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 81
On the Utilization of the Space Station
On the Utilization of the Space Station
On July 26, 1994, Space Studies Board Chair Claude Canizares,
Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Former Chair Fred Turek, and
Committee on Microgravity Research Former Chair William Sirignano sent the
following letter to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin.
Over the past decade or so, the Space Studies Board has issued a series
of statements concerning scientific utilization of a space station.1 Two consistent
themes appear throughout the Board's positions on the subject. First, there are
national considerations for building a space station other than scientific research:
to enhance international leadership and prestige, to stimulate the nation's
educational achievement and the U.S. technology base, and to realize the long-
term goal of long-duration human space exploration. Second, given that the
space station program will have scientific objectives, the station that is built
should be designed and equipped to support the two principal scientific
disciplines it is best suited to serve, life sciences and microgravity sciences.2
In 1993, the Board and its Committees on Space Biology and Medicine
(CSBM) and Microgravity Research (CMGR) conducted an assessment of
planning for research management in the space station program and of precursor
research during the station assembly period on Shuttle Spacelabs and the
Russian Mir. The results of this assessment were transmitted to you in a letter
dated February 25, 1994.
On April 28 and 29, 1994, the CSBM and CMGR again met jointly to (1)
review NASA's response to our letter of February 25, and (2) assess the
capabilities of the newly redesigned International Space Station Alpha (ISSA) and
its Phase I Shuttle-Mir activities for supporting scientific research. The
committees received briefings and written materials from Mr. W. Trafton (Deputy
Associate Administrator for Space Station) on an overview of the ISSA and its
program management plan; Captain W. Shepherd (Deputy Program Manager for
Space Station at the Johnson Space Center) on the details of the ISSA design;
Dr. H. Holloway (Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and
Applications) on changes since the committees' February letter relating to
Spacelab and space station research management; Dr. J. Vernikos and Mr. R.
Rhome (Directors, Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications, and
Microgravity Sciences and Applications divisions, respectively) on plans for life
and microgravity sciences research on the ISSA; and Dr. A. Nicogossian (Deputy
Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications) on
the Shuttle-Mir program.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (1 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
OCR for page 82
On the Utilization of the Space Station
This letter was prepared by the CMGR and CSBM at the conclusion of
their April 1994 meeting and subsequently approved by the Space Studies Board.
SUMMARY
In summary, the Board and the CSBM and CMGR have concluded the
following:
Research Management: NASA has responded positively to the
committees' recommendations. The appointment of a headquarters-level
Research Manager and his or her close relationship with the ISSA Integrated
Product Teams promise an effective method for communicating and
implementing life sciences and microgravity research requirements.
Precursor Research: Continued vigorous research in the life and
microgravity sciences is required to ensure that ISSA's maximum potential as a
life sciences and microgravity research laboratory will be achieved. The CSBM
and CMGR conclude, as detailed below, that the current plans do not allow for a
sufficient level of space research activity, over the years preceding the availability
of the ISSA, to maintain the vitality of research programs in the life and
microgravity sciences. The committees recommend that, in order to promote
scientific progress over the decade of ISSA construction, NASA should consider
additional shuttle flights dedicated to scientific payloads.
ISSA Scientific Research Capability: Substantial progress has been
made in defining an international space station that can, the committees believe,
provide an effective laboratory for research in microgravity and life sciences in
space if a number of remaining concerns are addressed.
1. Research Management
The CSBM and CMGR were generally pleased with NASA's response to
the committees' letter of February 25, 1994. The appointment of a headquarters-
level Research Manager reporting to the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences
and Applications (OLMSA) and his or her close relationship with the ISSA
Integrated Product Teams promise an effective method for communicating and
implementing life sciences and microgravity research requirements.
2. Precursor Research
The committees are concerned about the apparent loss of major elements
of the Spacelab program in order to support the Shuttle-Mir and ISSA programs.
