1

Introduction

The implementation of the International Space Station (ISS) began with the launch, in November 1998, of a U.S. element procured from Russia, the Zarya module, followed by the launch of the U.S. Unity (node 1) in December 1998. With the launch of these two elements began the realization of one of the largest and most complex international technological projects in history. When completed, the ISS will house seven crew members from different countries in a habitation and laboratory complex with a mass of over 450,000 kilograms (1 million pounds) and a volume of 1,220 cubic meters (43,000 cubic feet) at sea-level atmospheric pressure. The station will be 108 meters (356 feet) long and will orbit at an altitude of about 400 kilometers (220 nautical miles), depending on the interval between servicing and the level of solar activity. The ISS orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees will make it visible to the majority of the world's population. Over 46 assembly flights will be required to put ISS together on orbit and to reach “assembly complete,” planned for 2004. Following the launch of the Russian element Zvedzda (service module), the ISS will be capable of permanent habitation by a crew of three in 2000, a crew of six in 2004, and, finally, a crew of seven following the development and deployment of a crew return vehicle sometime after 2004. ISS will begin to be used for research in 2001, and its research capability will grow as the infrastructure matures.

The ISS is a truly international undertaking. Canada is providing a mobile servicing system. The six pressurized laboratories are being provided by the United States (a laboratory module and a centrifuge accommodation module), the European Space Agency (the Columbus orbiting facility), Japan (the Kibo module), and Russia (two research modules). The pressurized modules will provide a total of 33 international standard payload racks (ISPR), each of which will provide about 1 cubic meter in pressurized payload volume. In addition, the United States is providing a habitation module and three pressurized nodes. There are also a significant number of unpressurized access locations for research at external attachment points on the ISS. Japan's module has an exposed facility to accommodate 10 instruments of about 1 cubic meter each, the U.S. truss has four sites that can accommodate up to six experiments each, and the European Space Agency (ESA) may provide an additional research site. The use of these pressurized and



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



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

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

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH 1 Introduction The implementation of the International Space Station (ISS) began with the launch, in November 1998, of a U.S. element procured from Russia, the Zarya module, followed by the launch of the U.S. Unity (node 1) in December 1998. With the launch of these two elements began the realization of one of the largest and most complex international technological projects in history. When completed, the ISS will house seven crew members from different countries in a habitation and laboratory complex with a mass of over 450,000 kilograms (1 million pounds) and a volume of 1,220 cubic meters (43,000 cubic feet) at sea-level atmospheric pressure. The station will be 108 meters (356 feet) long and will orbit at an altitude of about 400 kilometers (220 nautical miles), depending on the interval between servicing and the level of solar activity. The ISS orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees will make it visible to the majority of the world's population. Over 46 assembly flights will be required to put ISS together on orbit and to reach “assembly complete,” planned for 2004. Following the launch of the Russian element Zvedzda (service module), the ISS will be capable of permanent habitation by a crew of three in 2000, a crew of six in 2004, and, finally, a crew of seven following the development and deployment of a crew return vehicle sometime after 2004. ISS will begin to be used for research in 2001, and its research capability will grow as the infrastructure matures. The ISS is a truly international undertaking. Canada is providing a mobile servicing system. The six pressurized laboratories are being provided by the United States (a laboratory module and a centrifuge accommodation module), the European Space Agency (the Columbus orbiting facility), Japan (the Kibo module), and Russia (two research modules). The pressurized modules will provide a total of 33 international standard payload racks (ISPR), each of which will provide about 1 cubic meter in pressurized payload volume. In addition, the United States is providing a habitation module and three pressurized nodes. There are also a significant number of unpressurized access locations for research at external attachment points on the ISS. Japan's module has an exposed facility to accommodate 10 instruments of about 1 cubic meter each, the U.S. truss has four sites that can accommodate up to six experiments each, and the European Space Agency (ESA) may provide an additional research site. The use of these pressurized and

