breakthrough managing high-risk/high-gain...

Millis_Stanford_GCEP.ppt 1

Managing High-Risk/High-Gain Research

Marc G. MillisNASA Glenn Research Center

At Lewis FieldCleveland OH 44135

Prepared for the

2005 Design for Breakthrough Research in an Academic SettingStanford University

2005, November, 11-12

Breakthrough


Managing Breakthrough Research

Experience Base

• “Vision 21” Lewis Research Center (1988-1994)– Initiated by mid level managers to sustain organization’s technological preeminence

– Provide an environment for the open exchange of ideas and a process to explore ideas that are too risky to warrant formal sponsorship

– “Free Idea Forums” - “PINS” - “Rules of Engagement”

• NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project (1996-2002)– Credibly addressed the incredible goal of interstellar travel

– Examining emerging science to circumvent limited technology1. Propulsion without propellant or beamed momentum

2. Achieve ultimate transit speed (faster-than-light?)

3. Onboard energy production

• Physics Entrepreneurship Masters Program (2003-present)

– Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland OH, http://pep.phys.cwru.edu/– Master’s Thesis: “Interstellar Flight Foundation”


BACKGROUND

NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project

GOAL: Exceed the fundamental limits of existing propulsion by further advancing physics to discover the breakthroughs that could revolutionize spaceflight and enable interstellar voyages.

ProgrammaticConduct visionary

research in a credible manner.

TechnicalTarget the greatestchallenges of deep-

spaceflight.


NASA BPP Project Accomplishments(Total of $1.6M spread over 1996-2002)

• Assessed 8 research approaches– 2 suitable for sequels– 3 unresolved– 3 dead ends

• Produced 14 journal publications

• Produced award-winning public education website

Warp Drive, When?http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html


NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project

Key Operating Philosophy

• Reliable – Define success as gaining reliable knowledge rather than claiming breakthroughs (puts emphasis where needed).

• Immediate – Focus on immediate make-or-break issues, unknowns, or curious effects (just enough for “go/no-go”), not the whole thing.

• Iterated – Gain knowledge via cycles of short-term, incremental tasks.

• Diversified – Support multiple, divergent research (not just hot topics).

• Measured – Track applicability and progress with the cycles.

• Impartial – Research selected via competitive peer assessments, where reviewers judge reliability of results, not feasibility of concept.

• Empirical – Emphasis on experiments over pure theory or studies.

• Published – Results published, both pro and con.


Overall Findings on Breakthrough PropulsionMillis (2004) Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics, NASA/TM-2004-213082

Figure 3Hooper's Self-Cancelling Flat Coil

Point where wire is folded back onto itself

Null Findings Unresolved Next Steps



Lesson 1: Shift Away From Diminishing Returns(Foster, Innovation, The Attacker’s Advantage, 1986)

To exceed the limits of prior technology (or markets),seek entirely different technology (or markets).

Per

form

ance

Investment

Bottom line: Must venture beyond the familiarBottom line: Must venture beyond the familiar


Per

form

ance

Investment

“Masters”

“Pioneers”The “Breakthrough”

Managing Breakthrough ResearchA Closer Look at Your Place in the Curve


Pioneers• Expose ignorance - knowledge gaps• Create new knowledge• Can NOT quantify comparisons• Intuitive progress• Highest-Gain benefits sought

Masters• Maintain the knowledge base• Refine established knowledge• Quantify comparisons, “trades”• Procedural progress• Minimum Risk sought

Institutions & Management• Must sustain preeminence, reputation• Difficulty comprehending research details• Must assess risk -vs- benefits• Must stay within budgets• Must produce progress


Contrasting Motivations and Skills

Middle Minority“Might work, might not…

Let’s check.”

Qua

ntity

Pioneers | Masters

Pedantic Prudes-- The Establishment --

“That’s impossible”

“You’re Crazy”

“You just don’t understand”

Pathological Pundits-- The Lunatic Fringe --

“My theory is great!”“I can’t be wrong!”

