Space
research: problems of efficiency A.
Johnson J&R Co 535 Neptune Av, Suite 4-A, Brooklyn, NY 11224, USA At present time the USA's Federal Government spends
big money for an aviation/space R&D. How to best organize these activity,
how to best estimate its utility and profit (real and potential), how to best
increase efficiency, how to best estimate new ideas and innovations, how to
properly fund R&D of new ideas and innovations, and how to correctly
estimate their results ‑ all these macro-problems are important for
successful planning of aviation and space research, new launch and flight
systems. Author considers these major problems and offers many innovations in
organization, estimation, suggests new research efficiency criteria,
development, new methods for assessments of new ideas, innovations in space
industry, and new methods in patenting technology*). 1. Introduction Since 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. 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. Astronomy's devices allow humans to see and study worlds located millions of the light years beyond Earth. The
power and influence of any modern State in our World is defined by its science,
technology, and industry. The USA is a World leader because, for many years the
USA industry and national government spent more money than any other country to
R&D science-based technical innovations. For example, the USA funds space
research more than all other countries combined. In that way the main
scientific advances in space, aviation, and computers are made in the USA. If
the people of the USA still want to continue to be the World leader, they must
continue this practice and further refine this public and private policy.
However, it is possible when the country has competitors and takes part in a
competition struggle. The man on Moon became possible because the former USSR
launched the first satellite (1957) and the USA leaders understood the USA had
temporarily lost World leadership in important field of science and technology.
Only in 1969, after the first manned flight to the Moon, did the USA return to
undoubted leadership in space. That program ended in 1972. However, before
collapse (1991) the USSR launched more satellites than all the rest of the
World together, including the USA. The USA decided to restore this program only
when China announced its program of manned Moon exploration. The
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 "can do" principal investigator ‑
scientist who is the author or enthusiast of this idea, right estimation of the
project cost, reached results and perspectives of applications. 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. 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.š He also offers new criteria for estimation
of science results which allow more evenly to estimate the honesty of finished
scientific work reports by specialists and to separate pseudo-scientific works. 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 and financing of research works. 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. 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. The USA has hundreds of
thousands of conventional scientists.š
New concepts and ideas generate only very talented people (genius). They
are a few in a group of thousands of scientists. That requires from them very
much time and hard work. That is not paid work in government or company
laboratories. The Government and private laboratories develop ONLY known
concepts and ideas because their purpose is to get maximum profit in shortest
time; that means to produce and substantiate new ideas can only scientist into
his own private time. There are a lot of scientists, but most of them do
conventional researches of well-known ideas and small improvements them, all
scientists earn money. All countries are funding science and research, but they
do no usually fund new ideas or concepts. Rather, they assimilate known new
technology, often developed in other countries. Unfortunately the funding for
new concepts and ideas are zero in the World. 3. Studies of innovation The
development of new concept and idea can be presented in 4 stages. Efficiency, E, is possible profit, P, divided by cost, C, of realization:š E=P/C. 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 idea is NOT its author. 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. However, any
concept exhausts itself and its inherent efficiency possibilities over time. The
new concept (idea) appears which promises even more efficiency).
Conventionally, in initial time that has less efficiency than old idea, but in
future the innovation efficiency became significantly more than old idea. 4. Government relation 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. Recommendations: There is only one solution of this macro-problem -
the Government must install the series (3 - 5) special national Government
prizes (awards about $100K) in every important scientific field (space, energy,
computer, biology, physics, etc.) for new concept scientific researches that
are:
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
of this idea). In stage 3 the grants can be given ONLY for experiment or model. 5. NIAC (NASA Institute for
Advanced Concepts) The non-experienced reader objects - there exists NIAC (NASA Institute
for Advanced Concepts) that must support new concepts and ideas in aerospace.
But NIAC Director awards some applicants with millions of USA tax dollars just
for promising to make a revolutionary discovery. In other places awards are
given for well-known published scientific works in OPEN competition. But here
the theoretical works were awarded before they were ever presented to an
established scientific society. Overview: The NIAC spent more than 40 millions of
dollars in 8 years, but they did not really put forth any really new concepts
or ideas! The most NIAC final "research" 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). Recommendations: The President and Congress
of the United States of America, need to, and must, thoroughly investigate the
NIAC situation. The Science Committee of CAGW (Citizens Against Government
Waste) stands ready to present to a Special Investigation Commission the
documents that confirm the statements presented and outlined in this article. 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 person distributes tens millions of
taxpayer money with no safe guards or oversight. 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
The
CAGW Science Committee considered, in detail, seven of about two hundred awards
made by NIAC. Amazingly, 90% of the "final reports" are just idle talk giving
the impression to readers that there are NO talented scientists in the USA.
