Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station

Review of NASA Strategic Roadmaps: Space Station Panel

Space Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station Review of NASA Strategic Roadmaps: Space Station Panel Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract NASW-01001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-10085-2 Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, <http://www.nap.edu>. Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station Other Reports of the Space Studies Board The Astrophysical Context of Life (SSB with the Board on Life Sciences, 2005) Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation (2005) Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions (2005) Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences (2005) Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars (2005) Priorities in Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion (SSB with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2005) Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences (2005) Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration (2005) Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report (SSB with ASEB, 2004) Exploration of the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report (2004) Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy (SSB with ASEB, 2004) Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos (2004) Review of Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Letter Report (2004) Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration (2004) Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics (2004) Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond (SSB with ASEB and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate [BASC], 2004) Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy: Letter Report (2003) Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy: Letter Report (2003) Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations (SSB with ASEB and BASC, 2003) Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions (2003) The Sun to the Earthand Beyond: Panel Reports (2003) Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA (2002) New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy (2002) The Sun to Earthand Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics (2002) Limited copies of these reports are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3477/ssb@nas.edu www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html NOTE: Listed according to year of approval for release.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station REVIEW OF NASA STRATEGIC ROADMAPS: SPACE STATION PANEL MARY JANE OSBORN, University of Connecticut Health Center, Chair PORTONOVO S. AYYASWAMY, University of Pennsylvania JAMES P. BAGIAN, Veterans Administration National Center for Patient Safety ELIZABETH CANTWELL, Los Alamos National Laboratory MICHAEL J. ECONS, Indiana University School of Medicine TOMMY W. HOLLOWAY, NASA (retired) HERMAN J. MERTE, JR., University of Michigan (professor emeritus) JAMES PAWELCZYK, Pennsylvania State University JAMES G. QUINTIERE, University of Maryland DENNIS W. READEY, Colorado School of Mines DANNY A. RILEY, Medical College of Wisconsin CAROL E.H. SCOTT-CONNER, University of Iowa College of Medicine PETER SUEDFELD, University of British Columbia (professor emeritus) KENNETH T. WHEELER, JR., Wheeler Scientific Consultants, Inc. Staff SANDRA J. GRAHAM, Study Director CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Assistant Editor CELESTE NAYLOR, Senior Program Assistant

