Detailed Information on the
Space and Flight Support Assessment

Continue to fund the program at an essentially flat level, but strive to improve the program??s results by increasing efficiency.

Collect efficiency data consistently and annually for all program activities, report performance against the program's established metrics and targets, and compare/benchmark these results to similar services available from private industry or other emerging commercial providers to ensure the best value to the government.

Based on a detailed review of which Space and Flight Support assets will be needed post-Shuttle retirement, develop a plan that assesses the most cost-effective way to sustain necessary capabilities and tracks their performance and efficiency, during a this period of possible reduced demand.

During the period of post-Shuttle retirement through human lunar operations, identify budget impacts for the Space Communications program to meet changing requirements for human & robotic space communications. Develop plan for the most cost-effective way to sustain necessary capabilities, track performance & efficiency, and meet the changing lunar operations requirements.

Develop better measures that will help to drive program improvement.

Measure: Launch Services. NASA sustained launch success rate for all NASA-managed launches.

Explanation:Launch success is defined for each individual mission with the contractual interface control document and reflects the payload's unique orbital requirement. Sustained success is measured as a running average over all launches since 1987 to validate that the NASA technical oversight policies and practices enhance mission success. The target represents a 100 percent success rate for all launch service missions from 1987 through 2010, with the exception of the one launch failure in 1996.

Measure: Crew Health and Safety. Reduction in crew time in space required to be spent maintaining their health.

Explanation:Crews must spend time to maintain their health. To the extent that this time can be reduced, without endangering their health, other mission activities can be performed. Due to the process whereby changes are made (through new hardware and in-flight process improvement), it is not reasonable to expect yearly advances. Changes are accumulated and implemented together. Holding the same target for 4 years at a time gives windows in which to do these implementations.

Measure: Space Communications and Navigation. Latest launch date for the TDRS-K and TDRS-L.

Explanation:Timely and successful operational deployment of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites K and L will ensure uninterrupted access to reliable communications in support of exploration.

Measure: Rocket Propulsion Testing. Achieve major Constellation program engine test milestones.

Explanation:RPT is responsible for ensuring testing facilities and personnel are ready to support critical engine tests that support the Constellation program and the Vision for Space Exploration. The J-2X is the upper stage engine for the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles; having RPT facilities ready to support the first ground test of this engine is critical to the schedule and success of the Ares I and Ares V projects. The Ares I Roll Control System (RoCS) will maintain the attitude of the vehicle during ascent, and the test of this system is another critical project milestone that RPT must be ready to support.

Measure: Launch Services. NASA launch success rate for all NASA-managed launches in the completed fiscal year.

Explanation:The Program seeks zero failures in the launch of NASA's unique, high-value spacecraft. Launch success is defined for each mission with the contractual interface control document and reflects the payload's unique orbital requirement. The metric will not be kept in a year in which no launches occur.

Measure: Space Communications and Navigation. Space Network proficiency for delivery of Space Communications services.

Explanation:It is important to monitor the performance of the Space Network and ensure it continues to provide reliable services. This measure tracks the percentage of minutes provided by the Space Network against the total number of minutes required by International Space Station, Space Shuttle, and low-Earth orbiting missions.

Measure: Rocket Propulsion Testing. Percentage of rocket propulsion test customers providing a positive customer satisfaction rating.

Explanation:Positive feedback will be determined through the analysis of surveys completed by each customer. Positive is defined as achieving a score of 4 or higher on a 5-point scale.

Measure: Crew Health and Safety. Percentage of current and former astronaut medical requirements data captured in a comprehensive medical data management infrastructure.

Explanation:The overall goal is to design, implement, and maintain a comprehensive medical data management infrastructure to support space medicine and operations. This includes both prospective electronic and retrospective data entry of archival hardcopy information.

Measure: Launch Services. Ratio of Launch Services program cost per mission to average spacecraft cost.

Explanation:This metric will demonstrate cost effectiveness in achieving the program goal of launch success for NASA missions. Use of this metric calculates the approximate cost of program services and capabilities per mission. A ratio can be calculated by dividing by the three-year average cost of spacecraft launched in the same period (less the launch service).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Space and Flight Support (SFS) encompasses four distinct programs that provide critical, Agency-level services for a wide range of NASA and other customers, services that ensure that vital information, transportation, engine testing, and astronaut health services are ready to support current and future Agency needs. These programs are Space Communications and Navigation (SCN), Launch Services (LS), Rocket Propulsion Testing (RPT), and Crew Health & Safety (CHS). These distinct, critical services are provided to a wide range of customers, including NASA scientists and engineers, other U.S. Federal agencies, universities, foreign governments, and industry interests.