“If you disagree, you are part of the suppression conspiracy”

(Not the show from the 90’s, but not very different from it either)

More CredibleMore Visionary



CHALLENGES• Breakthrough-Seeking Research

– High-Risk means likely to fail (easy stuff’s been done already)

– High-Gain implies reaching beyond the familiar, i.e. CRAZY IDEAS!• Unpredictable (venturing beyond the known)• Cannot quantify benefits rigorously• Evokes hype

• Supporting Institutions & Management– Difficult to comprehend and assess the unfamiliar– Must demonstrate progress in sync with funding cycles– Dealing with those edgy researchers– Dealing with success (typically disruptive)

• Researchers– Competing against nearer-term, more certain technology refinements– Limited sources– Clearly communicating the value of your work– Predicting when you’ll have a breakthrough



CHALLENGES

Long-Term Goals Near-Term Progress

Visionary Credible

Divergent Options Need to Focus

Sufficient Investment Affordable



Examining Methods for Breakthrough Research

• Defining the Problem• What are the “Important Problems”?• Horizon Mission Method• Special challenges of hunting breakthroughs

• Collecting Data• S-Curve lesson• On revolutions

• Forming Hypotheses• Human creativity patterns• Science fiction inspirations• Brainstorming• Critical filtering

• Testing Hypotheses, just one small step at a time• Affordable• Non-threatening

• Share Findings and Try Again• Publish dead ends• Clearing house of findings



Defining THE Problem

• Grand ChallengesLong-range, seemingly impossible goals as catalysts for sustained innovations. These are the goals whose solutions will make a huge difference

• Important ProblemsThose aspects of the Grand Challenges that can be attacked today, that will distinguish the significant research from the mundane



Distinguishing Between Good & Great researchers(Richard Hamming, “You and Your Research” Lecture at Morris Research & Engineering Center (May 7 1986)

• Great researchers tackle the “Important Problems” not the safe problems• Initially develops independent thoughts• Courageous, focused, driven, & steady• Converts what is difficult into something easier• Tolerates ambiguity:

– believe enough in self to proceed,– but doubt self enough to see flaws

• Learns things beyond their own work: “Knowledge is like compound interest”• Sells themselves:

– Writes well– Technical presentations– Executive level presentations

• Honest with self - Overcoming personality flaws (convert liabilities into assets)


1. Pick Impossible Goals, with well-defined boundaries– Prevents mere extrapolations– Forces “out of box” thinking

2. Assume it can be done– Imagine you are in the future; imagine solutions– Use inspirational imagery (including science fiction)

3. Look back from the future; identify limiting assumptions4. Identify the genuine critical challenges5. Identify knowledge gaps

– What questions still remain unanswered?– How do we seek those answers?


“Horizon Mission Method” To Define Problems(Anderson, "Leaps of the Imagination: Interstellar Flight & the Horizon Mission Methodology," JBIS, 49:15-20, 1996)


“Space travel is utter bilge.”- Dr. Richard van der Riet Wooley (one year before Sputnik 1)

“The secrets of flight will not be mastered within our lifetime, not within a thousand years.”

- Wilbur Wright (two years before Kittyhawk)

“Heavier than air flying machines are impossible,X-rays are a hoax”

- William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)

But then, don’t forget that there were also crazy ideas that were just plain crazy.


Reflexive Response to Potential Breakthroughs


Challenges

High payoffs evoke High emotions

+Edge of knowledge evokes

Controversial ideas

=Hot debates with premature conclusions

And eventuallyBreakdown of constructive discourse

Challenges

High payoffs evoke High emotions

+Edge of knowledge evokes

Controversial ideas

=Hot debates with premature conclusions

And eventuallyBreakdown of constructive discourse

Mitigation

• Dissect big gains into small issues

• Aim for discriminating tests

• Consider results objectively

• Constrain conclusions within irrefutable data

• Openly publish and discuss

Mitigation

• Dissect big gains into small issues

• Aim for discriminating tests

• Consider results objectively

• Constrain conclusions within irrefutable data

• Openly publish and discuss


Dealing With Revolutionary, Provocative Research


• Business Driven: Revolutions Come From OutsideHisrich (2003) ENTP 429 Class Note– Technological Myopia (Incumbent focus on their own, old, technology )– Focus on Existing Customers (diminishing pool or shifting to different customers)– Capital Allocation Processes