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station SPACE STUDIES BOARD LENNARD A. FISK, University of Michigan, Chair GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), Vice Chair SPIROS K. ANTIOCHOS,† Naval Research Laboratory DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado ANA P. BARROS,* Duke University RETA F. BEEBE, New Mexico State University ROGER D. BLANDFORD, Stanford University RADFORD BYERLY, JR., University of Colorado JUDITH A. CURRY, Georgia Institute of Technology JACK D. FARMER, Arizona State University JACQUELINE N. HEWITT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DONALD INGBER, Harvard Medical Center RALPH H. JACOBSON, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired) TAMARA E. JERNIGAN, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory KLAUS KEIL,† University of Hawaii MARGARET G. KIVELSON,* University of California, Los Angeles DEBRA S. KNOPMAN,† RAND CALVIN W. LOWE, Bowie State University HARRY Y. McSWEEN, JR.,* University of Tennessee BERRIEN MOORE III, University of New Hampshire NORMAN NEUREITER, American Association for the Advancement of Science SUZANNE OPARIL, University of Alabama, Birmingham RONALD F. PROBSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DENNIS W. READEY, Colorado School of Mines ANNA-LOUISE REYSENBACH,* Portland State University ROALD S. SAGDEEV,* University of Maryland CAROLUS J. SCHRIJVER,* Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory HARVEY D. TANANBAUM, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory RICHARD H. TRULY,† National Renewable Energy Laboratory (retired) J. CRAIG WHEELER, University of Texas, Austin A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) GARY P. ZANK,† University of California, Riverside MARCIA SMITH, Director (from March 2006) JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Director (through October 2005) *   Member until June 30, 2005. †   Member starting July 1, 2005.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station Preface In January 2004 President George W. Bush announced that the U.S. space program would undertake “a renewed period of discovery,” and he charged the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with focusing its efforts on exploration.a Subsequently referred to as the vision for space exploration, this policy included human and robotic missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The group appointed by President Bush to recommend how to best implement the new policythe Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policyissued its report in June 2004.b The commission endorsed the objectives and actions specified in the president’s vision for space exploration and recommended that NASA address certain new technology capabilities that it would need in its various endeavors over the next several decades. The commission also recommended that NASA “ask the National Academy of Sciences to engage its constituent scientific community in a re-evaluation of priorities to exploit opportunities created by the space exploration vision.”c Then-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe subsequently wrote to the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering proposing that the National Research Council (NRC) and NASA consider how to “collectively address the commission’s recommendations.”d He also announced a new strategic planning process in which NASA would develop a set of strategic roadmaps for each of the major exploration objectives. Finally, Congress in its FY 2005 appropriations bill for NASA directed the “Space Studies Board to conduct a thorough review of the science that NASA is proposing to undertake under the space exploration initiative, and to develop a strategy by which all of NASA science disciplines … can make adequate progress toward their established goals as well as providing balanced scientific research in addition to support to the new initiative.”e The NRC’s initial, partial response to the recommendations of the president’s commission and the requests from NASA and the Congress was provided in the Space Studies Board’s February 2005 report Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration.f Contemporaneously with the preparation of that report and in response to the president’s direction, NASA created two complementary roadmapping efforts: a capabilities roadmapping effort and a strategy roadmapping effort. These were to be melded to produce an integrated space exploration architecture for the agency. To further assist NASA, and in response to the various requests, the NRC a   “President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program, Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.,” January 14, 2004. Available at <www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html>. b   President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, 2004. c   A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, p. 9. d   Letter dated July 12, 2004, from NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe to National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts. See Appendix A. e   Conference Report (House Report 108-792) to Accompany H.R. 4818 FY 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Bill, Division I—Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, “National Aeronautics and Space Administration,” p. 1. f   NRC, Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station organized separate, independent reviews of the expected NASA roadmaps, including a review of an anticipated roadmap for the completion and use of the International Space Station (ISS). However, when Michael Griffin became NASA’s administrator in mid-April 2005, he directed that the agency accelerate the completion of some of the ongoing strategic roadmaps and deferred or redirected other portions of NASA’s strategic planning activities. The NRC review efforts were changed accordingly. The Space Studies Board, in collaboration with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, was redirected to conduct two reviews (instead of five), the first to assess NASA’s six strategy roadmaps in space and Earth sciences and the second to review a NASA plan for the ISS. In this connection it formed two panels: the Panel on Review of NASA Science Strategy Roadmaps and the Review of NASA Strategic Roadmaps: Space Station Panel. The two NRC panels were given the following charge: Assess the intrinsic merit of the proposed roadmap objectives and of their proposed implementing programs, especially with respect to relevant NRC or other external advisory reports. Assess whether clear arguments are made for their potential for contributing decisive or transformational technological or scientific advancements. Ascertain whether there are any significant gaps or if there are important crosscutting opportunities or scientific infrastructure issues that are not identified and adequately developed. To the extent feasible, within the constraints of the schedule and the availability of NASA material for review, [the panel will] also consider the following: Initial priorities and decision rules for making prioritization decisions; Relationships between program elements; Schedule, resource, and technology realism; and Relationships between NASA and non-NASA participants from the perspective of whether the roadmaps can make adequate progress toward their established goals as well as providing scientific research support of the vision for space exploration. The review of six science strategy roadmaps in Earth and space sciences was conducted by the Panel on Review of NASA Science Strategy Roadmaps under an expedited schedule in June and July of 2005, and the report was released in prepublication form in August 2005.g The Space Station Panel’s review of the plan for the ISS was deferred to the fall of 2005 so that NASA could complete a 60-day study of the “configuration options for the ISS in the context of potential future flight rates for the Space Shuttle Program, and within the Presidential constraint to cease flights of the Shuttle fleet no later than the end of fiscal year 2010.”h The findings of that 60-day study were to be integrated into NASA’s ISS research and use plan before the NRC Space Station Panel reviewed it. On September 22, 2005, the NRC Space Station Panel received viewgraph materials providing review context and background on recent NASA studies bearing on ISS utilization; the results of the analysis by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate of ISS utilization requirements; ISS mission objectives for exploration; descriptions of the payloads currently manifested on ISS mission Increments 12 to 15; and a white paper describing the history of peer-reviewed science objectives for the ISS. The panel met once, October 3-5, 2005, to hear briefings on several NASA studies relevant to ISS planning and use, including the 60-day study of the configuration options for the ISS. g   NRC, Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005 [prepublication]. h   Letter dated May 23, 2004, from NASA Deputy Administrator Frederick Gregory to Space Studies Board Chair Lennard Fisk. The 60-day study was called the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team study, and its scope included ISS assembly, operations, and use.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Eleanor Blakely, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Carlos Fernandez-Pello, University of California, Berkeley, Andrew Hoffman, East Windsor Associates, Suzanne Oparil, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Lawrence A. Palinkas, University of Southern California, George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), Ronald F. Probstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (emeritus professor), and Joseph H. Rothenberg, Universal Space Network. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   6      Planned Purpose of the ISS,   6      Scope and Limitations of This Study,   7 2   PROCESS FOR DEFINING ISS UTILIZATION   8      Incomplete Information in Decision Support Tools,   9      Using the ISS to Support Exploration Missions,   10      Including Research and Development as an Objective of ISS Utilization,   12      Planning ISS Utilization to Support Operations Demonstrations for Exploration,   13      Life Support Considerations,   13      Keeping the ISS Utilization Plan Effective and Current,   14       References,   14 3   PLANS FOR ISS CONSTRUCTION   15      Completion of ISS Construction,   15      Post-shuttle ISS Logistics Support,   16      Crew Deployment,   16       Recommendations,   16       Reference,   17 4   BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ISSUES   18       Radiation,   18      Bone and Muscle,   19       Behavior,   20       Data,   21       References,   22 5   TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY OBJECTIVES SUPPORTED BY THE ISS   26      Fire Safety,   26      Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer Issues,   28      Materials Research,   30       References,   30 6   ADDITIONAL AND OVERARCHING ISSUES   32      Utilization of the ISS for Long-range Human Exploration of Space,   32      Utilization of the ISS for Fundamental Research,   33      Crew Size,   33       References,   33

OCR for page R1
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station     APPENDIXES         A  Letters from NASA   37     B  Acronyms and Abbreviations   42     C  National Academies’ Reports Relevant to This Study   43     D  Biographies of Panel Members and Staff   44