That means, obviously, that the system of funding and awarding of scientific
works is wrong. However, universities take the funded money and do not pay them
over to professors who receive their fixed salary. Often, a professor is
overloaded by lectures, direct work with talented students and ordinary
classroom examinations. Such a person does not have time or the possibility to
make serious research that requires huge efforts and much time. The
USA National Research Council (NRC) and ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated
Universities) found the best solution of this problem - one send scientists to
government research centers or laboratories and they work full time 1-2 years
into it. Conclusion
The
best way is to withdraw this function and this money from NASA-NIAC-USRA, pass
them to Special Government (or the National Academies, ISA) Committee which
includes famous scientists and to award the published works (researches)
containing new concepts, ideas, inventions, and innovations. Make it in an open
competition. 6. NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration) The NASA announced that it invites new concepts
and ideas and publicizes the address where scientists can send their researches
and proposals: NASA HEADQUARTERS, Unsolicited Proposal
Coordinating Office Attn: Sandy Russo, proposal coordinator, Code
210.H Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771 Some scientists (who sent R&D proposal documents) included in their
letters a US Postal Service green return receipt postal card. 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 without real results. NASA
became a gigantic organization that spends huge taxpayer money and has the
lowest scientific efficiency in the World. Example: The former USSR spent money for Space in 3-5 times less then NASA and
had a weak industry, but one was a leader of space research in 1957 - 1969
(before American flight to Moon) and one launched more satellites up to 1991
(when the USSR collapsed). After collapse of the USSR, the NASA loss of an international rival
transformed the NASA into a monster that wastefully consumed about $15 billions
and produced very few scientific achievements, but a lot of space catastrophes.
For example, since 1972, during a period of 34 years, the NASA has sent no
manned flights to the Moon. Only now, following China's announced Program of
Moon Exploration, the USA Government understood the USA gap and requests the
NASA to reorganize its Program. 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 recommend 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. 7. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) DARPA
is special government organization for promotion and development of new
concepts and ideas. But 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. But
DARPA spent many millions of dollars on research committed by professors and
big-name universities. They received tons of equations and no concrete
engineering results. 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 All
problems of DARPA have place in NSF and Government Research Laboratories. See
Recommendation above. 9. SBIR (Small Business
Innovation Research) All
problems above are the 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 definition is an organization having 500 employees! That allows the
universities and big companies to separate their department and present it as
"small business". We have a similar situation with NIAC - employees
have salary and are not interested in given innovation, hard works. Common
note: Most universities, small business and proposed
work project initiators are interested only in getting money grants. But they
do not have needed scientists (especially enthusiasts), needed experience in
given field, needed equipments. As the result, the customer - the American
taxpayer -receives empty works, pseudo-scientific research. So,
all noted bureaucratic organizations retard progress by the USA. 10. Publications 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. 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 USA loses these revolutionary researches. 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 an 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 some last
years AIAA "Journal of Power and
Propulsion" (JPP) have not published any revolutionary ideas, but
published many articles having principle scientific mistakes. The same
situation is with AIAA "Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets". It
is bad, that the USA has only a single journal about power and propulsion
system or spacecraft and American authors must publish new ideas and researches
in abroad journals. 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. It
is bad that there is 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. The Government, country lose more on obstacles which exist for appearing and applications of new ideas, the most of them produced by individual talented researchers. 11. Patenting 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
of 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 his 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 than $100 for them. 2. There must be a 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 receives only author certificate, the
Government gets 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 Current
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: 1.
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. 2.
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. 3.
The company used new method of computation must
pay small ($1000) royalties to authors from every use. 4.
NASA must be divided into two independent rival
organizations. 5.
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. 6.
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. 7.
The Government must support main scientific
journals, publishing houses, free Internet scientific libraries,š individual scientists presented an important
researches to scientific national conferences. 8.
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. http://www.geocities.com/auditing.science or http://auditing-science.narod.ru *)
This article is prepared on materials of researches, presented by author as
paper for Conference "Space-2006" (19-21 September 2006, San Jose,
California, USA). Alexander Johnson, Ph.D. in mathematics (New York University,
1999), M.S. in economics (Brooklyn Collage of City University of New York,
1996); analyst, researcher and senior researcher, Vice-President of a Company
(J&R); scientific interests area: problems of economical efficiency of
research, including space and aviation. |
© 1995-2008 Kazan State University