While a Spacelab module will be employed on 5 of the 10 Shuttle-Mir support
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (2 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
OCR for page 83
On the Utilization of the Space Station
flights, it will be severely limited in research capability and will be used mainly for
storage and logistical support. These flights are not an adequate substitute for
previously planned or proposed science-dedicated Spacelab missions in either
the life or microgravity sciences (e.g., SLS-3, SLS-5, 6, and 7, and USMP-5, 6,
and 7). While substantial efforts are being made to find alternatives, such as
utilizing Mir and flying an occasional Bion (a small Russian free-flying spacecraft),
the demise of Spacelab (except for the 1998 SLS-4 Neurolab) will curtail planned
research programs prior to research utilization of the ISSA. The present plans of
OLMSA to maintain research during this period, while commendable, should be
strengthened; a more ambitious plan for science over the interim decade leading
to full ISSA utilization should be developed and matched with appropriate
budgetary resources. Therefore, to continue the advance of microgravity and life
sciences, the committees recommend that additional Shuttle flights be dedicated
to scientific payloads in order to promote scientific progress over the decade prior
to full ISSA capability.
The CSBM and CMGR have some additional specific concerns about the
use of Shuttle-Mir flights as the main opportunities for life sciences and
microgravity research prior to ISSA availability:
NASA should consider including up-to-date equipment on Mir to
support plant and animal physiology research. For example, addition of the Plant
Growth Facility now under development by OLMSA would permit use of the long-
duration microgravity environment of Mir to do important and needed plant
experiments. At present, there are no plans to add such equipment to Mir.
Without an agreement with the Russians for the participation of
cosmonauts in human biomedical experiments, there will be an insufficient
sample size to enable scientists to draw any firm conclusions about the effects of
long-term exposure to microgravity on human physiology.
The microgravity environment on Mir apparently will not permit high-
quality microgravity experiments in many areas of research.
In addition, the CSBM and CMGR urge NASA to make every effort to
preserve ground-based research programs in the life and microgravity sciences
for identifying and refining those scientific questions that are significant enough to
utilize the expensive facilities of space to best advantage. Ground-based efforts
are essential also to developing the community of researchers that will exploit the
potential of the ISSA.
3. ISSA Scientific Research Capability
The committees support the ultimate goal of an international scientific
laboratory in space. A letter from Dr. Charles M. Vest to Dr. John H. Gibbons3
noted the improvement in the management and the technical aspects of the ISSA
program. The presentations to the CSBM and CMGR by Mr. Trafton and Captain
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (3 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
OCR for page 84
On the Utilization of the Space Station
Shepherd likewise addressed the accomplishment of the ISSA as an engineering
undertaking. It should be noted that the committees make no judgments on the
engineering feasibility of assembly or operations of the ISSA. These may be
addressed in studies by the National Research Council's Committee on Space
Station of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. The CMGR and CSBM
believe, however, that in designing the space station to be suitable for life
sciences and microgravity research, NASA has recognized and potentially
overcome many significant environment, resource, and scientific problems. If the
concerns expressed below are adequately met, the ISSA could provide a
productive laboratory for life sciences and microgravity research.
Dynamic Microgravity Environment: The goal of providing a quasi-
steady-state acceleration environment of 1 g is appropriate and adequate for
the conduct of life sciences research and, indeed, this is one of the major
reasons for the station. It is not yet clear, however, how scientific experiments will
be isolated from disturbances of a dynamic nature (e.g., from machinery, crew
activities, thruster firings, and so on). While quasi-static levels of slightly below 1
g are currently achievable on Spacelab flights operated in a minimum drag
configuration, g-jitter acceleration spectra show a wide range of intensities over
various frequencies resulting from dynamic disturbances. The committees hope
that the ISSA will be able to achieve g levels comparable to those of Spacelab
and a better overall acceleration environment. In addition, some experiments in
microgravity research in the future will require much lower quasi-static g values.
A free-flyer platform may prove to be necessary in these cases.
Centrifuge Facility: It must be stressed that a centrifuge for plants and
small mammals is central to the conduct of life sciences research. Furthermore,
the centrifuge is not just a rotor but a facility including various subject habitats
and related equipment. It is important to install the facility in the station as soon
as possible. The committees learned that the facility is unfortunately not part of
OLMSA's "baseline plan" and that its planned inclusion has slipped further, from
2000 to 2004. At present, it is not clear where the resources to support
construction of the centrifuge facility will be found or where the centrifuge facility
can be accommodated on the ISSA.