Evidence: President's FY 2008 Budget Submit to Congress (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Each of the four distinct programs in SFS serves a specific and existing need, and each is vital to the success of NASA's strategic objectives in science and exploration. SCN is responsible for providing communications and navigation services to NASA's flight missions and for supplying terrestrial communications needs. LS provides safe, reliable, on-time, cost-effective space access for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads seeking launch on Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs). RPT is the principal implementing authority for NASA's rocket propulsion testing. CHS is responsible for supporting a program of comprehensive health care necessary to enable a healthy and productive crew during all phases of spaceflight missions, and to prevent and mitigate long-term negative health consequences as a result of spaceflight.

Evidence: NASA Strategic Plan (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Each of the four distinct programs in SFS provides a unique service to NASA and/or to other customers. Because SCN's Space Network capabilities are unique within the U.S., they directly support not only NASA but also other U.S. agencies, with services being provided to non-NASA government customers on a reimbursable basis. SCN also works in partnership with other government agencies on the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) K and L. LS provides unique, mission-assurance services to high-value NASA and other government customers by leveraging the commercial launch sector. Though the goals and requirements driving their respective space access needs differ, NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD) / Air Force have established a partnership that fosters information and resource sharing to prevent redundancy. RPT is the implementing authority for NASA's rocket propulsion testing needs, a position that is critical during the development of new launch vehicle systems under the Constellation program and the Vision for Space Exploration. RPT also represents NASA in a cooperative working alliance with DoD to maximize the utilization of the Nation's propulsion testing assets. CHS is unique in its scope of responsibility that is not duplicated in other government or private programs: archiving and mining astronaut health data, facilitating the development of spaceflight certified medical care systems, and providing advocacy and support for efforts to design, implement, and manage a comprehensive health care program for spaceflight.

Evidence: NPD 8610.23 Launch Vehicle Technical Oversight Policy (http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=8610&s=23C); Memorandum of Understanding between LS and USAF; Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) agreementbetween NASA and Boeing launch Services; CSLA agreement between NASA and Lockheed Martin Corp.; and a CSLA agreement between NASA and Orbital Sciences Corp. The Space Network currently provides a significant amount of services to non-NASA U.S. government customers on a reimbursable basis. RPT Program Commitment Agreement signed by the Deputy Administrator of NASA on May 2, 2005.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: To ensure that SFS is free of major flaws, each program has undertaken and continues to pursue efforts that promote effectiveness and efficiency. For example, based on the input received in the previous PART review and the strategic direction provided in the Vision for Space Exploration, SFS commissioned a number of independent assessments and working groups to ensure alignment between Agency goals and program execution. In response to recent reviews and working group assessments, SFS has moved to improve efficiency in the previously decentralized structure of NASA space communication management, improve long-term strategic planning, and increase the frequency of independent reviews of program performance. The Space Communications Architecture Working Group (SCAWG) Final Report, released in March 2006, lays out for the first time the architectural steps to be implemented through 2030 to provide service capabilities in support of the Vision and future science needs. With the completion of the space communication and navigation architecture, SCAWG has been replaced with two new working groups for requirements and systems planning. SCN maintains a strong presence in national and international communications standards and spectrum organizations to ensure NASA's communications interests are aligned with industry and other government interests. LS has been the subject of independent reviews by both the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the NASA Independent Program Analysis Office in part to address deficiencies identified by the previous PART review in the areas of performance and efficiency metrics and program execution. LS risk mitigation policies and technical oversight has a proven track record of performance and mission success, with 45 successful expendable launch vehicle missions since the consolidation of the LS program at the Kennedy Space Center. As the Constellation long-term propulsion testing requirements have matured, RPT has been able to improve its strategic asset and workforce planning to better align current and future Agency capabilities and needs with those requirements. Finally, a review of the Astronaut Healthcare Delivery System is underway. Results of that review will be reported later this calendar year.