• Not interested in projects that might not work• Insist on hard data where it is not possible


Lessons for Seeking Revolutions

• Concept Driven: “Paradigm Shifts”Kuhn (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions– Copernicus– Newton– Darwin– Einstein– Quantum Mechanics

• Tool DrivenDyson (1997) Imagined Worlds– Telescopes… Galileo– X-Ray Diffraction… Crick/Watson– Hubble Telescope…– High Temperature Superconductors…– Micro, Nano, etc…– Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider…– Computation (Includes Internet collaboration)…


Consider this as a model for planning discussions, workshops

1. Define the problem

2. Deluge with information

3. Gestation period... “Ah-Ha!”

4. Brainstorm multiple paths (Diverge)

5. Gestation period... “Ah-Ha!”

6. Critically filter down to workable set (Converge)

7. Try it out and iterate


Lessons About Creative Process(multiple sources)


• Sci-Fi has been found to be a common, significant inspiration to pioneers.• Sci-Fi has not been found to be an accurate predictor of the future.


Science Fiction Inspirations for BrainstormingEmme, E., ed, (1982) Science Fiction & Space Futures Past & Present, Am. Astronautical Soc. History Series, V. 5.

InspirationJ. Verne

VisionVon Braun

RealityApollo


Convert Objections into Objectives

Be Visionary!

• Assume it can be done• Imagine the possibilities• Draw on inspirations• Pattern past successes

Be Visionary!

• Assume it can be done• Imagine the possibilities• Draw on inspirations• Pattern past successes

Be Credible!

• Be constructively skeptical• Identify unsolved challenges• Build on known science• Aim toward testable concepts• Use scientific method

Be Credible!

• Be constructively skeptical• Identify unsolved challenges• Build on known science• Aim toward testable concepts• Use scientific method


Effective Brainstorming


Rules of Engagement

1. No scoffing at presenter. Remember that every breakthrough started as an incomplete, crazy idea.

2. Use “PINS” sequence:1st Identify what is Positive.2nd Identify what is Interesting.3rd Identify what is Negative, AND4th Suggest ways to overcome flaws.

Give suggestion in writing later.

3. Feel free to add ideas.

Responding to New Ideas Presenting New Idea

1. No scoffing at critics. Remember skepticism is a normal, necessary part of shaping ideas into products.

2. Seek constructive suggestions to further advance the idea. Shape objections into objectives.

3. Be open to adapt ideas to take advantage of new information.

HUMOR is Constructive!


Effective Brainstorming


Managing Breakthrough ResearchFinding the Middle Ground Between Credibility and Visions

1. Zero Propellant

2. Faster-Than-Light

3. Onboard Energy

Vacuum Battery ?

GrandChallenges

Concepts& Devices

Curious Effects, Unknowns, & Issues

Space Drives

Warp Drives & Wormholes

Quantum Fluctuations

General Relativity

Conservation Laws

Quantum Mechanics

Cosmology

Anomalous Rotation Rates(“Dark Matter”)

Anomalous Red-shifts(“Dark Energy”)

mpvp = mrvr

FoundationalPhysics

Compare Emerging Physics to Visions


General Physics�SRL-1

Curious Effects, Unknowns & Issues�SRL-2

Concepts & Devices�SRL-3

BPP�GOALS

Mapping Physics to BPP Goals

COLOR KEY:

Marc G. Millis Draft Ver. 2004-10-08_BPP_Map

= Dismissed

SRL-n.0 (Noticed) SRL-n.1 (Problem Defn) SRL-n.2 (Collect Data) SRL-n.3 (Hypothesis) SRL-n.4 (Tested) = TRL-1 (Op Principles) TRL-2 (Concept Design) TRL-3 (Design Tested)Place-Holder

