Free PDF AccessFree Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 1
Space Studies Board
Search:
Jump to
Top
NewsJump
to Science
in the
Subscribe to our FREE e-
Headlines
newsletter!
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
June 18, 2004 Current Operating Status
On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station
Program
On February 25, 1994, Space Studies Board Chair Louis Lanzerotti, Committee on
Space Biology and Medicine Chair Fred Turek, and Committee on Microgravity
Research Chair William Sirignano sent the following letter to NASA Administrator
Daniel Goldin.
Following their joint meeting last November 4 with you, Bryan O'Connor, and Harry
C. Holloway concerning planning for the space station, the Space Studies Board's
Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) and Committee on
Microgravity Research (CMGR) wrote a summary of their reactions to the
discussion and plans along with associated recommendations. 1 Important
decisions concerning selection and management of space station science are
currently being made and will continue to be made over the next several months. It
is the objective of the Board and its committees to contribute positively to these
ongoing discussions and decisions as they are occurring rather than after the fact
in order to help assure the scientific underpinnings of the station during this
formative stage. In brief, the Board and the CSBM and CMGR have concluded the
following:
1. Research in space biology and medicine and in microgravity conducted
under the space station program should be selected and managed using
proven techniques employed by the Office of Space Science and
Applications (OSSA) in the past, for example, with the Spacelab
program, which should serve as a model for space station research
planning. The responsibility for these activities should reside with the
Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA), not
with the Space Station Program Office. Placing responsibility for
selecting and managing space station science outside of the OLMSA
could have a number of detrimental effects (see pages 2-3 below).
2. Termination or restructuring of the long-planned Spacelab program could
result in the loss of much high-quality science and essential data that
should be used in planning the design of the space station for research
utilization (see page 4 below).
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (1 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
OCR for page 2
Space Studies Board
Rapid political and economic developments around the world are combining with
severe budgetary pressures to create turbulence in the U.S. civil space program,
including the space station program. Clearly, issues related to building and
operating the space station will continue to be discussed and debated within
NASA, with the Congress, and with our international partners before final resolution
is obtained. The research community that will use the space station has a
responsibility to the American public to provide advice on how to ensure optimal
scientific return from the orbital laboratory. The Board and its committees
recognize that only a snapshot of space station planning is currently available and
that the information provided on November 4 does not reflect final decisions. The
intent is to offer constructive suggestions about critical research management
issues and the precursor research programs.
As you know, based on its charter and expertise, the Board has provided
continuing advice on basic science and research aspects of the human spaceflight
program. Several times since 1983, the Board has provided advice on the space
station. 2-4 Although the Board's 1991 and 1992 statements acknowledged that
the space station would serve national goals other than science, such as education
and stimulating the U.S. technology base, both statements emphasized the need to
appropriately design and equip the station for effective research by the life and
microgravity sciences, the two principal disciplines the space station is intended to
serve. The presidential directive to redesign the space station and plans to
integrate the station with the Russian space station program prompted the Board to
ask its CMGR and CSBM for a new review of the space station program that would
focus on research management and the station's technical capability to support a
research program. At the November 4 meeting, the CMGR and CSBM looked at
planning for research management for the space station program and at precursor
research during the period leading up to the station's availability. The two
committees expect to consider the station's capabilities for enabling scientific
research at a later date when its design is better defined. The role of OLMSA in
managing the space station research program, and some recommendations
regarding pre-station use of the space shuttle for preparatory research and
cooperative research opportunities on Russian facilities, are discussed below.
Planning and Management to Enable Scientific Research
Planning and operating a space station as an international research facility will
clearly present special challenges. Among the complex issues are how research
opportunities will be advertised, how experiments will be reviewed for selection,
how data will be archived and made available, how research time will be allotted,
and how research management responsibilities will be allocated among
international partners. It is imperative that a rigorous process of open solicitation,
peer review, and continued input from the scientific community be developed and
followed by NASA for the space station program. 5
Getting the best research results from the space station will require maximizing the
quality of each individual phase of the research process, as well as integrating the
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (2 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
OCR for page 3
Space Studies Board
phases smoothly into a coherent whole, beginning with early planning stages and
continuing through hardware design and development to flight operations and data
analysis. An optimal program must also include vitally important contributions from
underlying theoretical and supporting ground-based research programs. All of
these components must be fitted together in a balanced and cost-effective way that
includes flight opportunities as only one element, albeit a central one, of an
integrated orbital research program.
The Board and its committees are concerned about whether a scenario in which
the Space Station Program Office manages this complex process would give the
best results. The Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station (the
Vest Committee) recommended that the space station management organization
include a Research Manager line position, with corresponding influence on
development of the space station system and operations. 6 It is the committees'
understanding that the purpose of this recommendation was to encourage a
management structure in which the science utilization function plays more than an
advisory staff role. During the November meeting, the committees' impression was
that the space station program managers interpreted the Research Manager's role
in broader terms, to include essentially all aspects of the orbital research program-
definition of the science program, selection of investigations and experimenters,
and development and operation of the flight hardware.
