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 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
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss794ltr.html (1 of 6) [6/18/2004 9:52:39 AM]
OCR for page 2
Space Studies Board
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.
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
q
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
q
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
q
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 flights, it will
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss794ltr.html (2 of 6) [6/18/2004 9:52:39 AM]
OCR for page 3
Space Studies Board
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
q
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
q
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-
q
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. Gibbons 3 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 Shepherd
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss794ltr.html (3 of 6) [6/18/2004 9:52:39 AM]
OCR for page 4
Space Studies Board
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-
q
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
q
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
q
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%
q
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
q
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss794ltr.html (4 of 6) [6/18/2004 9:52:39 AM]
OCR for page 5
Space Studies Board
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
q
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
1 Letter 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.
2 The 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 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
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ss794ltr.html (5 of 6) [6/18/2004 9:52:39 AM]
OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987.
3 Letter 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
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/ss794ltr.html (6 of 6) [6/18/2004 9:52:39 AM]