= Caution = Continue Study = Info Included Blk Frame = Title or Empirical+Theoretical Gry Frame = Empirical Wht Frame = Theoretical= TBD

Goal-1�MASS

Goal-2�SPEED

Goal-3�ENERGY

Thrusting

Short Cuts

a priori�FTL

Energy in Space

Alt Nuc

Alt Chem

Sail Drives

NET TRANSFER METHOD

Field Drives

Alt Emission�e.g. photon rocket

Brute Fast

Metric Engineering

Alt Dimensions

Tachyon Drive

Transport via�QM NonLocality &

Entanglement

KE Coupling

ZPE

Alt Antimatter

Alt Fusion

Casimir Echo�(LaPointe)

DISCIPLINES

Arrow of Time

ANOMALIES

Hi-Energy�Cosmic Rays

Gamma Ray Bursts

Arbitrary Parameters in Std. Mdl.

Matter/Antimatter Asymmetries

Anomalous Galactic Rotation Rates�

(aka Dark Matter)

Anisotropy of EM Propagation

Anomalous Red Shifts�(aka Dark Energy)

Solar Neutrino Flux

Sonolum Spectrum

Saxl Charged Torque Pendulum

Josephson Junction Sinusoid / Yr

Pendulum @ Eclipse

Cosmological Constant

Conservation of Momentum

Conservation of Energy

MOND?

Maxwell Eq

2nd Law Thermo

Zero Point Energy

Standard Model

Lorentz Invariance

Brans-Dicke

Yilmaz

Electromagnetism

Quantum Mechanics

Particle Physics

Special Relativity

Strings & Branes

Thermodynamics�& Energy

Differential

Diode

Induction

Diametric

Pitch

Bias

Disjunction

Alt-Wave

Grav-Wave

Casimir Battery�(Forward)

Sono-Fusion

f-sec Laser Fusion

LENRs

(Black Light)

Deep Dirac

Space Warps

Wormholes�(Visser)

Hyperspace

Tachyon Space

Translocation

Inertia Cycle�(Woodward)

Rectified Slepian�(Corum)

PHENOMENA USED

Extreme Energy

Negative Energy

Hadron Collider�Mini-Blk-holes

Causality

ISSUES

MASS OPTIONS Inertial Mass

Charged MassDark Matter?Virtual Pairs?

Higgs particles?

EMCBR

Higgs?GR Grav Waves?

MOMENTUM-ENERGY WAVES

SPACE PROPERTIES�-or- SPACETIME STRUCTURESInertial Frame�(Mach Space)

EtherÓ?Dark Matter?

Higgs Fields?QM Foam?

ZPEs (EM, G, etc)?

Grav Potential

Space Energy?

Alt Dimension?

Vibrating ZPE Mirror�(Maclay/Forward)

OF INTEREST

Stellar Aberration

Focualt Pendulum�& Coriolis Effect

Hypercharge�5th Force

Mach Principle

Tunneling Speed?

Schlicher Thruster

Free Energy claims

Anomalous TrajectoriesRetarded Potentials

Vacuum Optical Analogy

Equivilance Principle

Gravito-Magnetism

Cosmic Background Radiation

Local Stnd of Rest

Anomalous Forces Near RF-Pumped Superconductors

Quantum Nonlocality

Nullor Space Drive (Fwd)

GR g Dipole (Fwd)

Biefeld-Brown, et. al.

UNKNOWNS

Scalar G Waves?

ZPEs (EM, G, etc)?

VARIANTS / CLAIMS

CONTROL METHOD

Extreme Boundary (superconductors)

Motion of Masses� - Rotation� - Off Cycle

EM Modulations

Extreme V or A

Superconductor Force Impulse Beam

Net External Force

Reaction Mass?

Energy Transfer Mechanism

Transient Inertia?�1st & 2nd Term�

(Woodward)

Neutrino - Mass2?

