Value chain · CLM-0924
In plain terms
In four parts of NASA's programme the 2001 committee found an analysis missing or a goal without a stated basis: for solar arrays, for how much of the assembly work robots should do, for structures, and for thermal control. Reading these as one pattern, targets set before the study that would tell you what to aim for, is an inference; the committee makes each finding separately.
The claim as recorded
In four different technology areas the 2001 NRC committee found that the underlying analysis had not been done: no comprehensive PV array trade study, no human-robot mix analysis for space assembly, no quantitative structural requirements analysis, with "NASA provided no basis" for its structural goals, and thermal goals set without regard to the state of the art. The common finding is about the programme's METHOD rather than about any one technology: SERT was setting research goals and investing against them before it had characterised what it needed. The committee states the robotics case in terms that generalise - the mix question "is actually a complex study" and "No evidence of this type of analysis was presented to the committee, yet it is essential to establishing appropriate research goals".
Evidence behind this: National Research Council committee assessment. This record is a PATTERN ACROSS FOUR SECTIONS, not a single passage, and only a whole read surfaces it. Each quotation was checked on its own; the pattern is an inference about what they have in common and is labelled as such.
Scope and limits
THE PATTERN IS AN INFERENCE ACROSS SECTIONS AND THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT DRAW IT. Each individual finding is quoted; the claim that they share a cause is this register's reading, and a reader who wants only what the source says should take the four findings separately. THE READ BEHIND TWO OF THE FOUR SECTIONS IS NOT FRESH - 3-7 and 3-8 were read earlier in the week by the drafting stream and re-checked only by quotation match on registration, not re-read. 2001, and about NASA's SERT programme specifically, not about SBSP work generally or since. This says nothing about whether the missing analyses were later done.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Read first-hand from the held PDF on registration; each quotation marked raw or de-hyphenated. De-hyphenated: "To date, there has been no comprehensive PV array trade study for SSP." De-hyphenated: "Determining the optimal mix of humans and robots in a space assembly workforce is actually a complex study". De-hyphenated: "No evidence of this type of analysis was presented to the committee, yet it is essential to establishing appropriate research goals for robotics." Raw: "NASA provided no basis". THE FOUR-SECTION PATTERN IS AN INFERENCE ACROSS SECTIONS AND NOT THE COMMITTEE'S OWN SUMMARY - the committee makes each finding in its own section and nowhere states that it found the same thing four times.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-002 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0924
CLM-0924, Energy Aperture, as of 2001.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-054
- CLM-0922In 2001 a National Research Council committee found that the basic trade study for the solar array had never been done, and that the mass...CLM-0923The 2001 committee says a solar power satellite several square kilometres across would need tens to hundreds of kilometres of cable in...CLM-0925In 2001 the whole of American space solar-cell research - NASA, the Air Force and industry together - ran at about eight million dollars a...