Evidence: SCAWG Final Report (https://www.spacecomm.nasa.gov/spacecomm); RPT Program Office (https://rockettest.ssc.nasa.gov); Review of the Space Communications Program of NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate by the National Research Council of the Academies (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/aseb/Space_Comm_PrePub.pdf); NAPA study of NASA LSP: A Management Assessment ELVL-2006-0036765/Original.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The elements of this Theme serve a common role in providing customer service. SCN customers and service providers develop and sign written agreements (Project Service Level Agreements, Network Requirements Documents, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) equivalents, Memoranda of Understanding [MOUs], etc.) which delineate the services to be provided to the customers as well as the technical interfaces between service providers and the customer. In addition, SCN maintains a Board of Directors, a Requirements Working Group, and a Systems Planning Group populated with customer representatives to coordinate and define communications architecture; review and approve investments in capacity and capability improvements for future mission support; and define and resolve cross-cutting Agency-wide communications issues. LS is a service organization intended to provide space access for NASA and NASA-sponsored missions which in turn enables those NASA organizations to accomplish goals. A forum is provided (Flight Planning Board, FPB) whereby customers and stakeholders meet periodically to define and agree on requirements, determine strategic direction and concur on Launch Services Program contract actions. Funding for RPT goes directly to the maintenance of test facilities and skilled operations personnel and ensures that they are available to all customers as needed. CHS funding is utilized in direct support of medical data acquisition and management, development of mission required medical systems, and development and maintenance of medical information systems technologies.

Evidence: https://www.spacecomm.nasa.gov/spacecomm/, https://rockettest.ssc.nasa.gov, FY 2006 NASA Performance and Accountability (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html).

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Space and Flight Support and its programs have several long-term outcomes and outputs that meaningfully reflect the purpose of each program. The long-term measures were developed in concert with NASA's strategic planning process and reflect the direction provided through the PART process via the PART Program Improvement Plan.

Evidence: See Program Performance Measures section.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets for each long-term outcome and output are ambitious and critical to the success of the Vision for Space Exploration and NASA's space science missions. The targets for these measures are significant milestones or meaningful program goals that map directly to Agency strategic objectives. Success in these measures will be challenging but is achievable.

Evidence: See Program Performance Measures section.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Each of the four Theme programs has an annual performance measure that is aligned with the Theme's long-term goals. These annual performance measures were developed based on the individual services provided by each program and the direction provided through the PART process via the PART Program Improvement Plan. Progress towards meeting each annual performance goal are reviewed regularly, including quarterly progress reviews at both the program and Directorate level and annually at the Agency level as part of the budget formulation and performance review process.

Evidence: See Program Performance Measures section.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The target for each annual performance measure is ambitious, and the success of each measure contributes substantially to the success of the Vision for Space Exploration. Targets for each measure were developed based on each program's past performance and, where applicable, the performance of similar functions in other government agencies or the private sector. The targets for each measure are achievable, but challenge the programs to continuously learn and improve.

Evidence: See Program Performance Measures section.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Requirements for SCN contractors and partners flow down from the annual and long-term goals via the program's agreement process for defining customer flight mission requirements in which contractors and partners are an integral part. SCN Contract Performance/Award Fee evaluation and program reporting processes are in place to encourage contractor and partner performance toward achieving the goals of the program. The LS program requires project plans from all projects, customer agreements with reimbursable customers and contracts in place with LS Providers and support contractors. Projects are also required to sign a task agreement with the LS program which will commit the project to cost, schedule and performance for each project. Meanwhile, the Flight Planning Board (FPB) provides a forum whereby customers and stakeholders work together to define and agree on requirements, determine strategic direction, and concur on Launch Services Program contract actions. RPT utilizes the Rocket Propulsion Test Management Board (RPTMB) and the National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance (NRPTA) to work toward its goals. The RPTMB consists of representatives from all of NASA's rocket testing centers and the NRPTA consists of representatives from NASA's centers and four DOD rocket testing centers. The RPTMB meets a minimum of three times a month and the NRPTA meets a minimum of monthly to discuss all matters involving rocket propulsion testing. Additionally, RPT organizes, sponsors, and participates in other meetings and committees involving programs and projects developing rocket propulsion systems. CHS projects are focused on providing support directly to long-term and annual goals. All partners work specifically toward support of each of the projects and updates on progress are identified during monthly discussions and at least quarterly in preparation for Directorate Program Management Councils.