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH unpressurized research sites is allocated among the ISS partners based on their continuing contributions to the total ISS infrastructure. During the construction phase of the ISS, the delivery to orbit and installation of key international modules, as presently planned (NASA, 1999), is as shown in Table 1.1. The ISS is expected to have an operational lifetime of 15-20 years, that is, until the year 2020. Throughout this period, space shuttle flights will be available for crew rotation, delivery of experiments, and return of experiment products, specimens, etc. at the rate of five per year. These shuttle flights will be supplemented by four Soyuz/Progress logistics resupply flights per year. Crew will typically stay aboard the ISS three to four months. 1 NASA is planning to use two categories of crew for the ISS. The first, “commander,” is the equivalent of the commander and pilot in the current shuttle program. The second category, “crew member,” is the equivalent of “mission specialist” (shuttle). The mission specialists, who were career astronauts, performed most of the hands-on research in the shuttle program and conducted operations and maintenance on the systems that were not primarily concerned with the flight of the shuttle itself. Career astronauts also performed all of the research on the Mir missions. The concept of dedicated flight researchers for the ISS, similar to the payload specialists for the shuttle program, has not been accepted by the agency. TABLE 1.1 Schedule for Key ISS Modules Month/Year Item Launched and Delivered into Orbit April 2000 U.S. laboratory module Destiny (five systems racks and ISS control moment gyros) June 2000 Italian module Leonardo (multipurpose logistics module) and U.S. equipment racks July 2000 Canadian space station remote manipulation system (SSRMS) November 2000 U.S. multipurpose logistics module (MPLM) for delivery of ISPRs January 2001 U.S. MPLM (delivery of experiment racks for U.S. laboratory) November 2001 Russian science power platform (SPP) and European robotic arm (ERA) October 2002 Japanese experiment logistics module (systems, stowage, and experiment racks) January 2003 Japanese experiment module (JEM) Kibo with robotic arm for exterior experiment platform February 2003 U.S. express pallet (exterior experiment platform) February 2004 ESA Columbus orbital facility (ESA's laboratory) March 2004 Russian research module 1 (first of two experiment and research facilities) May 2004 U.S. crew return vehicle (CRV), a “lifeboat” for full seven-member crew August 2004 Russian research module 2 (second experiment and research module) August 2004 U.S. centrifuge accommodations module (CAM), the final ISS laboratory component November 2004 U.S. habitation module that supports up to seven crew members. Final ISS construction flight marking “assembly complete.” 1   For a more detailed description of the ISS, see the Web pages at <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/reference/factbook/index.html> and <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html>.

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH MANAGING RESEARCH ON THE ISS As construction on the International Space Station (ISS) approaches the stage where research experiments will be launched, NASA and the space research community have engaged in discussions aimed at ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place for managing scientific and engineering research on the orbiting space laboratory. 2In 1998, NASA published a plan, Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station (NASA, 1998). The plan included an attachment describing a reference model for a nongovernment organization (NGO) for managing and utilizing the ISS (NASA, 1998, Attachment 3; also see Appendix E of this report). The motivation for the discussions now taking place stems from experiences with research on earlier space-based, crew-tended facilities, particularly the space shuttle and its Spacelab laboratory module. Of particular interest to NASA and the research community is the desire to minimize investigation costs, improve efficiency and scientific throughput, provide opportunities for reflights to repeat experiments, and ensure the highest quality of research activities. The operations and use of the ISS will involve an array of factors more complex than those associated with previous space-based scientific and engineering endeavors. All large multidisciplinary research facilities are faced with ensuring balanced access for competing scientific and engineering disciplines. In the case of the ISS, the research users are expected to come not only from academic and other nonprofit laboratories but also from privately financed industrial R&D organizations. Further, as its name implies, the ISS is an international facility in which the United States, although dominant in terms of both financial contributions and ISS facility operations, is only one of many participating nations. As such, the ISS will be serviced and staffed jointly by participating nations, and its operations will be governed by international agreements. In addition to the basic and applied science and engineering research component that provides the primary justification for the ISS, there is expected to be a strong commercial applied research component, leading to the commercialization of results, in the form of terrestrial industrial processes and products of commercial operations in space. NASA seeks, in the long term, “to establish the foundation for a marketplace and stimulate a national economy for space products and services in low-Earth orbit, where both demand and supply are dominated by the private sector” (NASA, 1998). The envisaged diversity of research uses gives rise to a range of special policy issues, e.g. the protection of proprietary data, the allocation of research resources among different disciplines, and the conduct of peer reviews and business reviews in connection with allocation and award decisions. A more fundamental difference between the ISS and previous near-Earth orbital facilities is that the ISS is envisioned as a long-term, space-based research facility, to be occupied and utilized continuously by a changing contingent of operations and research staff. To be as successful as possible, the operational mode will more closely resemble that of ground-based facilities than of orbital facilities. Even Mir was not designed to operate to this extent as a long-term orbital research laboratory. In its plan for the ISS, NASA has proposed that a special NGO be established outside the agency and its current formal organizations to facilitate the recruitment, selection, planning, 2   For a detailed description of the research programs envisioned for the ISS, see “Improving Life on Earth and in Space: The NASA Research Plan.” These can be found at < http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/olmsa/iss/index.htm>. A description of ISS research plans and objectives can also be found on the ISS home page at < http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/index.html>.

