|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 73
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
Space Studies Board
Annual Report—1991
5
Congressional Testimony
5.1 Testimony on the Report of the Advisory Committee on the
Future of the U.S. Space Program
Space Studies Board member Norman F. Ness delivered the following
testimony before the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the U.S.
House of Representatives on January 29, 1991.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting the
Space Studies Board to testify on the recently released Report of the Advisory
Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, chaired by Mr. Norman
Augustine. Louis J. Lanzerotti, Chair of the Space Studies Board, is unable to be
here because of a prior commitment. I am presenting this statement of the Board
on his behalf. As many of you know, Dr. Lanzerotti served as a member of the
REPORT MENU Advisory Committee.
NOTICE
FROM THE CHAIR
The Space Studies Board was established in 1958 by the National
CHAPTER 1
Academy of Sciences to provide guidance to NASA and other agencies
CHAPTER 2
concerned with civil space research. Over the years, the Board has prepared and
CHAPTER 3
released a large number of reports and research strategies intended to promote
CHAPTER 4
the success and vitality of the Nation's civil space program. The Board's
CHAPTER 5
recommendations are based on focused discussions among prominent
APPENDIX
researchers organized by discipline areas in the Board's standing committees
and task groups. These committees and task groups have addressed, over the
years, a broad sweep of space science and applications disciplines, including
astronomy and astrophysics, space biology and medicine, microgravity research,
solar and space physics, earth studies, and planetary and lunar exploration.
We have been asked today to provide our assessment of the Augustine
Report and to comment on its implementation. The Report covers an immense
territory of technical, programmatic, and institutional concerns; it was prepared by
a committee of distinguished scientists, engineers, industry executives, and
politicians, and is based on testimony by nearly 400 experts in space science,
technology, and management. I will confine my remarks to a selection of topics
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (1 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 74
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
that have been previously addressed by the Space Studies Board and by related
special study groups convened by the Academy in recent years. Today's remarks
will be related to (1) the priority of space research in the civil space program; (2)
the role of a manned space station; (3) supporting theoretical and laboratory work
and university participation; and (4) launch systems. The full implications of the
Augustine Committee's Report are currently being evaluated by the Board, and
will be the subject of additional discussion at our next meeting at the end of
February. As I present the views of the Board, I will indicate a few areas that we
expect to study further.
SPACE SCIENCE: PRIMARY GOAL OF THE CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM
The first concern noted in the Augustine Report is the deleterious effect of
a lack of consensus in the civil space program. The National Research Council
shares this concern, and clearly expressed the importance of shared national
space goals in recommendations prepared for then President-elect Bush in 1988
(Toward a New Era in Space). The Board supports the Augustine Committee's
statement of broad goals, and especially its assignment of top priority to space
science. In its report, Space Science in the 21st Century, the Board proposed
that the advance of science and its applications be assigned at least equal
importance in America's space program as any other goal, such as the capability
of expanding man's presence into space. The 21st Century report recommends
that other related activities, such as the development of space technology, should
be carried out so as to maximize scientific return, and states the view that
beneficial applications of space technology are most likely to flourish if science is
made the principal object of the civilian space program.
Giving space research top priority in the civil space program has the
important ramification that its financial support must be assured. To address this
concern, the Augustine Committee's Recommendation #1 provides that space
science should be assured a fixed minimum percentage of NASA's total budget
to ensure stable funding. This is fully consistent with the NRC's recommendation
in Toward a New Era in Space that a space science program be configured with
a base program of balanced investigation, with major new enterprises funded
separately as special initiatives. Two major issues arising from this overall
approach are the prioritization of research objectives within the base program,
and whether or not the nominal 20% portion recommended by the Augustine
Committee is enough to adequately support space science as civil space's
number one priority. A related topic is the important one of ensuring the most
efficient use of these resources, as urged in the Committee's report. The Board is
studying these questions now.
ROLE OF A MANNED SPACE STATION
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (2 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 75
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
I would like to turn now to a second area of vital importance to the space
research community: the role of a manned space station in space research.
While the Augustine Committee concluded that microgravity research could
benefit from human presence in space, it also stated that only a long-term
program in life sciences could fully justify the construction of a space station. The
scientific utility of a space station has been a concern of the Space Studies Board
since 1983. In a statement to the NASA Administrator that year, the Board
questioned the scientific need for a manned station before the beginning of the
next (21st) century, while acknowledging a "special relationship" between the
proposed station and space biological and medical research. In its report Toward
a New Era in Space, the NRC recommended a shift away from microgravity
research and "space manufacturing" and toward space biology and medicine as
drivers for the space station program. This is fully consistent with the Augustine
Report's conclusions. In our Board's report, A Strategy for Space Biology and
Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s, we appealed specifically for a station
design emphasizing life sciences research. Based on this discipline's dual
requirements for continuous access and manned intervention, the Board
recommended that there be a dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory on the Space
Station, and that a variable force centrifuge of the largest possible dimensions be
designed, built and included in the initial operating configuration of this Life
Sciences Laboratory.