Speed of Spacetime?

Eq. Reaction Mass in Space ?

Abraham-Minkowski Controversy

Tachyons?

Detectability of�LSR Motion ?

Violations of Local Position Invariance

?

Reliability of Gravito-Mag data

w/ Superconductors

Violations of Weak Equivilance Principle ?

Gravity & Inertia of Antimatter

EM-GravWave transduction via Superconductors

Space Drives�(Millis)

Boundary Mod

ELF EMG (deAquino)

Mech. Osc. Drives

Antigravity

Speed of Gravity?

Anomaly @ RHIC�Quark-Gluon Plasma

MEG (Bearden)

Kinematics

Imaginary time (Minami)

Pondermotive Force�(Smith)

Minkowski EM mv�(Brito)

EM-G Alternatives�(Cravens)

EM-Tensors�(Kron)

EM-G Alt, SU3 ?�(Barret)

Grav Gauge Sym �(Tucker)

Novel Force Engine (Allen)Detect e, m = f(G)

Torsion, EM- ST�(Ringermacher)

ZPE - Inertia ?�(Haische)

Polarizable Vac ?�(Puthoff)

EM ZPE Tangible?

Heim 8D TheoryGeneralization of

Cerenkov radiation to vacuum, et.al.

Strong Field limit to Euclidean Analogies

Inertia of Bose-Einstein Cond.

Wormhole Induction�(Davis)

Warp Drive�(Alcubierre)

Tubes�(Krasnikov)

FTL Self-Ref QM (Goff)

General Relativity� - Geometric� - Euclidean� - Quantum Grav

Astronomy &�Cosmology

Brane Propulsion (Minami, Loup)

Fusor

Brady Asym Fluid

Marchese tests

Find the middle groundwhere goals and foundations

Intersect.

Then answer theImportant Questions.

Foundationsof

Knowledge

DesiredHigh-Gain

Achievements


Converting This Into Research Tasks


Typical “Instinct” Approach• Lead person picks pet projects or the latest hot

topics.• Funds sought for selected approaches only.• Other approaches not comparatively assessed

in a rigorous manner.

Typical Results• Success is defined in terms of whether the

approach worked.• Negative results not published.• In the event of a null result, support ebbs.• Window closes on all other approaches for

addressing these same challenges.

Typical “Instinct” Approach• Lead person picks pet projects or the latest hot

topics.• Funds sought for selected approaches only.• Other approaches not comparatively assessed

in a rigorous manner.

Typical Results• Success is defined in terms of whether the

approach worked.• Negative results not published.• In the event of a null result, support ebbs.• Window closes on all other approaches for

addressing these same challenges.

Contrasting Typical -vs- Strategic Approach

Better Strategic Approach• Lead person acts as an impartial broker.• Funding set to what the challenge is worth.• Various approaches solicited and

comparatively evaluated.• Selection criteria concurred with customers and

practitioners.• Scope of each task set to the minimal effort

needed to resolve an immediate “go / no-go”question.

Results Sought• Success defined as gaining reliable knowledge

to guide next steps.• Results, pro or con, published to set foundation

for future decisions.• Opportunity open for sequels to the positive

results, and to redirections around null results.

Better Strategic Approach• Lead person acts as an impartial broker.• Funding set to what the challenge is worth.• Various approaches solicited and

comparatively evaluated.• Selection criteria concurred with customers and

practitioners.• Scope of each task set to the minimal effort

needed to resolve an immediate “go / no-go”question.

Results Sought• Success defined as gaining reliable knowledge

to guide next steps.• Results, pro or con, published to set foundation

for future decisions.• Opportunity open for sequels to the positive

results, and to redirections around null results.