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH integration, and implementation of all U.S. research on the ISS (NASA, 1998). NASA staff developed a model of a new management approach for the ISS that would entail the creation of an NGO “for accomplishing an aggressive science, technology, and commercial development program while simultaneously limiting government functions to policy and oversight” (NASA, 1998, Attachment 3). NASA then sought advice from the National Research Council (NRC) on establishing an institution (or institutions) to meet these needs and on defining the relative roles of NASA, other federal agencies, commercial entities interested in using the ISS, and any new NGOs that are created. SCOPE OF THIS STUDY A task group was appointed under the auspices of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board to examine general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other relevant aspects of alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating the conduct of research on the ISS and to make recommendations to NASA. Efforts of the Task Group In addressing these issues, the task group agreed to undertake the following tasks: Review current plans for developing and operating the ISS, the anticipated scope of planned R&D activities on the ISS, current and planned ISS ground and flight infrastructure, experience with relevant spaceflight or ground-based analogs or precursors to the ISS, and plans for international participation in the program; Develop basic principles to guide the definition and implementation of appropriate institutional arrangements for facilitating research aboard the ISS; Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the NASA reference model and other relevant models; and Identify, to the extent feasible, the most important issues to be considered in selecting an institutional approach in areas such as the following: The relationship of an institute to the host organization and to funding organizations; Governance, oversight, and research community input; Roles and responsibilities for planning, research prioritization, and investigation selection and funding; Roles and responsibilities for hardware design, development, and integration; Roles and responsibilities for data management, archiving, and distribution; Scope and location of facilities and infrastructure operated by an institute; and Capacity to evolve over the long term to support the main goals of the ISS.

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH Approach Employed by the Task Group Early in the study process, the task group concluded that it would be important to start without preconceptions about either the utility of any alternative management entity or the structure and functions of such an entity. It therefore began its study by asking the following questions: What are the guiding principles for space-based research activities? Learning from past experience with space-based, crew-tended research, in what ways can the management of this research be modified to better implement the guiding principles? Can such improvements be made within the existing NASA framework? If not, what kind of organizational framework is needed? What are the chief attributes and characteristics of the organizational framework recommended? What are the functions and roles of this organization? CURRENT NASA STRUCTURE FOR MANAGING RESEARCH ABOARD THE ISS The current model for research on the ISS has three components: Scientific research, conducted primarily at universities; Applied research, sponsored by commercial entities; and Engineering research conducted at NASA centers or by their contractors. NASA historically has managed these three components in quite different ways, in part because the goals are different and in part because they were administered by different programs within NASA. The current roles and responsibilities during the life cycle of a scientific investigation can be visualized with the aid of Figure 1.1. The figure illustrates the principal stages for a generic experiment —selection and manifesting on the flight schedule; technical definition, design, and development and verification; and, finally, flight operations and data collection and analysis. NASA officials indicated that in the past this full sequence took from 4 to 8 years. In the life sciences, for example, the process begins when the relevant NASA headquarters program office prepares a call for proposals (the NASA Research Announcement, or NRA). Calls usually do not specify the research platform, and in some of the program offices most calls include the opportunity for ground-based research, which may or may not lead to the opportunity to use a space-based platform. After the principal investigator (PI) or PI team prepares and submits a proposal, an independent peer review process is organized and administered by NASA headquarters to evaluate the scientific and technical merits of the proposal. In the case of life science proposals, the process includes coordinating flight investigation selections across the space agencies of all international partners to optimize the use of the research equipment provided by the different partners and to identify potentially complementary or duplicative proposals. NASA preliminary technical assessments are supported by the field center

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH FIGURE 1.1 Generic Experiment/Project Life Cycle (ISLSWG = International Space Life Sciences Working Group, IRB = Institutional Review Board, ACUC = Animal Care and Use Committee). SOURCE: NASA. responsible for the discipline. Based on those preliminary assessments and the scientific peer reviews, the multiagency International Space Life Science Working Group (ISLSWG) recommends experiments to be selected for further technical definition and feasibility study. Experiments selected for definition are handed off to a designated NASA field center for the definition and feasibility analysis effort. During this phase, NASA field center specialists assist the PI with development of experimental science requirements, hardware conceptual designs, and ground-based breadboarding and/or technology verification. Following NASA's review of the science concepts and requirements, the ISS program office at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) makes a preliminary flight assignment, and the investigation is authorized to proceed to full-scale development. During this phase the flight hardware may be developed by the PI, the NASA discipline lead center, or a third party. Detailed plans and support requirements are documented (with the assistance of the NASA field center), crew training begins, and the experiment undergoes preliminary design review (PDR), critical design review (CDR), and safety reviews—all conducted by NASA. Prelaunch hardware integration and specimen preparations (if any) are conducted by the PI, assisted by the payload developer, working with the ISS prime contractor and the JSC space station program office. Following launch, flight operations are supported by the lead NASA center for the particular discipline. Data analysis and archiving are the responsibility of the PI working under the oversight of the discipline lead center and NASA headquarters. The above description applies to life sciences payloads specifically, but similar processes apply to other research areas (see Box 1.1). In particular, the Office of Life and Microgravity