While Space Station Freedom's design remains in a state of flux at the
present time, existing proposed configurations appear to diverge from these
recommendations. The Board plans to assess the results of the congressionally
mandated 90-day redesign once the results of this activity are available. The
usability of the redesigned station for microgravity research between Orbiter visits
during the station's man-tended phase is another topic we will be discussing.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS AND THE UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Chairman, the third area I wish to discuss today is the very important
one of the status of research and analysis (R&A) funding and the role of the
universities in our civil space effort. The Augustine Committee expressed the
view that R&A programs, along with several other supporting programs, should
be assigned the same importance as flight hardware programs themselves. On
the same page, the Augustine Report urges that universities and other non-NASA
Center organizations be tapped increasingly as "primes" for space research. The
Board concurs strongly in these recommendations. The Board's 21st Century
study focused on major space undertakings, but asserts that, if these
undertakings are to succeed, they must be built on a solid foundation of
supporting research and technology, and on small-scale exploratory projects
such as the Explorer and suborbital (rocket- and balloon-borne) programs.
Supporting research must include stable funding for vigorous theoretical and
laboratory studies, which provide the framework for understanding data obtained
from scientific missions. The Board's research strategy for exploration of the
outer planets, for example, contends that proper support of laboratory and
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (3 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 76
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
theoretical studies is an integral part of any program of planetary exploration.
This support must be sufficiently stable to maintain these activities at a
professional level and to encourage participation of young investigators.
LAUNCH SYSTEMS
Mr. Chairman, my final topic for today is launch systems. The Augustine
Committee recommends deferral of a fifth Orbiter, and supports an immediate
start of development of an "unmanned, but man-rateable," heavy lift launch
vehicle. While the NRC's recently published report, Human Exploration of Space:
A Review of NASA's 90-Day Study and Alternatives, clearly supports the
development of a modern launch system with heavy lift capability, the Space
Studies Board has tended to be more concerned with assured access to space
on vehicles appropriate to each research mission. If space research is to have
the top priority within the future civil space program, it must influence the
development of infrastructure, particularly space transportation. The Board
believes that launch systems, delivery mechanisms, space platforms, and other
such developments should never be looked upon as ends in themselves. Rather
they should be treated as tools to support well-defined objectives. Where space
research is concerned, the key desiderata for advanced launch systems are
reliability (because payloads are costly to lose), a capacity for rapid processing
(to ensure the timeliness of launches), low cost (allowing access to space for a
wider community of users), and diversity and redundancy (so that failure of one
element of the launch infrastructure does not shut down the nation's entire launch
capability). These space science community concerns should be fully considered
in launch system development planning.
In closing my statement, I would like to emphasize that omission from
these remarks of the Mission to Planet Earth and the Mission from Planet Earth
should not suggest that the Board attaches low importance to them. On the
contrary, we are now completing two reports in the earth studies area, one an
assessment of the state of the discipline, and the other an assessment of the
Earth Observing System program. Our Committee on Human Exploration is
initiating a broad study of the role of science investigations in a future manned
exploration program. The Board looks forward to the opportunity to share the
results of these important activities with you at a future date.
Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
5.2 Testimony on the Space Station Freedom Program
Space Studies Board Chair Louis J. Lanzerotti delivered the following
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (4 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 77
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
testimony before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the
U.S. Senate, on April 16, 1991.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Space Studies Board
regarding Space Station Freedom. As you know, the Board recently sent a letter
and an accompanying statement to Admiral Truly regarding this space
endeavor.1 (See attached.) Since that time, a series of accounts have appeared
in the press which have interpreted our statement with varying degrees of
accuracy as to both the Board's intent in issuing the statement as well as to its
contents.
Since the Board's statement was released, we have met with a number of
congressional and administration officials as well as with NASA's Administrator
Admiral Truly and other senior NASA personnel regarding the issues and
concerns raised in our statement. I am happy to report that these discussions
have been very constructive and valuable for all individuals involved. The Board
and NASA have agreed to continue this dialogue in a positive and open fashion
in order to better define the objectives of a space station as a national objective,
including its role in Mission from Planet Earth (MFPE).
The beginning of this dialogue occurred at a meeting on April 8, when
several members of the Board and of the Committee on Space Biology and
Medicine met with Bill Lenoir, Associate Administrator for Space Flight, Dick
Kohrs, Director of Space Station Freedom, Len Fisk, Associate Administrator for
Space Science and Applications, Bob Rhome, Director of Microgravity Sciences
and Applications, and Arnauld Nicogossian, Director of Life Sciences. We hope
this was just the first of an ongoing exchange between NASA and the Board on
issues associated with the national goals of SSF. The first purpose of the meeting
was to discuss in a broader forum issues raised in the Board's March statement
and to apprise the Board and Committee members of relevant decisions and
changes that have occurred since early March related to the proposed station.
The most significant of these was a commitment in the week preceding our
discussion on April 8, to providing an on-board 2.5-meter centrifuge in the first
assembly flight following Permanently Manned Capability (PMC)-now scheduled
for FY 2000. The purpose of the centrifuge is to support research associated with
the national goal of MFPE as outlined in the Attachment 1 of the Board statement
and will be discussed below.