Cryogenic Capability: NASA should consider including a cryogenic
capability on board the station. As currently planned, the lack of such a capability
will limit certain kinds of research (e.g., in low-temperature physics) and use of
instrumentation based on low temperature (e.g., infrared detectors and
superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based instruments).
Carbon Dioxide: It is important to achieve NASA's stated goal of a
0.37% concentration of carbon dioxide. While such a concentration is generally
acceptable, provisions also need to be made for ensuring concentrations of
carbon dioxide lower than 0.37% in the immediate environment of sensitive
organisms such as plants.
Data: The projected capability for uplinking of commands and
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (4 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
OCR for page 85
On the Utilization of the Space Station
downlinking of data to investigators during space operations appears limited. The
limitations on communications capabilities may eliminate many telescience
projects. Furthermore, long delays have been encountered to date in the Shuttle
program in postflight access to specimens and delayed return of scientific data
for analysis. This situation must be corrected in the ISSA program. Thus, the
adequacy of plans for ISSA data storage, accessibility, and dissemination needs
to be investigated further. These areas remain problematic and would gravely
reduce the ISSA's utility to science if not resolved.
Science Budget Impacts: While the Integrated Product Team approach
to defining the space station program is striving to meet science requirements, it
appears that OLMSA may be charged for certain necessary environmental
accommodations, such as the dynamic vibration isolation system or a lower
carbon dioxide environment. Such charges will have an adverse impact on the
budgets available for research activities and could materially reduce the quantity
and quality of science that can be done on the ISSA.
The CSBM and CMGR wish to thank the NASA personnel who provided
information to the committees for this review. The committees believe that the
ISSA is important to the future of U.S. life and microgravity sciences and look
forward to working closely with NASA to ensure the best possible program.
NOTES
1Letter to NASA Administrator James Beggs, September 13, 1982; Space
Science Board Assessment of the Scientific Value of a Space Station, August 16,
1983; Letter to NASA Administrator James Beggs, September 9, 1983;
Testimony of Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Chair L. Dennis Smith
to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on HUD Appropriations, Committee on
Appropriations, "Space Biology and Medicine and the Space Station," May 1,
1987; Letter to NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Station,
Andrew Stofan, July 21, 1987; Letter to NASA Assistant Associate Administrator
for Science and Applications, Joseph K. Alexander, December 12, 1990; Letter to
NASA Administrator Richard Truly, March 14, 1991; Testimony of Space Studies
Board Chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space, Commerce Committee, April 16, 1991; Letter to NASA
Associate Administrator for Space Systems Development Arnold Aldrich, March
30, 1992; Letter to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, February 25, 1994.
2The National Research Council's Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board has
issued a series of advisory letters and reports on engineering-related aspects of
the space station program, viz: National Research Council, Space Station
Engineering and Technology Development, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 1985; National Research Council, Space Station Engineering
Design Issues, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989; and
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (5 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
OCR for page 86
On the Utilization of the Space Station
Committee on Space Station, Letter to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, May 6,
1993. See also, National Research Council, Report of the Committee on Space
Station of the National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., 1987.
3Letter from Dr. Charles M. Vest to Dr. John H. Gibbons, April 4, 1994. Dr. Vest
chaired the President's Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space
Station that reviewed the redesign in mid-1993. Several members of his
committee reviewed the ISSA plans in March 1994 in terms of their addressing
the June 1993 advisory committee's recommendations (Final Report to the
President, Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, 1993). The
letter to Dr. Gibbons conveyed his personal observations of that review.
Last update 8/29/00 at 11:28 am
Site managed by Anne Simmons, Space Studies Board
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (6 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
OCR for page 87
On the Utilization of the Space Station
The National Academies Current Projects Publications Directories Search Site Map Feedback
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/ss794ltr.htm (7 of 7) [6/18/2004 10:41:54 AM]