Turning This Into A Project


• Goals– Promise to deliver measurable progress– Do not promise to deliver breakthroughs

• Broad participation– Acquire the pioneering skill mix (Combine Masters and Pioneers)– Get the researcher pool– Get the advocacy pool

• Digestible pieces– Devise and propose short-term, low-cost, and incremental tasks– Non-threatening increments of progress– Provide means to monitor progress and judge value regularly

• Resonate Funding Level– Large enough to make progress– Small enough to avoid being a target


Suggestions for Making Research Proposals


Commercetechnology applied, sold

Technologyscience applied

SciencePhenomena understood

SpeculationA knowledgeable guess

ConjectureA wishful vision

“Too risky.” “We don’t need it.”

“It’s not practical.” “It’ll never work.”

“That doesn’t fit with existing theories.”

“You’re Crazy.” “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”What do we need to learn?

How dowe make a

useful device?

How can we use this new

science?

How do we test this?


Stepping Over Classical Barriers


TRL 7 Engineering model tested in space.

TRL 6 Prototype / engineering model tested in relevant environment.

TRL 5 Component / breadboard tested in relevant environment.

TRL 4 Critical function / characteristic demonstration.

TRL 3 Conceptual design tested.

TRL 2 Conceptual design formulated.

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported.Conjecture

Speculation

Science

Technology

Routine

Managing Breakthrough ResearchMeasuring Progress: “Technology Readiness Levels”

Hord, M., CRC Handbook of Space Technology: Status & Projections, CRC Press, FL, © 1985


Scientific Method (as readiness levels):SM-4 Hypothesis empirically confirmed / dismissedSM-3 Hypothesis proposedSM-2 Data collectedSM-1 Problem formulated (identify relevant knowledge gaps)SM-Ø Pre-science:

• Anomalous effect noted, or• Correlation between goal & knowledge recognized.

Conjecture

Speculation

Science

Technology

Routine

Relevance of science topic (as readiness levels):R-3 Directly relevant to a technologically desired effectR-2 Critical make-break issue underlying the desired effectR-1 Underlying general physics

First, specify the degree of relevance of the emerging science, and then specify the progress achieved within this relevance using the Scientific Method levels.

R-3/SM-4 = TRL-1


Measuring Applied Science ProgressMillis (2004) BPP Project Management Methods, NASA/TM-2004-213406


• Devise criteria using team of practitioners and customers– Practitioners know what can be done

– Customers know what is needed

• Grading proposals– Peer (practitioner) reviews constrained to use criteria, plus subjective score

– Grade relevance and reliability, not the predicted technical outcome.

– Have proposal summary sheet matched to criteria

– Multiple reviewers per proposal

• Selecting awards– Compile scores to rank and flag disparate reviews (standard deviations)

– Customer (not practitioner) selects

– Select diversified research portfolio, not just highest-ranking set


Suggestions for Research Selections


• Multiplicative criteria (failed criteria fails whole proposal)

• Scholastic gradations (A through F) where possible

• Independent, minimum criteria concurred by team

TotalScore =ANA

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

aBNB

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

bC +Cmin

NC

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

c

Where:– A, B, C represent criteria scores– a, b, c are weighting factors

(where 1 is the maximum value, and lower priorities are fractions of 1)– NA, NB, NC are normalizing functions– Cmin is a preset value to prevent the parenthetical term from equaling

zero, thereby making criteria C non-mandatory.


Suggested Proposal Grading Method


Technical Relevance1: Gain – Magnitude of performance improvement, assuming the technology ultimately

reaches fruition.

2: Empiricism – Tangible effects or just theory?

3: Readiness – The present maturity of the topic/concept under study.

4: Progress – Magnitude of progress to be achieved, as measured by the difference in the readiness now, and the anticipated readiness upon completion of the task.

Credibility5: Foundations – Based on credible references.

6: Contrasts – Compared to current credible competing work.

7: Tests – Leading toward a discriminating test.

8: Results – Probability that the task will result in a reliable foundation for future decisions.

Resources9: Triage – Will it be done anyway or is it unique to this Project?

10: Cost – Funding required (reciprocal scoring factor).

11: Time – Time required to complete task (reciprocal scoring factor).