Evidence: Customers and service providers develop and sign written agreements (Project Service Level Agreements, network requirements documents, JPL equivalents, MOAs, etc.) which delineate the services to be provided to the customers as well as the technical interfaces between service providers and the customer. Examples include signed project plans, customer agreements, awarded contracts, signed task agreements and FPB minutes and actions; minutes from RPTMB and NRPTA meetings; RPT Program Manager's Review minutes; NRPTA yearly report; and Rocket Propulsion Testing Summit minutes.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Agency implements a quarterly performance review, entitled the "State of the Agency" process to independently evaluate programs and projects. On a monthly basis, an independent assessment team (consisting of PA&E, OCE, OSMA) provides the Agency with a performance assessment and rating for all key programs and projects. The results of the independent assessment (technical, schedule, cost, and programmatic) are reported at the Agency Program Management Council (PMC) and informs decisions at the Agency and the Mission Directorate (program) level on the programs and project directions. SCN was subject to an independent review by the National Research Council (NRC) in the last year, with similar reviews to be conducted approximately every three years by NRC or other independent evaluation body. A Non-Advocate Review was performed on the LS program by the NASA Independent Program Analysis Office (IPAO) and was completed in October 2006. An independent assessment of the LS program by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) was completed in September of 2006. The next scheduled review of LS is in 2008 and will be performed by IPAO. An independent assessment of the Kennedy Space Center's implementation of NASA's full cost and workforce planning was performed by NAPA and was released in February 2007. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted an independent review of the Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health in 2004. The RPT Program initiated an NASA Engineering Safety Center-contracted effort to examine the ability of the current program testing infrastructure to support the next ten years of rocket propulsion testing needs for the nation (government and commercial). This work builds upon a prior study completed in 2004, and now includes updated testing forecasts as well as business case analyses for facility investment/divestment options and options for minimizing maintenance costs for the program overall with consideration of risks and impacts to NASA's and national space objectives. Final results of this study are expected in the Spring of 2007.

Evidence: State of the Agency monthly independent assessment reported at the Agency PMC and the Mission Directorate (program) quarterly response to the independent evaluation. Review of the Space Communications Program of NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate by the National Research Council of the Academies (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/aseb/Space_Comm_PrePub.pdf); NAPA study of NASA LSP: A Management Assessment ELVL-2006-0036765/Original; IOM reports (http://www.iom.edu/CMS/2955.aspx).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: All program goals and budget are clearly linked in the Integrated Budget and Performance Document, submitted with NASA's FY 2008 budget request. Full cost accounting has further clarified the link between the budget and the program's goals by ensuring that the program or project's budget covers all of the costs associated with the program or project.

Evidence: President's FY 2008 Budget Submit to Congress (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The SCAWG Final Report, released in March 2006, lays out for the first time the architectural steps to be implemented through 2030 to provide service capabilities in support of the Vision and future science needs. The architecture developed by the SCAWG and articulated in the Final Report addresses a number of strategic planning challenges, including acquisition of two new Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) replacement satellites to maintain continuous coverage, a proposal for a new Small Aperture Receive Array to replace the DSN 70 meter antennaes, and an international effort to modify the Ka-band uplink allocation to support future science and exploration needs. In response to observations made by the PART process and other independent reviews, SCN has reorganized in order to reduce overlapping efforts, consolidate communications work across three directorates, and increase synergy between NASA Space Communication Networks in the form of the Space Communications and Navigation Office (SCO), a central organization within NASA Headquarters. LS has been the subject of independent reviews by both the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the NASA Independent Program Analysis Office (IPAO) in part to address deficiencies identified by the previous PART review in the areas of performance and efficiency metrics and program execution. LS has assessed the IPAO recommendations and, of the nine associated with strategic planning, eight are complete or in work at this time. The LS program has also been working to define the requirements for the assured access to space in the medium launch vehicle performance class. The plan will provide strategic direction through 2020. Finally, as the Constellation program has developed its long-term propulsion testing requirements, RPT has been able to improve its strategic asset and workforce planning to better align current and future Agency capabilities and needs with those requirements.

