify key individuals with relevant expertise to participate • Innovation Transfusion would have three components: – Innovation Ambassadors • Assignment of NASA personnel to innovative orgs outside the agency to experience innovative practices first hand and bring that knowledge back to the agency – Innovation Field Visits • Regular visits to innovative orgs, with focused objectives to exchange ideas and practices in particular areas of innovation with strategic interest to NASA (e.g. Innovation Ambassador hosts) – Agency Dissemination • Use existing communication mechanisms to disseminate lessons learned and best practices to a broader agency audience 30
- 31. Partnership Activities in FY06 • During FY 2006, the Innovative Partnership Program (IPP) facilitated many partnerships and agreements, as summarized below: – Over 200 partnerships with the private sector, federal and state government, academia, and other entities for dual use technology development and reimbursable use of NASA facilities. – Over 50 license agreements with private entities for commercial and quality of life applications of NASA developed technology. – Reporting of more than 750 new technologies developed by NASA civil servants and contractors, and evaluation for patent protection. – More than 400 agreements for commercial application of software developed by NASA. • Technologies include biotechnology, chemicals, communications, computing, electronics, energy conversion, instrumentation, materials, optics, propulsion, and robotics. • In addition to NASA mission relevance, public benefits are expected in agriculture, communications, energy conversion and use, environ- mental protection, health and medicine, information technology, machinery & manufacturing, and public safety. 31
- 32. GPS Technology Transfer and Industry Partnership Sample of Return on Investment at JPL NASA Seed Investment Tech Transfer/ Broad Benefits to NASA Investment from Outside NASA • GPS science receiver 1990’s: ~$0.5M/year for Technology transfer to industry Industry provides BlackJack- developing BlackJack receiver enabled low-cost, COTS receiver. based science receivers to Investment by industry ~$10M Jason, ICESat,OSTM, COSMIC • Real-Time GIPSY (RTG) software Mid 90’s: ~$0.5M total for 1995-2000: $0.5M/year from FAA RTG is NASA Software of the software development to mature RTG, support WAAS. Year 2000; RTG powers GDGPS • Global Differential GPS 2001-present: ~$8M from industry • Real time sea height from Jason-1 (GDGPS) System and DoD for operational GDGPS • Free global access to GDGPS System. corrections through Inmarsat 2000-2002: $500K/year for a Investment by Industry outside JPL ($1M/year value) prototype in GDGPS-related infrastructure • Real time airplane positioning Partnership highlights: and services: ~ $20M enables UAV-SAR mission Non-NASA funding,1996 - 2006: ~$20M • TDRSS Augmentation Service for Software royalties, 1996 - 2006: ~$5M; Satellites (TASS) enabled Awards: Space Technology Hall of Fame, 2003 • Real-time atmospheric sensing from COSMIC constellation Y. Bar-Sever, S. Lichten JPL. January 2007 32
- 33. Spectral Imaging Partnerships NASA Investment Tech Transfer/Partnerships Benefits to NASA Airborne AVIRIS Imager Airborne Compact Imager Airborne Compact Imager • NASA funded airborne whisk • Partnership with another agency • NASA selects advanced push broom spectrometer to develop a new airborne broom, compact spectrometer spectrometer (MaRS) (Moon Mineralology Mapper) for • Built in 1989 and operated joint NASA/ISRO experiment through present • MaRS uses Offner and push broom design for improved • Based on MaRS design performance metrics • 24 month build (radiometric precision, uniformity, simplicity, reliability) • Launch in 2008 • Partner provides $10M in funding to increase technology from TRL 3 to 7 • 24 month build • Demonstrated in 2006 33
- 34. Program and Project Benefits • This letter expresses my personal appreciation for the support that your Innovative Partnerships Program Office (IPPO) has provided to the Exploration Launch Office (ELO) at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) during FY06. • Thanks to the support, we have been able to attract external partners to work with us in advancing technologies that would otherwise not have been pursued. These technologies will certainly enhance our ability to meet the challenges we face in meeting the goals of the Agency. – Hardware Maturation and Cryogenic Testing of an Optical Cryogenic Mass Flow Sensor – Magnetostrictive Regulator Development – Thermal Stir Welding (TSW) Development – Validation of Cryogenic-Composite Over-Wrapped Pressure Vessels – Prototype Development and Technology Demonstration of Apparatus for Reading Two-Dimensional Identification Symbols Using Visual and Sensing Technologies Steve Cook, Manager, Exploration Launch Office 34
- 35. Partnering with Other Agencies • Partnership with NIST – Collaborate on advanced nanotechnology research, helping lead to further advancements in NASA missions • Chemical sensors, biosensors, electronic devices and circuits, and architectures for electronics, health care, and other fields – Grants NASA access to NIST’s $235 million nanotechnology research facilities • What GSFC IPP Office Did – Identified NIST as a nano match for GSFC – Negotiated terms of agreement “By having access to these state-of-the-art facilities and capabilities at NIST, Goddard can focus its resources on the validation of these miniaturized technologies to accelerate their maturity for space flight applications supporting scientific research and NASA’s vision for space exploration.” Peter Hughes, GSFC Chief Technologist 35
- 36. Partnerships with Industry • Partnership with Lake Shore Cryotronics – Company will manufacture GSFC-developed continuous adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator (ADR) – Provides lower cost source for continuous ADRs than in-house manufacturing (Mars exploration, Constellation X) • What GSFC IPP Office Did – Targeted technology for licensing that will lead to COTS product for NASA – Promoted technology at partnership-development workshops and conferences (Lake Shore connection) – Facilitated discussions between GSFC innovator and Lake Shore – Negotiated license – Additional development to advance TRL through Seed Fund “The IPP Office was extremely helpful in identifying companies interested in licensing the ADR and then negotiating patent rights and other issues that allowed the licensing to go forward. And the Seed Fund award is coming at an ideal time. Without it, we would have had to shut down our work, which would have compromised future efforts and missions.” Peter Shirron, GSFC innovator 36
- 37. Conclusion • IPP can provide benefits to NASA’s programs and projects in many ways. • We’ve got a highly dedicated workforce at each of the ten Field Centers wanting to help you. • How can you tap into this resource? • IPP Website – http://www.ipp.nasa.gov/ • Contact the IPP Chief at your Field Center to follow up on any potential areas of interest. 37
- 38. Center IPP Chiefs Center Name Email Phone ARC Rich Pisarski rpisarski@mail.arc.nasa.gov (650) 604-0149 DFRC Gregory Poteat greg.poteat@dfrc.nasa.gov (661) 276-3872 GRC Kathy Needham Kathleen.K.Needham@nasa.gov (216) 433-2802 GSFC Nona Cheeks Nona.K.Cheeks@nasa.gov (301) 286-8504 JPL Ken Wolfenbarger james.k.wolfenbarger@nasa.gov (818) 354-3821 JSC Michele Brekke michele.a.brekke@nasa.gov (281) 483-4614 KSC Dave Makufka David.R.Makufka@nasa.gov (321) 867-6227 LaRC Marty Waszak m.r.waszak@nasa.gov (757) 864-4015 MSFC Jim Dowdy Jim.Dowdy@nasa.gov (256) 544-7604 SSC John Bailey John.W.Bailey@nasa.gov (228) 688-1660 38