Specific concerns of the committees about possible detrimental effects on an
integrated research program from structuring science management along flight
hardware development lines include the potential for the following:
Lack of attention to the supporting ground-based and theoretical
q
research programs and poor integration of these programs into the flight
program;
Lack of familiarity with the science community and the process of
q
scientific investigation versus the engineering and system development
process;
Weakened recognition that the research community does not divide
q
cleanly, if at all, along flight experiment facility lines (e.g., there are not
separate science communities for a centrifuge, cell culture system,
human physiology equipment, and so on);
Inadequate resources devoted to, or distraction of management attention
q
from, use of the space station for scientific research. Research utilization
must function in the context of the very real demands of developing a
uniquely complex, human-rated, highly visible, and international space
station system under tight budget pressure;
Lack of focus on the needed evolution of instrumentation over the
q
lifetime of the space station system; and
Lack of emphasis on data analysis, storage, accessibility, and
q
dissemination.
The Integrated Product Team concept described to the committees, wherein
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (3 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
OCR for page 4
Space Studies Board
individual flight-facility-oriented development teams are managed in turn by
OLMSA, the Space Station Program Office, and then again by OLMSA, would not
appear to vitiate these concerns.
NASA's OLMSA has two divisions devoted entirely to developing and operating
major scientific programs conforming to the best recognized standards of science
management, used effectively in the past by the former OSSA. Founded on the
principles of open solicitation and intimate involvement of the most able
researchers in their areas, these standards have demonstrated success in
generating scientific advances from federal investment. The Board and the CSBM
and CMGR recommend that NASA utilize these standards and its existing science
offices structure to effectively manage use of the space station for scientific
research.
The CMGR's and CSBM's specific recommendations are the following:
1. The space station system Research Manager should be directly
responsible to the science offices responsible for flying space station
payloads. NASA should adopt for the space station program the
approach used successfully in planning and managing the research for
the Spacelab program, which provides for both a flight director and a
mission manager. The space station mission (research) manager should
be responsible for the payloads and associated risks, including analysis
and integration, establishment of milestones, and crew training. That
person should be responsible to the science offices, whereas the flight
director, who is responsible for the spacecraft, launch and landing,
mission operations, and so on, should be responsible to the Office of
Space Flight.
2. OLMSA should be responsible for defining the life and microgravity
sciences research to be performed aboard the space station. To ensure
a broad and balanced research program, including theoretical and
ground-based components, OLMSA should actively involve the
microgravity and life sciences research communities.
3. Once it has defined the science program, OLMSA should manage and
conduct open solicitation and peer-reviewed selection of all experiments
to be flown, including those for both operational and fundamental
science studies, in concert with its international collaborators.
4. OLMSA should provide mechanisms by which the international scientific
community can have direct and continued input into the design,
development, and operation of the space station and its scientific
hardware.
Spacelab Utilization and Cooperative Research Opportunities on Mir
In order to make the most effective use of the space station, it is essential to have
a complete and current body of scientific data and experience relevant to the
design of experiments that will fly. The Board, the CMGR, and the CSBM are
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (4 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
OCR for page 5
Space Studies Board
concerned about the possible termination of the long-planned Spacelab program
as NASA proceeds with the emerging Shuttle-Mir program. Spacelab accounts for
virtually all of the life and microgravity science experiments published in the shuttle
era. Spacelab should continue, not just as a visible U.S. commitment both to the
U.S. scientific community and to ESA, but also because Spacelab science results
will be critical for defining space station science.
Cooperating with the Russians on Mir may provide political, technological, and,
possibly, scientific advantages (i.e., long-duration on-orbit experience). However,
the extremely successful space life sciences and international microgravity
missions that have flown on Spacelab indicate that Spacelab can provide more
high-quality science than can Mir, at least in the near term. (Mir presently lacks
some essential scientific capabilities: no freezer or storage facilities, no in-flight
analytical capability, no sample return capability, no on-board computing capability,
and no down-link video 7) For example, Spacelab's greater capability may be
particularly evident in the case of SLS-4, Neurolab. This mission, planned in active
cooperation between NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), represents
a new direction for space life sciences that has been strongly encouraged by both
the research community and the Congress. With responses to the Neurolab
Announcement of Opportunity now in hand, continued support for this mission is
essential to strengthen cooperation between NIH and NASA. Cancellation of the
mission or substitution of middeck experiments for a dedicated Spacelab mission
would have serious consequences for meeting this objective and for the continued
participation of the mainstream life sciences community that NASA seeks to attract.
The availability of a suitably equipped Spacelab on planned crew exchange
missions would greatly enhance the science yield of the Mir missions. Repeated
flights of similarly configured missions should be cost-efficient and maintain life and
microgravity science research capabilities while the new international station is
being developed.