Evidence: SCAWG Report (https://www.spacecomm.nasa.gov/spacecomm/); Flight Planning Board Minutes: October 4, 2006, January 18, 2007 and March 8, 2007; memorandum from the Administrator titled "Establishment of a Space Communications and Navigation Office" dated July 19, 2006

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: SCN analysis of procurement and technical approaches alternatives considered cost, risk, and performance trade-offs to determine the appropriate approach for TDRS acquisition. In addition, an analysis on procuring services for the NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN) through General Services Administration (GSA) compared to a direct commercial provider approach was completed, resulting in the utilization of GSA's Federal Technology Service contracting mechanism for NISN services. The Program studied alternate approaches for ensuring continuation of Space Network capabilities. LS program is currently conducting an in-depth analysis of alternate launch providers for the medium class launch service. Phase I of the study, completed in October 2006, assessed the future availability of the Delta II and the capabilities of alternate launch providers. Phase II of the study, completed March 2007, evaluated cost, schedule and risk and established a forward strategy for medium class launch capability for Agency consideration in the FY 2009 budget. CHS has recently conducted a thorough review of its projects and made strategic decisions to project management, weighing cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals. Results have aligned CHS with Agency timelines for exploration.

Evidence: An agreement with non-NASA customers has been reached and TDRS K&L development initiated. NISN services are largely provided via available commercial services. Flight Planning Board Minutes: October 4, 2006, January 18, 2007 and March 8, 2007. A complete review of the Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health was released in 2004 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10903) and letter report of the review of space medicine standards was released in 2006 by the Institute Of Medicine (http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/4849/37898.aspx).

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Agency and the Mission Directorate collect and use timely and credible performance information, including data from contractors, to manage and improve the program.

Evidence: All programs collect cost and schedule information on a monthly basis (monthly Program Status Review for SCN, monthly National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance for RPT); LS Quarterly Program Reviews for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Orbital Sciences; quarterly Directorate Program Management Council reviews of cost and schedule information; all programs hold semi-annual Program Management Reviews; regular Technical Interchange Meetings, Summits, and other reviews involving key stakeholders when required.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers and all federal employees involved in SFS are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. The Agency's organizational structure clearly identifies managers' responsibilities for this Theme as evidenced in the FY 2008 President's Budget (Performance and Management section). Program manager, program leadership, and employee individual performance plans are tied to the performance of their program as reported, in part, through the PART long-term outcomes, annual performance measures, and efficiency metrics. Program managers are further held to account during regular program and directorate reviews by senior SOMD leadership, who are themselves held accountable to the NASA leadership for SFS performance. SCN performance in particular has exceeded requirements at relativity flat budget levels. All SFS contractor performances are evaluated to assess operational and system effectiveness. Recommended improvements are incorporated into the budget request.

Evidence: Program Performance, Budgeting, And Execution (PPBE); Monthly performance reviews; Management reviews and reports per 3.1 above; Contractor Performance Evaluation and Fee Determination; government and contractor managers who sign the Certificate of Flight Readiness (COFR) and are accountable for the Program's support to every ISS, Space Shuttle mission, and/or ELV missions; Agency Full Cost Management Initiative; (www.nasa.gov/pdf/55417main_34%20Management%20and%20Performance.pdf); NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate Organization (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/somd_transformed3_9.ppt).

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The Theme programs report funding, net operating assets, obligations and cost plans, and actuals on a monthly basis. For several years, ninety-five percent or more of funds have been obligated within the fiscal year in which they are appropriated.

Evidence: Program, Planning, Budget, and Evaluation (PPBE); monthly performance reviews; quarterly Directorate Program Management Council reports, semi-annual PMR reports, Integrated Financial Management records, contractor 533s.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: To ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness in program execution, SCN is issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competitive bids for the development and construction of the new TDRS K and TDRS L satellites for the Space Network. The contract will be a firm-fixed price award with incentives for contractor performance. In addition, LS continues to leverage off of commercial launch providers to encourage competition for launch services and return best value to the Agency's science and exploration customers. RPT continually evaluates each proposed test assignment using peer review and competitive proposals to encourage the greatest possible efficiencies. Yearly maintenance projects are evaluated on an individual basis. RPT manages a Test Operations Contract (TOC) that covers Marshall Space Flight Center and Stennis Space Center which allows for personnel sharing between centers. It also dedicates program office personnel to identifying, developing, and implementing commonalities and efficiencies. CHS costs are routinely monitored and adjusted to meet mission needs within budget guidelines and reported at Directorate Program Management Councils. SFS has one efficiency measure for Launch Services.