With the exception of the centrifuge commitment, both sides discerned
some continuing disagreement as to the best way to achieve research return
from the Station essential to supporting a long-term human space exploration as
well as some uncertainties about the resources that will be available. These
concerns, described in the Board's March statement, will be discussed in the
following sections on life sciences and microgravity research. I note that the time
available to us on April 8 was insufficient for us to clarify all of the space biology
issues; we had no time to address any matters related to "microgravity" research.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (5 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 78
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
BACKGROUND OF SPACE STUDIES BOARD POSITION ON A SPACE
STATION
Before I proceed with a summary of the Board's present views on
requirements and issues associated with a space station program related to
MFPE, I would like to take this opportunity to state clearly for the record that the
Space Studies Board is not now, and has never in the past, been opposed to the
concept of a space station or the national political goal of long-duration human
spaceflight. There have been frequent references to a 1983 position of the Board
on the scientific value of a space station.2 That statement, written in response to
a request from NASA, assessed the possible utility of a space station to
accomplishment of the major scientific objectives of all of the disciplines of space
research (except microgravity3) and concluded that most of these goals could be
met using other means, with the exception of those activities lying within the
realm of space biology and human adaptability and survival in spaceflight.
Concerning this latter research area, the Board unequivocally stated that,
A commitment by the nation to long duration human space flight,
whether in Earth orbit or beyond, calls for the establishment of a
facility for space biological and medical research on the effects on
individuals of very long exposure to the "low g" environment. In
this sense, the relationship of the life sciences to a space station
is a special one.
In 1987, the Board's Committee on Space Biology and Medicine
completed and published a major research advisory strategy in which the
availability of a space station was described as pivotal.4 This strategy was
developed, written and reviewed within the NRC in the same manner as all of the
Board's space research strategies, which have formed the basis for the vigorous
national U.S. programs in such fields as space astronomy and planetary
exploration.
Also in 1987, L. Dennis Smith, Chairman of the Board's Committee on
Space Biology and Medicine, testified before the Senate HUD Appropriations
Committee on the 1987 research strategy and issues associated with a space
station.
It is not an understatement for me to say that the strategy for
space biology and medical research that we have recommended
presumes the availability of a space station. While there are any
number of experiments that can and should be conducted on the
ground, their results only become meaningful when compared with
those obtained in space.5
Last year, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space, the Board discussed space station utilization issues
associated with microgravity and life sciences research. With respect to
implementing the recommendations made in the space biology and medicine
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (6 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 79
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
research strategy, the Board said,
Two pivotal aspects of this strategy are recommendations that
there be a dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory on the space
station and that space biology and medicine be conducted as
focused missions on the station. . . . In making these
recommendations, the Committee and the Board concluded that
they are critical to the successful implementation of the rationale
on which the research strategy is based.6
I cite these examples of the Board's comments on a space station to
illustrate that, contrary to some current accounts, the Board has never taken a
position "against" a space station either in the past or in its recent statement. To
the contrary, in the March statement, the Board declared, "The Space Studies
Board strongly endorses the position that a space-based laboratory is required to
study the physiological consequences of long-term spaceflight."
SPACE STUDIES BOARD MARCH 1991 POSITION ON SPACE STATION
FREEDOM UTILIZATION
The following is a summary of the major issues and conclusions from the
Board's March 1991 statement and a general description of the nature of life
sciences and microgravity research. The Board's statement is restricted to an
assessment of the Station's role in fulfilling the national goals for long-duration
human spaceflight. The Board has also commented on the proposed use of the
station for microgravity research. In these two cases, the conclusion that was
reached is that,
In the judgment of the Board, Space Station Freedom, at the
present stage of redesign, does not meet the basic research
requirements of the two principal scientific disciplines for which it
is intended: (1) life sciences research necessary to support the
national objective of long-term human exploration of space and (2)
microgravity research and applications.
As I continue to note, the Space Studies Board recognizes that there are
national imperatives for building a space station other than purely scientific
research-a conclusion that was articulated by Vice President Quayle in his letter
authorizing NASA to go forward with the proposed "new concept design for
Space Station Freedom, . . . to the Congress."7 In his letter to Admiral Truly, the
Vice President noted, "It is vital, therefore, that the Space Station be considered
an essential part of the larger Mission from Planet Earth. That mission includes
the development of new infrastructures and the pursuit of new initiatives aimed at
gaining scientific knowledge and establishing a permanent presence in space.
This is the next vital step in the historic space mission America began over thirty
years ago." With this articulated as a national goal, the Board emphasizes that
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (7 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 80
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
the conducting of life sciences research on a space station is not a purely
scientific pursuit, but rather a, if not the, critical factor in determining the feasibility
of the Vice President's vision of long-duration human space exploration. This is
also the conclusion arrived at by the Advisory Committee on the Future of the
U.S. Space Program.8
Space Biology and Medicine Research
The Augustine Committee concluded that the primary objective of a space
station should be life sciences research in order to ascertain the feasibility of long-
duration human spaceflight. The Board endorses this position. A space-based
laboratory is required to study the physiological consequences of long-term
space flight. This research is critical to enabling the nation's Space Exploration
Initiative.
