Historical mass, power, schedule, and cost growth for NASA science instruments
In the early stages of NASA instrument development, science instruments are typically the most nascent part of any NASA mission development. As the building of spacecraft become less challenging for a mature industry, NASA's continual need to push the cutting edge of science requires the revolutionary and evolutionary development of instruments to meet science requirements. Instruments then face substantial issues that can result in significant increases in mass, power, cost, and schedule. Although previous studies have identified such issues, there are few industry standard reserve/contingency design and programmatic guidelines for instruments. This paper compares historical mass, power, cost, and schedule growth to industry reserve guidelines while offering potential recommendations to minimize instrument mass, power, cost, and schedule growth for future missions.
The need for an instrument first, spacecraft second mission development approach
NASA science instruments have had a history of developmental delays. These development delays can lead to cost growth for the overall mission, as shown in recent studies of NASA missions and a larger historical data set. There are examples of historical missions, such as QuikSCAT and QuikTOMS, that have had shorter development times and less than historical average cost and schedule growth, which had instruments that were largely developed prior to the start of mission development. This implies that a similar approach, labeled instrument first, spacecraft second (IFSS), could provide reduced cost and schedule growth in future missions. This paper discusses the supporting data for such an approach.
Public health in eight European countries: an international comparison of terminology.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this paper was to assess the use of different terms pertaining to public health in selected Member States of the European Union.


STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Qualitative research methods were used to compare the terminology among eight Member States. Seven to nine core terms were defined for each country, and a search was performed for these terms in the names of institutions and professional titles, organized into three comparable categories.


RESULTS
The data analysis showed considerable diversity in terminology. The three most commonly used terms for each country, and the frequency distribution of the core terms for all eight countries were determined.


CONCLUSION
Public health terminology and underlying concepts vary among Member States of the European Union. A large number of loosely related terms are in use, indicating the lack of a common conceptual framework for the discipline of public health. The most commonly used terms pertaining to public health are 'health sciences' and 'health promotion'. 'Public health' is not among the most commonly used terms.