Evidence: Contractor Performance Evaluation and Fee Determination; Rocket Propulsion Test Management Board (RPTMB) and National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance (NRPTA) minutes including Common Cost Forms developed for potential test customers; TOC Contractor Performance Award Fee reports; operating procedures for the RPTMB (NASA) and the NRPTA (NASA/DoD).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: SCN collaborates with key Federal customers to study alternate approaches for ensuring continuation of Space Network capabilities. Collaboration is also taking place with the Air Force and NOAA on communications interoperability technology and demonstrations. Customers and service providers develop and sign written agreements (Project Service Level Agreement, Network Requirements Docs, JPL equivalents, MOAs, etc.) which delineate the services to be provided to the customers as well as the technical interfaces between service providers and the customer. In addition, SCN maintains a Board of Directors, a Requirements Working Group, and a Systems Planning Group populated with customer representatives to coordinate and define communications architecture; review and approve investments in capacity and capability improvements for future mission support; and define and resolve cross-cutting Agency-wide communications issues. For LS, Air Force and NRO launch vehicle performance and reliability data is shared between the partners. In addition, quality and safety performance and measurement for the Launch Service Provider manufacturing facilities are shared. The USAF, NRO, and NASA hold an annual Mission Assurance Forum to share space launch status, plans, metrics, information, processes, and data. RPT manages a strategic alliance between the Constellation program Test Verification Office and the RPT Program Office. The Rocket Propulsion Test Management Board (RPTMB) consists of representatives from all of NASA's rocket testing centers and the National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance (NRPTA) consists of representatives from NASA's centers and four DOD rocket testing centers. The RPTMB meets a minimum of three times a month and the NRPTA meets a minimum of once a month to discuss all matters involving rocket propulsion testing. CHS collaborates with ESMD, the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO), and JSC's Space Life Sciences Directorate. This interaction assures efficiencies among operational medicine, biomedical research, and agency health and medical policies.

Evidence: Transformational Communications Architecture Study; Exploration Communications and Navigation System; Interoperability Working Group tasks; SATOPS Working Group Interoperability tasks. CHS support to Agency space medicine standards and requirements and to countermeasures development.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The most recent Independent Auditor report for NASA identified two (2) material weaknesses, both of which are repeats, as well as noncompliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act.

Evidence: NASA's FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html) includes the communication from the NASA Inspector General and the report of the Independent Auditor. In addition, the GAO has published numerous reports identifying shortcoming in NASA's new financial management system as well as its financial management processes (example is GAO-04-754T released on May 19, 2004).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Based on the observations provided by the PART review and the direction of the Vision for Space Exploration, the management of all NASA space communications activities was centralized October 2, 2006, within the Space Operations Mission Directorate. The centralization includes several existing networks: Deep Space Network (DSN), Space Network (SN), Ground Network (GN) and NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN), and Exploration Communications and Navigation Systems. In the fall of 2006, the LS program was also reorganized to align itself with the Agency governance model. Consistent with IPAO recommendations, this reorganization established an independent engineering authority by transferring the LS Chief Engineer and discipline engineers to the KSC Engineering Directorate.

Evidence: Agency governance plan; NASA Strategic Plan (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html); FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html); NPD 1000.3C, "The NASA Organization" updated March 20, 2007.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: The LS program is managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables and capability/performance characteristics driven by the program's principal objectives: the deliverable is a successful launch and the capability and performance characteristic is assuring launch services are available for all manifested missions. The LS program is managed by maintaining credible cost (within the PPBE budget) and schedule goals (the launch manifest). All LS program contracts are performance-based and therefore have clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate credible schedule goals. In addition, over 90% of the contracts are fixed-price and therefore have credible cost goals. SCN program maintains a defined architecture and capabilities that are periodically upgraded and improved. The TDRSS hardware replacement RFP, which was released in April 2007, is in response to maintaining uninterrupted service to the NASA programs and their mission, including Lunar efforts in 2020. CHS deliverables are focused on providing input for the development of mission essential medical support equipment and data to drive mission specific countermeasures development.