Nature of the Research
Space biology and medicine constitute only a small segment of the broad
reach of biomedical and biological research conducted in the U.S. today. In
contrast to other research fields such as astronomy, space physics, or earth
remote sensing, the broader life sciences research community does not depend
on space as a laboratory or working environment. While there are scientifically
interesting life sciences experiments of a basic research nature in, for example,
developmental biology and plant science, that could be conducted in a low-
gravity environment, these experiments alone could not justify building a space
station. The overwhelming research requirement for a space station is based on
the need to perform the life sciences research necessary to support this country's
goal of long-duration human space flight.
Space biology and medicine investigate how individual organisms and
small groups of organisms respond to the microgravity of space and how they
adapt. It has been clear for some time that when humans go into space, many
changes occur in their physiology. Several studies have also indicated that basic
biological processes are altered in microgravity. It is not likely that the two
processes are separable. Human physiology is predicated on the homeostatic
functioning of organs that are composed of cells. All of these complex functioning
systems have evolved in the presence of gravity, and when exposed to
microgravity, they are forced to function in a new and novel environment. To
understand a biological organism's adaptation to microgravity, scientists are
forced to evaluate not only the clinical manifestations of an organismal response
to the new environment, but also the underlying cellular and organ response. This
requires an integrated approach that includes both basic research as well as the
more operational aspects of clinical research.
One strategy to understanding adaptation to microgravity involves
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (8 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 81
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
empirical research in which humans or appropriate animal models are subjected
to the space environment for prolonged periods and are continuously monitored
for changes. This approach might lead to the development of countermeasures
that would provide a quick "fix" for problems encountered, but it is not likely to
elucidate the basic mechanism(s) behind the biological response to microgravity.
A more appropriate research strategy is to study basic mechanisms, and based
on the knowledge acquired, to design appropriate countermeasures. The only
way to execute such a research strategy is in space, with the ability to control the
most critical variable-gravity.
As described in the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine 1987
strategy report and a more recent assessment by the CSBM of the progress
made in implementing advisory recommendations concerning life sciences
research, moving forward with the Space Exploration Initiative will require not
only the understanding and support of all of NASA, but the participation of other
federal agencies as well.9 Because of its central mission, which is, in turn,
supported by a vast network of qualified specialists, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) offers tremendous potential to contribute to space life sciences. The
Board and the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine strongly encourages
enhanced collaborative activities between NASA and the NIH in order to pursue
the research required to establish the feasibility of long-duration human
spaceflight.
Space Biology and Medicine Research Requirements
In addition to basic and operationally oriented experimentation in flight,
there is also a need for coordinated ground-based investigations. In particular,
issues in human behavior that may be critical for long-duration missions need to
be explored in analog environments. The Board's March 1991 statement
provided a summary of the fundamental requirements for conducting the
necessary space biology and medicine research on a space station. The
following reiterates and elaborates on those requirements. These requirements
are described in detail in A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for
the 1980's and 1990's (NAP, Washington, D.C., 1987), hereafter referred to as
the 1987 strategy report.
Dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory
The empirical nature of space biology and medicine research requires
continuous access to space as well as the opportunity for manned intervention.
Based on these key requirements, the strategy report recommended the
following.
Based on the dual requirements of continuous access and
manned intervention, the committee recommends that there be a
dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory (LSL) on the Space
Station...Scientists must work closely with designers and
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (9 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 82
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
engineers at every stage in the development of the LSL and the
equipment that is to be used within it. The laboratory must have
the flexibility to be rapidly converted to accommodate the needs of
different types of combinations of experiments. The existence of a
dedicated LSL serving many different functions, requires that
provision be made to insert, remove, or reconfigure equipment,
racks, and dividing walls. (Page 186)
We note that an internal NASA Committee advising on research on a
space station (Task Force on the Scientific Uses of a Space Station, 1985 and
1986) also stressed the need for a dedicated life sciences laboratory.
In the Board's March 1991 statement, a point is made concerning
scientific return versus investment. Maximizing research return for the investment
is the underlying rationale behind the recommendation for a dedicated Life
Sciences Laboratory. Neither the Board nor the Committee on Space Biology and
Medicine suggests that nothing of research value could be done on the proposed
station, but rather that the limited amount of data that could be obtained that
would improve our understanding of the human response to a low-gravity
environment would be worth neither the time nor the money expended. We
particularly note that many of the fundamental problems in life sciences research
will require long periods of time for their pursuit and solution. The best and most
efficient way to conduct this type of life sciences research is to maximize flexibility
in a dedicated laboratory.
The need for a dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory was discussed at
some length at the April 8, 1991, meeting between NASA and members of the
Board and the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine. At this point in time, it
appears that there continues to be some disagreement between the Board and
the agency as to whether this is a desired accommodation or an essential
research requirement.
Need for Focused Missions
Integrally linked to the recommendation for a dedicated Life Sciences
Laboratory is the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine's recommendation
for focused missions. Again, the purpose of this research recommendation is to
increase efficiency and to maximize research return.
The field of space biology and medicine is far from a mature discipline. In
the context of the Space Exploration Initiative, it will be necessary to make
significant progress in understanding the effects of microgravity on living
organisms. To this end, the CSBM's 1987 strategy recommended that
. . . research time on the Space Station be divided into 3-6 month
blocks, with each block largely devoted to a single research area.