Because plans for cooperative space science research efforts between the United
States and the Russians have not yet been fully defined, the Board and its
committees cannot explicitly address their potential effects on U.S. life and
microgravity sciences research. However, it is realistic to infer significant impacts
on the currently planned program. The Board and its committees strongly
encourage NASA to thoroughly analyze, document, and discuss with the affected
research community the current and potential research capability of Mir. Spacelab
must be available for certain experiments. Research opportunities provided by the
Shuttle-Mir flights should be carefully planned and should be used to maximum
scientific advantage. Research opportunities with the Bion/Cosmos program should
also be exploited. Data obtained from Shuttle-Mir flights and the Bion/Cosmos
program, along with data from Spacelab, will help in planning for effective use of
the space station for scientific research.
In summary, the Board, the CMGR, and the CSBM strongly recommend that until
the space station becomes operational, Spacelab continue to be used for scientific
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (5 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board
research in order to (1) maintain a forefront research program that is capable of
contributing to design of a space station that can be used productively for life and
microgravity sciences research; (2) maximize use of existing experiments,
hardware, and technologies; (3) develop and test new hardware and technologies
for their use on the space station; (4) facilitate interactions within the broader
research community; and (5) provide an in-flight test facility to characterize and
evaluate samples and subjects during flight and prior to reentry after long-duration
missions.
As discussions and planning for the space station program evolve, the Board and
its committees expect to continue to provide advice on maximizing the scientific
return from the space station program and on the role of Spacelab in this regard.
We look forward to continuing this dialogue as the space station program continues
to evolve.
NOTES
1 Presentations by Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, Bryan O'Connor, Acting
Space Station Program Director, Harry C. Holloway, Associate Administrator of the
Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Joan Vernikos, Director,
Division of Biomedical Sciences and Applications, and Robert Rhome, Director of
the Microgravity Science and Applications Division, to a joint committee meeting of
the Space Studies Board's Committee on Space Biology and Medicine and
Committee on Microgravity Research, November 4, 1993.
2 Space Science Board Assessment of the Scientific Value of a Space Station and
letter to NASA Administrator James Beggs, September 9, 1983; Space Studies
Board Position on Proposed Redesign of Space Station Freedom Program, March
14, 1991; and Space Studies Board Assessment of the Space Station Freedom
Program, March 30, 1992. Space Studies Board letter to Joseph Alexander,
Assistant Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Science and Applications,
NASA Headquarters, December 12, 1990.
3 Space Studies Board testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, May 1, 1987, and Space
Studies Board testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, May 10, 1990. Space Studies Board testimony to U.S. House of
Representatives Task Force on Defense, Foreign Policy, and Space, Committee
on the Budget, April 28, 1992.
4 Space Studies Board, A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the
1980s and 1990s, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987; Assessment
of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine 1991, 1991; Toward a Microgravity
Research Strategy, 1992; and A Strategy for Microgravity Research for the 1990s,
in preparation.
5 Committee on Space Biology and Medicine letter to Harry C. Holloway, Associate
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (6 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board
Administrator, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, NASA
Headquarters, April 26, 1993.
6 Final Report to the President, Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space
Station, June 10, 1993, The President's Advisory Committee on the Redesign of
the Space Station.
7 Vladimir Titov, Soviet Cosmonaut, Long-duration Experience on Mir, presentation
to the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, February 14, 1990; Marcia
Smith, Congressional Research Service, The Soviet Manned Space Program-
Overview, presentation to the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, May 13,
1991; Samuel Keller, NASA Headquarters, U.S./USSR Cooperative Activities-
Status, May 14, 1991; Frank Sulzman, NASA Headquarters, Description of Soviet
Space Station Mir: Size, Resources, Utilization Issues, May 14, 1991; Richard
Obermann, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, Feasibility of U.S./USSR Mir for Cooperative Life Sciences Research,
discussion with Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, February 13, 1992;
Frank Sulzman, NASA Headquarters, Research Potential and Issues Associated
with U.S. Use of Mir-Options, Advantages, and Disadvantages, presentation to the
Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, May 14, 1992; Frank Sulzman, NASA
Headquarters Update-U.S./USSR Cooperation, Status of Facilities, presentation to
the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, September 29, 1992; Joseph
Alexander, NASA Headquarters, Potential U.S./USSR Cooperative Life Sciences
Research Using Shuttle-Mir, January 27, 1993; Joan Vernikos, NASA
Headquarters, Update on Planning for Shuttle-Mir Missions, April 29, 1993; and
Joan Vernikos, NASA Headquarters, Optimizing the Scientific Benefits of the
U.S./Russian Shuttle-Mir Program, November 5, 1993.
Last update 8/29/00 at 10:44 am
Site managed by Anne Simmons, Space Studies Board
Site managed by the SSB Web Group.
To comment on this Web page or report an error, please send feedback to the Space Studies Board.
Subscribe to e-newsletters | Feedback | Back to Top
Copyright © 2004. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 500 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss294ltr.html (7 of 7) [6/18/2004 9:49:45 AM]