Sample Criteria from NASA BPP Project


Clearing House Research Summary Form ?A: Submitted by: Submission ID#: Reviewer ID#:

B: Title of submission (for published results, list full reference citation here) C: Submission Type: SCORESCalculated Composite:

Published Results(blocks R,S optional)) F D C B A 0-4

D: Central issue, unknown, or observation under study (paragraph) Subjective Score:Proposal

(Skip blocks E,F) F D C B A 0-4

Automated Pre-Score:Suggested Inquiry

(Fill in at least A-D,G,K,N) F D C B A 0-4

E: Findings [Only required when citing published results] (paragraph & check box F) F: Sequels Expected? SEQUELS JUSTIFIED?

RELEVANCEG: Relevance to Project (paragraph & check-boxes H) H: Ultimate Improvement 1: Gains toward Goals?

Mass M

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0-4

Speed S

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0-4

Energy E

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0-4

I: Increment of work proposed or reported (paragraph & check boxes J,K,L,P,S) J: Type of Research 2: Empiricism

Study Theory Expmt Ex&Th S T E T&E 1-4

KL: Readiness & Progress 3-4: Readiness & Progress

�TRL2 �TRL2 �TRL2 �TRL2

Test Test

Hypoth Hypoth

Data Data

Defn Defn

PreSci PreSci

M: Contrasting or skeptical challenges to the proposed (or reported) approach (paragraph) Test Test

Hypoth Hypoth

Data Data

Defn Defn

PreSci PreSci

Test Test

Hypoth Hypoth

Data Data

Defn Defn

PreSci PreSci

Science Readiness Levels(4) Calculated Progress

N: Founding References (list) O: Representative Graphic (optional) P: Related Disciplines(Check all that apply) F D C B A 0-4

Basic Motion & EnergyElectromagnetismSpecial Relativity CREDIBILITYQuantum Mechanics 5: FoundationsQM: VacuumQM: Non-Locality F D C B A 0-4

QM: Gravity 6: ContrastsParticle Physics

Q: Contrasting or Skeptical References (list) Micro/Nano Physics F D C B A 0-4

Cryogenic Physics 7: TestabilitySuperconductorsCosmology/Astron F D C B A 0-4

General Relativity 8: ResultsGR: Metric EngrGR: GravitoMagnetic F D C B A 0-4

Strings/Branes

RESOURCESR: Prior publications to reflect proposed researchers' qualifications (list) S: Resources 9: Triage:

Triage: D C A 1-4

Likely other ? BPP unique 10: Cost

Cost: $ K F D C B A 0-4

T: Performing Organization U: Other Sponsors (optional)Time: 11: Time (yrs)

�3y 2y 1y <1y D C B A 1-4

Critica

l Is

sues

Gen

eral

Phys

Des

ired

Eff

ects

Critica

l Is

sues

Gen

eral

Phys

Des

ired

Eff

ects

Before AfterK: Before L: After

No YesMaybe

REVIEW COLUMN

Red Yel Grn

Findings Summary SheetsIn-House GRC Research (1993-1994 GRC Director’s Discretionary Funds)

Experimental Evaluation of Hooper’s Gravity-Electromagnetic Coupling ConceptMarc Millis & Gary Scott Williamson, NASA GRC.

Critical Issue:Are the claims of gravitational effects from self-canceling EM coils (as Patented) genuine?

BPP Relevance: Goal 1 (Mass)

Founding Reference:• Hooper, W. J., “All-Electric Motional Electric Field Generator,”

US Patent 3,610,971 (oct 1971).

Type of work:Experimental assessments.

Increment of Progress:

CONCLUSION: The claimed effect was not found in replication experiments within the sensitivity of the apparatus (40µg).

DETAILS: Millis & Williamson, Experimental Results of Hooper’s Gravity-Electromagnetic Coupling Concept, NASA TM-106963 (June 1995)

How Supported

Topic & PI

Relative Maturity(Color coded findings)

Graphic IconsRelevance

Starting Point

Concluding Reference

Key Finding(Color coded)

Test anomalous gravity claims with dual microstructure YBCO DiskG. Hathaway, et.al, Hathaway Consulting, Ontario, Canada

Independently Funded Research

Critical Issue:Independent test of unconfirmed anomalous gravitational effects with YBCO superconductors.