Missions in each subdiscipline should occur at least three times
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (10 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 83
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
each decade. (Page 187)
The advantages to this approach include training of qualified specialists to
conduct the experiments and simplification of mission planning and
implementation because of common equipment and research subjects. The 1987
research strategy explained why this approach is desirable.
The proposed mode of research resembles that which is carried
out in the other space sciences. Each mission is devoted to a
single, broadly conceived goal. Sufficient flight time is given to
collect reliable results, to replicate experiments when necessary,
and to change protocols as data are gathered and interpreted. If
such a strategy is adopted, space biology and medicine can
become a mature science within one to two decades. (Page 188)
Flexibility in Spaceflight Experiments
Providing for the flexibility needed to conduct life sciences research in
terms of time, laboratory equipment, and research personnel makes it
undesirable to plan for sharing a laboratory with other disciplines. The 1987
strategy report describes ways in which experimental flexibility can be enhanced:
The first requirement is rapid feedback of results during the
mission. This, in turn, implies an increase in on-board analytical
capabilities and the ability to communicate the results in an
understandable manner to both the crew doing the experiment
and their ground-based colleagues. Second, it is important that
the two groups be able to exchange data, information, and ideas.
Third, there has to be flexibility in the availability of equipment and
experimental organisms, as well as in the scheduling of
experiments. (Page 193)
General Facilities
It is important to emphasize that much, if not all, of the equipment and
support facilities such as refrigerators, freezers, growth chambers, incubators,
and a centrifuge required for life sciences research must remain in operation at
all times. Therefore, there must be sufficient power to support both this
equipment and additional specialized apparatus associated with the conduct of
specific experiments.
There was some discussion concerning facilities and equipment at the
April 8 meeting. Following these discussions, the Board continues to remain
somewhat concerned and uncertain as to exactly what equipment and resources
will be available for research. While we have been assured that there will be
"sufficient power" for users, we have not been given specific information as to
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (11 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 98
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
Academy of Sciences to provide guidance to NASA and other agencies
concerned with civil space research. Over the years, the Board has prepared and
released numerous reports and research strategies intended to promote the
success and vitality of the U.S. civil space program. Board recommendations are
based on focused discussions among the prominent researchers who constitute
its standing committees and task groups. These committees and task groups
have addressed, over the years, a broad sweep of space science and
applications disciplines, including astronomy and astrophysics, space biology and
medicine, microgravity research, solar and space physics, earth studies, and
planetary and lunar exploration.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to divide my remarks today into three general
parts: the first is an assessment of the overall funding proposal for NASA relative
to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S.
Space Program15 (the "Augustine Committee"); the second includes several
consensus views on narrower topics from our February Board meeting; and the
third concerns the restructured space station.
GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED NASA FY92 BUDGET
Before remarking on NASA's FY92 budget proposal, I would like to
remind those present that I was a member of the Augustine Committee. Having
said this, I would also like to state that the Space Studies Board concurs broadly
with many of that committee's recommendations. The Augustine Committee
recommended a near-term real dollar increase of 10% per year for NASA, a
figure closely approximated by the currently proposed budget increase of 14%,
once inflation is taken into account.
Beyond endorsing the proposed aggregate budget increase, the Board is
solidly supportive of the primary importance assigned by the Augustine
Committee's report to the role of space science as the "fulcrum" of our civil space
program. Although there has been some discussion within the Board as to
whether the present fraction of the total budget adequately reflects the primacy of
this role, the Board strongly endorses the principle of the statement.
The recommendation that the Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) and the
Mission from Planet Earth (MFPE) be undertaken in that priority order was also
sympathetically received by the Board. I would like to call attention, however, to
an important related suggestion made in the Augustine Committee's report:
The large size, broad scope and national importance of the U.S.
Global Change Research Program also suggest that the EOS
funding be provided as a line item, separate from other science
programs.16
The Board is concerned that if MTPE programs are not isolated from core
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (26 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 99
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
elements of the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) program, the
long duration and vast scope of the EOS and precursor missions, taken together,
could seriously impact the resources available to these core research programs.
HUBBLE REPAIR, SPACE ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGY, AND RESEARCH
AND ANALYSIS FUNDING
Having expressed the Board's overall satisfaction with the proposed
growth in NASA funding, I would like to turn now to several concerns that
emerged during the Board's discussions at our meeting in February.
Hubble Repair
First, decisions will soon be made on the technical approach for
correcting the optical deficiencies of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Board
believes that evaluation of the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial
Replacement (COSTAR) repair option, and any decision on its implementation,
should consider not only its cost, schedule, and engineering feasibility, but also
trade-offs with, and impacts on, second-generation Hubble instruments. The
costs of Hubble repairs and upgrades subsequently undertaken should be closely
monitored and controlled to minimize effects on other OSSA programs.
Space Robotics Technology
Second, advances in robotics capability are essential to NASA's space
science and applications programs. The value of robotics to the unmanned
exploration program has significant demonstrated benefits to scientific research,
irrespective of the status or existence of a human exploration program. The
Board is concerned about the deletion of robotic exploration technology funding
for planetary rover, sample acquisition, and autonomous rendezvous, docking,
and landing. The Board recommends that support for these efforts be restored,
and, if possible, augmented.