Evidence: NASA Launch Services Manifest; PPBE 2007 submit; the Launch Services Program Commitment Agreement (May 22, 2003, new revision expected spring/summer 2007); signed contracts.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: SCN technical performance has been extremely effective, with success in exceeding performance goals for data delivery over the long-term. The initiation of TDRS K&L development, including the April 2007 Request for Proposal for TDRS-K acquisition, is the first step in implementing the communications and navigation architecture to support science and exploration mission requirements. The target is the scheduled deployment of a replenishment TDRS spacecraft by 2012. Planning continues for the DSN 70 meter replacement with an array of smaller antennas, the second increment of the long term architectural plan. In addition, management of all communications programs has been recentralized under the DAA/SCN in SOMD to better focus the implementation of the architectural plan to achieve the long-term program goals and support the fulfillment of NASA's Strategic Goals. LS has delivered a 100% launch success rate every year since 1998. The LS program has also demonstrated progress toward the long-term goal of assuring access to space for the medium class mission. CHS has demonstrated adequate progress toward its long-term goal (such as adding the Variable Oxygen System to ISS medical operations) and expects that to continue through changes in new hardware and in-flight process improvement. These are not routinely annual advances, as they build on accumulated data and are implemented when sufficient data exists or hardware development has reached maturity; however, constant monitoring of progress assures that this development meets long-term goals.

Evidence: Annual Performance and Accountability Reports (ex. FY2006); SCAWG Report, https://www.spacecomm.nasa.gov/spacecomm/; PPBE and monthly performance reviews; Flight Planning Board Minutes, October 4, 2006; January 18, 2007 and March 8, 2007; ELV launch history.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Space Network data delivery continues to exceed 98% of scheduled service and NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN) continues to exceed the target of less than 3% loss of operational time. LS has delivered a 100% launch success rate every year since 1998. CHS has met its annual goal of the capture of astronaut medical requirements data. The intent is to set and meet aggressive but achievable goals. The customer satisfaction rating for RPT was below the 2006 target (as it was for 2005).

Evidence: FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html); ELV launch history.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Launch Services has refined its efficiency metric to one that will demonstrate cost performance in achieving the Theme goal of reliable service support for NASA missions. In addition to providing quality service to its customers at an effective cost, LS engineers and technicians have uncovered numerous design flaws and process escapes that would have jeopardized mission success, and in the process have improved the quality of launch vehicles used by both the public and the private sector.

Evidence: Contractor financial and metrics reports; Contractor Cost Savings Initiatives; PPBE submittal; Directorate Program Management Council presentations from March 9, 2007; launch manifest (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: SCN provides the only current end-to-end primary communications capability for the Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and a host of automated earth-orbital missions including those of other Government agencies. Space Network capabilities are unique within the U.S. LS performance for launch success compares favorably to the DoD and commercial launch success. For calendar years 1999 through 2006, LS has an overall success rate of 100% (41 of 41), DoD has an overall success rate of 98% (55 of 56) and FAA-Licensed commercial has an overall success rate of 94% (63 of 67). RPT provides a high level of readiness with the amount of low risk required by rocket propulsion testing customers. The closest comparison to CHS would exist in the private sector and DoD with the implementation of electronic health records and health databases.

Evidence: Review of the Space Communications Program of NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate by the National Research Council of the Academies (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/aseb/Space_Comm_PrePub.pdf); Space Launch Log (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/launch_schedule.html) Review of NASA's Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health, 2004.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: SCN has recently completed a comprehensive review by the NRC. The NRC noted that "the overall program was both well managed and highly effective in carrying out its critical functions." Review of LS program by the National Academy of Public Administration noted that LS performance "is excellent and mission success is high. This record of success can be attributed to the program's proactive technical integration with spacecraft customers throughout the mission life cycle." CHS is periodically the focus of Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviews initiated in the past by the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer or ESMD. These have included the following studies: Safe Passage, Review of NASA's Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health, and Small Clinical Trials. These reviews have been favorable, and where recommendations for improvement are acted upon vigorously. A review of the Astronaut Healthcare Delivery System is underway. Results of that review will be reported later this calendar year.

Evidence: Review of the Space Communications Program of NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate by the National Research Council of the Academies (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/aseb/Space_Comm_PrePub.pdf); NAPA study of NASA LSP: A Management Assessment ELVL-2006-0036765/Original; IOM reviews can be found at http://www.iom.edu/CMS/2955.aspx.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Programs maintain clearly defined requirements of the services (including level of service and technical performance expectations) to be provided to customer missions based on each customer's specific written needs at an agreed to cost and schedule. The programs' efforts to meet these requirements within overall budgeted cost and schedule have been largely successful.

Evidence: Customer Agreements/Requirements Documents; Customer and Service Utilization Reports; Technical Metrics Contractor financial reports; Monthly PSR; Quarterly Agency & Enterprise PMC.IFM and Agency financial records and EMPC Reports Cost actuals vs. cost planned for FY 2002 for the missions and the support contractors; official minutes from Flight Planning Board for all launch date changes.