BPP Relevance: Goal 1 (Mass)

Example Founding References:Podkletnov E. and Nieminen R., Physica C 203 (1992) 441

Concluding Reference:Hathaway, Cleveland, & Bao, “Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields,” Physica C, 385 (2003) pp. 488-500.

Type of work:Experimental tests.

Increment of Progress:

FINDING: “… no evidence of a gravity-like force…”with sensitivity “50 times better than… Podkletnov.”

Null Finding: Gravity Shield

Introducing the Interstellar Flight FoundationUsing the dream of reaching other worlds as a long-range goal and a catalyst for near-term progress, the Interstellar Flight Foundation supports incremental advancements in science, technology, and education. As a private nonprofit (501c3) corporation, supported mainly through philanthropic donations, the Foundation seeks out and directs support to the best practitioners who can make credible progress toward this incredible goal and educate the public throughout this journey of discovery.

TM

Interstellar Flight Foundation - Plans• Tracking and explaining relevant

advances (Centauri Dreams website)• Building network of practitioners• Awards for significant advancements• Educational outreach

– Web resources– Milestone Books– Inspirational Documentaries

• Sponsoring research through competitive selections

• Invitational Research InstituteTM



Misc. Lessons From Business Innovation Ventures• Don’t reorganize, start from scratch (Henderson, Clark, Architectural Innovation…1990)• Change orientation away from refinement to one of active search (Henderson, Clark, Architectural

Innovation…1990)• Firms that conduct in-house R&D are better able to use external information and collaborations (Cohen,

Levinthal, Absorptive Capacity…1990)• Expose broad range of employees to broad range of external information [travel for more than just for

presenting papers] (Cohen, Levinthal, Absorptive Capacity…1990)• Balance inward-looking and outward-looking research, else poorly functioning organization (Cohen,

Levinthal, Absorptive Capacity…1990)• Cyclical Innovation new business units, (total = 6; market strategists & engineers, whose ratio evolves

from definition [market] to development [engineering] to launch [market]) (Tabrizi, Walleigh, Defining Next-generation products…1997)

• Separate innovation from taking care of existing markets (Chesbrough, Designing Corporate Ventures…2000)

• Utilize venture capital structures, in-house (Chesbrough, Designing Corporate Ventures…2000)• Broad swath on markets, do not limit to existing base (Chesbrough, Designing Corporate Ventures…2000)• Look for disruptive technologies outside the usual places (Ken Zinda, 2004, CWRU lecture)• Lessons from the “Bike Shop” ...

– Focused on solving particular needs– 15 handpicked engineers & scientists described as creative, eccentric and bored.– Direct purchase credit card privileges ($250K/month!)– Machinists and world-class equipment available (not farmed out)– Scientist and engineers actually play with their contraptions– Low-tech feel to surroundings– Secretive unit (presumed for Defense sensitivities and Commercial competitiveness)



ABSTRACT

Based on the experiences of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project, management techniques for addressing high-gain and high-risk research are presented. This includes the operating philosophies for casting long-range and uncertain prospects into more reliable, near-term steps. The methods for reviewing, prioritizing, and selecting research tasks are also included. Specifically, these methods employ the following key features: (a) invited research tasks are constrained to only address the immediate unknowns, curious effects or critical issues, (b) reliability of practitioners ranks higher than the implications of claimed technical benefits (c) reviewers judge credibility rather than feasibility, and (d) total scores are obtained by multiplying the criteria scores rather than by adding. Lessons learned are discussed. This presentation is a summary of the following recent report:

Marc G. Millis, "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods", NASA TM-2004-213406 (2004 Dec.)

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2004/TM-2004-213406.html

breakthrough managing high-risk/high-gain...

Documents