Research and Analysis
Third, the Board reaffirms its position that vigorous research and analysis
(R&A) and suborbital research programs are essential to the overall vitality of the
national space research agenda.17 The Augustine Committee also emphasized
the importance of these programs.18 NASA should take steps to ensure healthy
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (27 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 100
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
growth in these budgets and to protect them from encroachment by troubled
major flight projects. In particular, the Board strongly supports the proposed
targeted increases in life sciences and planetary exploration R&A.
THE RESTRUCTURED SPACE STATION
As you know, the Board recently released a statement expressing serious
reservations about the science capabilities of the restructured space station
design.19 This statement has unfortunately been misinterpreted in some quarters.
I would like to take this opportunity to state clearly, for the record, that the Space
Studies Board is not now, and has never been in the past, opposed to the
concept of a space station or to a national goal of long-duration human
spaceflight. A 1983 position of the Board on the scientific value of a space
station, written in response to a request from NASA, assessed the possible utility
of a space station for accomplishment of the major scientific objectives of all
space research disciplines (except microgravity research). The Board concluded
that most of these goals could be met using other means, with the exception of
space biology and research on human adaptation and survival in long-duration
spaceflight. The Board published a research strategy for space biology and
medicine in 198720 in which the requirement for a space station for this discipline
was described as pivotal. The Board has also testified before Congress on
science requirements for a space station on several occasions. In May 1990, the
Board expressed " . . . continuing concern about the utility of the space station as
now planned, for microgravity, life sciences, and for the research necessary [to
support] long duration spaceflight."21
I cite these examples of the Board's comments on a space station to
illustrate that, contrary to some current accounts, the Board has never taken a
position "against" a space station either in the past or in its March 1991
statement. On the contrary, in the March statement, the Board declared, "The
Space Studies Board strongly endorses the position that a space-based
laboratory is required to study the physiological consequences of long-term
space flight."
In the context of Mission from Planet Earth as a national goal, the Board
emphasizes that the driving force for space station life sciences research is not
based on abstract scientific merit, but rather on its role as a, if not the, critical
factor in determining the feasibility of the Administration's vision of human space
exploration. The primary research requirement for a space station is therefore
based on the need to perform the life sciences research necessary to support a
national goal of long-duration human spaceflight. This was also the conclusion of
the Augustine Committee. While there may be unrelated, but scientifically
interesting, life sciences experiments that could be conducted in a low-gravity
environment, these experiments alone could not justify building a space station.
There are, however, several absolutely critical requirements for an effective and
efficient program of the necessary space biology and medicine research. The
Board notes particularly that investigation and solution of many of the
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (28 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 101
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
fundamental problems in space life sciences will require long periods of time. The
critical research requirements are described in detail in the Board's 1987
research strategy.22 Briefly, they include the following:
1. A Dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory-because of the need for
continuous access and human intervention;
2. Focused Missions-which would allow sufficient flight time to collect
reliable results, to replicate experiments when necessary, and to change
protocols as data are gathered and interpreted;
3. Flexibility-in terms of equipment, experimental organisms, and
scheduling of experiments;
4. Facilities-(a) a variable force centrifuge; (b) a research animal holding
facility and a plant growth chamber, including supporting analytical equipment for
handling and analysis of cell and tissue specimens, and a system for
preservation and storage of blood, urine, and stool samples; and (c)
computational facilities;
5. Research Personnel-well-trained, skilled scientists in appropriate
disciplines and in sufficient numbers to produce reliable results;
6. Research Animals-as subjects for experiments to study adaptation to
microgravity and to develop countermeasures for microgravity's effects.
Since the release of the Board's March statement, NASA has informed us
that it is now committed to providing a 2.5-meter centrifuge on the first assembly
flight following permanently manned capability (PMC). This was a welcome
announcement because of the centrifuge's absolutely critical role in the conduct
of meaningful research. It is important to note for the record, however, that under
this plan, research critical to planning for Mission from Planet Earth cannot be
started until after 2000, when the centrifuge becomes available. In recent
testimony before the Senate, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science
and Applications, Dr. Lennard Fisk, stated that, even in an optimistic scenario,
fully validated life science results bearing on long-duration human spaceflight
would not become available until 2007. Further, development of the centrifuge
and supporting facilities will require a significant infusion of new funds that are not
identified in the existing budget agreement for the station. It is this inconsistency
between the accepted principal mission of the space station program and the
existing planning and funding approach that I would like to highlight for this
subcommittee.
I would like to note also that, aside from concerns about the centrifuge,
other concerns raised by the Board in its March statement still remain-
insufficiently defined power requirements and availability, lack of adequate crew
to conduct experiments and serve as subjects, and the absence of either a
dedicated laboratory or plans for focused missions. NASA and the Board have
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (29 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 102
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
agreed to continue to meet to discuss these matters further.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Space Studies Board has found much to
like in NASA's FY92 budget proposal. Some valuable progress is evident in
important areas, such as the growth in R&A budgets for life sciences and
planetary exploration. There are some areas of concern, however, particularly in
technology support for unmanned missions and in a perceived serious mismatch
between space station development plans and objectives. The members of the
Space Studies Board and of its discipline committees are committed to working
with NASA and the national space policy community to help bring about the most
productive, cost-effective, and exciting space program the taxpayers' investment
can deliver.
15Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program,
Superintendent of Documents (GPO), December 1990.
16Reference 15, p. 27.
17Space Science in the 21st Century-Overview (NAP), 1988, p. 82.
18Reference 15, p. 26.
19SpaceStudies Board Position on Proposed Redesign of Space Station
Freedom, March 1991.
20AStrategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s
(NAP), 1987.
21Testimonyto the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Space, May 1990.
22Reference 20.
5.5 Testimony on the NASA Fiscal Year 1992 Budget Proposal
(Senate)
Space Studies Board Chair Louis J. Lanzerotti delivered the following
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (30 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 103
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
testimony before the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of
the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate on May 17, 1991.
Thank you for inviting the Space Studies Board to testify on NASA's FY92
budget proposal. The Board was briefed by NASA officials on the budget during a
Board meeting in late February; our testimony today is based on ensuing Board
discussion on these and other matters related to the U.S. civil space program.
The Space Studies Board was established in 1958 by the National
Academy of Sciences to provide guidance to NASA and other agencies
concerned with civil space research. Over the years, the Board has prepared and
released numerous reports and research strategies intended to promote the
success and vitality of the U.S. civil space program. Board recommendations are
based on focused discussions among the prominent researchers who constitute
its standing committees and task groups. These committees and task groups
have addressed, over the years, a broad sweep of space science and
applications disciplines, including astronomy and astrophysics, space biology and
medicine, microgravity research, solar and space physics, earth studies, and
planetary and lunar exploration.
I would like to divide my remarks today into three general parts: the first is
an assessment of the overall funding proposal for NASA relative to the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space
Program23 (the "Augustine Committee"); the second includes several consensus
views on narrower topics from our February Board meeting; and the third
concerns the restructured space station.
GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED NASA FY92 BUDGET
Before remarking on NASA's FY92 budget proposal, I would like to
remind those present that I was a member of the Augustine Committee. Having
said this, I would also like to state that the Space Studies Board concurs broadly
with many of that committee's recommendations. The Augustine Committee
recommended a near-term real dollar increase of 10% per year for NASA, a
figure closely approximated by the currently proposed budget increase of 14%,
once inflation is taken into account.
Beyond endorsing the proposed aggregate budget increase, the Board is
solidly supportive of the primary importance assigned by the Augustine
Committee's report to the role of space science as the "fulcrum" of our civil space
program. Although there has been some discussion within the Board as to
whether the present fraction of the total budget adequately reflects the primacy of
this role, the Board strongly endorses the principle of the statement.
The recommendation that the Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) and the
Mission from Planet Earth (MFPE) be undertaken in that priority order was also
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (31 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 104
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
sympathetically received by the Board. I would like to call attention, however, to
an important related suggestion made in the Augustine Committee's report:
The large size, broad scope and national importance of the U.S. Global
Change Research Program also suggest that the EOS funding be provided as a
line item, separate from other science programs.24
The Board is concerned that if MTPE programs are not isolated from core
elements of the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) program, the
long duration and vast scope of the EOS and precursor missions, taken together,
could seriously impact the resources available to these core research programs.
HUBBLE REPAIR, SPACE ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGY, AND RESEARCH
AND ANALYSIS FUNDING
Having expressed the Board's overall satisfaction with the proposed
growth in NASA funding, I would like to turn now to several concerns that
emerged during the Board's discussions at our meeting in February.
Hubble Repair
First, decisions will soon be made on the technical approach for
correcting the optical deficiencies of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Board
believes that evaluation of the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial
Replacement (COSTAR) repair option, and any decision on its implementation,
should consider not only its cost, schedule, and engineering feasibility, but also
trade-offs with, and impacts on, second-generation Hubble instruments. The
costs of Hubble repairs and upgrades subsequently undertaken should be closely
monitored and controlled to minimize effects on other OSSA programs.
Space Robotics Technology
Second, advances in robotics capability are essential to NASA's space
science and applications programs. The value of robotics to the unmanned
exploration program has significant demonstrated benefits to scientific research,
irrespective of the status or existence of a human exploration program. The
Board is concerned about the deletion of robotic exploration technology funding
for planetary rover, sample acquisition, and autonomous rendezvous, docking,
and landing. The Board recommends that support for these efforts be restored,
and, if possible, augmented.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (32 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 105
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
Research and Analysis
Third, the Board reaffirms its position that vigorous research and analysis
(R&A) and suborbital research programs are essential to the overall vitality of the
national space research agenda.25 The Augustine Committee also emphasized
the importance of these programs.26 NASA should take steps to ensure healthy
growth in these budgets and to protect them from encroachment by troubled
major flight projects. In particular, the Board strongly supports the proposed
targeted increases in life sciences and planetary exploration R&A.
THE RESTRUCTURED SPACE STATION
As you know, the Board recently released a statement expressing serious
reservations about the science capabilities of the restructured space station
design.27 This statement has unfortunately been misinterpreted in some
quarters. I would like to take this opportunity to state clearly, for the record, that
the Space Studies Board is not now, and has never been in the past, opposed to
the concept of a space station or to a national goal of long-duration human
spaceflight. A 1983 position of the Board on the scientific value of a space
station, written in response to a request from NASA, assessed the possible utility
of a space station for accomplishment of the major scientific objectives of all
space research disciplines (except microgravity research). The Board concluded
that most of these goals could be met using other means, with the exception of
space biology and research on human adaptation and survival in long-duration
spaceflight. The Board published a research strategy for space biology and
medicine in 198728 in which the requirement for a space station for this discipline
was described as pivotal. The Board has also testified before Congress on
science requirements for a space station on several occasions. In May 1990, the
Board expressed " . . . continuing concern about the utility of the space station as
now planned, for microgravity, life sciences, and for the research necessary [to
support] long duration spaceflight."29
I cite these examples of the Board's comments on a space station to
illustrate that, contrary to some current accounts, the Board has never taken a
position "against" a space station either in the past or in its March 1991
statement. On the contrary, in the March statement, the Board declared, "The
Space Studies Board strongly endorses the position that a space-based
laboratory is required to study the physiological consequences of long-term
space flight."
In the context of Mission from Planet Earth as a national goal, the Board
emphasizes that the driving force for space station life sciences research is not
based on abstract scientific merit, but rather on its role as a, if not the, critical
factor in determining the feasibility of the Administration's vision of human space
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (33 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 106
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
exploration. The primary research requirement for a space station is therefore
based on the need to perform the life sciences research necessary to support a
national goal of long-duration human spaceflight. This was also the conclusion of
the Augustine Committee. While there may be unrelated, but scientifically
interesting, life sciences experiments that could be conducted in a low-gravity
environment, these experiments alone could not justify building a space station.
There are, however, several absolutely critical requirements for an effective and
efficient program of the necessary space biology and medicine research. The
Board notes particularly that investigation and solution of many of the
fundamental problems in space life sciences will require long periods of time. The
critical research requirements are described in detail in the Board's 1987
research strategy.30 Briefly, they include the following:
1. A Dedicated Life Sciences Laboratory-because of the need for
continuous access and human intervention;
2. Focused Missions-which would allow sufficient flight time to collect
reliable results, to replicate experiments when necessary, and to change
protocols as data are gathered and interpreted;
3. Flexibility-in terms of equipment, experimental organisms, and
scheduling of experiments;
4. Facilities-(a) a variable force centrifuge; (b) a research animal holding
facility and a plant growth chamber, including supporting analytical equipment for
handling and analysis of cell and tissue specimens, and a system for
preservation and storage of blood, urine, and stool samples; and (c)
computational facilities;
5. Research Personnel-well-trained, skilled scientists in appropriate
disciplines and in sufficient numbers to produce reliable results;
6. Research Animals-as subjects for experiments to study adaptation to
microgravity and to develop countermeasures for microgravity's effects.
Since the release of the Board's March statement, NASA has informed us
that it is now committed to providing a 2.5-meter centrifuge on the first assembly
flight following permanently manned capability (PMC). This was a welcome
announcement because of the centrifuge's absolutely critical role in the conduct
of meaningful research. It is important to note for the record, however, that under
this plan, research critical to planning for Mission from Planet Earth cannot be
started until after 2000, when the centrifuge becomes available. In recent
testimony before the Senate, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science
and Applications, Dr. Lennard Fisk, stated that, even in an optimistic scenario,
fully validated life science results bearing on long-duration human spaceflight
would not become available until 2007. Further, development of the centrifuge
and supporting facilities will require a significant infusion of new funds that are not
identified in the existing budget agreement for the station. It is this inconsistency
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (34 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 107
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
between the accepted principal mission of the space station program and the
existing planning and funding approach that I would like to highlight for this
subcommittee.
I would like to note also that, aside from concerns about the centrifuge,
other concerns raised by the Board in its March statement still remain-
insufficiently defined power requirements and availability, lack of adequate crew
to conduct experiments and serve as subjects, and the absence of either a
dedicated laboratory or plans for focused missions. NASA and the Board have
agreed to continue to meet to discuss these matters further.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the Space Studies Board has found much to like in NASA's
FY92 budget proposal. Some valuable progress is evident in important areas,
such as the growth in R&A budgets for life sciences and planetary exploration.
There are some areas of concern, however, particularly in technology support for
unmanned missions and in a perceived serious mismatch between space station
development plans and objectives. The members of the Space Studies Board
and of its discipline committees are committed to working with NASA and the
national space policy community to help bring about the most productive, cost-
effective, and exciting space program the taxpayers' investment can deliver.
23Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program,
Superintendent of Documents (GPO), December 1990.
24Reference 23, p. 27.
25Space Science in the 21st Century-Overview (NAP), 1988, p. 82. 26Reference
23, p. 26.
27SpaceStudies Board Position on Proposed Redesign of Space Station
Freedom, March 1991.
28AStrategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s
(NAP), 1987.
29Testimonyto the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Space, May 1990.
30Reference 29.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (35 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
OCR for page 108
Annual Report 1991: Congressional Testimony
Last update 3/3/00 at 9:45 am
Site managed by Anne Simmons, Space Studies Board
The National Academies Current Projects Publications Directories Search Site Map Feedback
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an91ch5.htm (36 of 36) [6/18/2004 10:27:16 AM]