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH BOX 1.1 NASA's Approaches to Experiment Selection Space and Earth Sciences Variant The Office of Space Science and the Office of Earth Science generally do not issue calls specifically for research on the ISS. Rather, they solicit research proposals, and after full peer review and evaluation decide if the research requires implementation on the ISS. These offices coordinate with other U.S. agencies and with international agencies within and beyond the group of partners in the ISS. They have participated in international research coordination forums for decades, although the international groups are not confined to a specific space platform such as the ISS. Engineering Technology Variant Engineering technology flight experiments for the ISS are part of the “other” category in Table 1.2 and are selected and managed for the Office of Aero-Space Technology by the Johnson Space Center. Experiments are usually the proof-of-concept type and are proposed in the natural course of the particular technology program. In briefings to the task group, NASA representatives indicated that the technology areas most often in need of flight verification are space structures (deployment and control), fluid management (energy storage, thermal control, and life support), and materials exposure. Some form of peer review is usually applied to the selection of the experiments. They are usually NASA-funded, although private commitment (mostly in kind) is occasionally applicable. The Johnson Space Center solicits and selects engineering technology experiments based on technical excellence and maturity, budgets, and enterprise requirements. It then manages the development of the flight experiment, conducts nonadvocate reviews, and takes care of the manifesting as well as integration, training, safety, and related processes. Commercial Programs Variant Most commercial entities having an interest in flight research investigations are affiliated at present with NASA-sponsored commercial space centers (CSCs). The CSCs define the experiment based on the commercial selection criteria in five areas: Technical: Is there a need for space? Is the approach feasible? Is the technical approach clearly defined? Business: Is the business plan associated with the expected results of the experiment a good one? Space access: Is the required flight opportunity available? Will it meet the research requirements? Funding: Have adequate funds been committed? International collaboration: Will the research be of benefit to the U.S. taxpayer? The flight manifest priority is determined by NASA based on the following: Compatibility of the research requirements with the mission capabilities;

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH Flight performance record of the CSC; Level of commitment (cash or in kind) of the commercial entity; Quality of the product development plan utilizing the flight opportunity; Record of the commercial entity in utilizing flight results to market competitive products; Acknowledgment of the entity's association with NASA in its annual report; and Publication of research results in the open scientific, technical, and/or business literature once the intellectual property rights have been satisfied. In addition to meeting the criteria above, experiments involving animal research must have documented approval from an animal care and use committee of the entity sponsoring the research activity and, before the flight, the approval of the NASA Animal Care and Use Committee. Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) has developed a series of controlled procedures as part of the ISO9000 certification of NASA headquarters.3 Allocating U.S. Payloads to Various Research Areas In June 1998, the NASA Space Station Utilization Board (SSUB), a committee composed of NASA associate administrators, established guidelines for accommodating U.S. payloads on the ISS. The allocations summarized in Table 1.2 and Table 1.3 are for the first five-year strategic planning process; the NASA headquarters research program offices can use them to plan for the development and flight of their sponsored payloads on the ISS. They are described by NASA as guidelines for planning, not rigid entitlements, since the actual strategic plans are developed and approved annually by the SSUB. Commercial payloads could acquire additional accommodation by providing more infrastructure for attached payloads to increase the capability available to the United States. NASA plans to encourage its research program offices to release any underutilized capacity as early as possible to allow reassignment to other users within the strategic time frame. The task group has not independently assessed whether these numbers represent an appropriate allocation. It recognizes, however, that they are initial planning numbers that will go through iterations as the ISS research program matures and as flight assignment manifests evolve. 3   The procedures for research solicitation, evaluation, and selection are contained in document HOWI 8000-U003 REV A and can be found on the Web at < http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/olmsa/iso9k/iso9k.htm >. Procedures for commercial payloads under OLMSA are similar and are defined in detail in HOWI 8000-U008 REV A, at the same Web address.

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH TABLE 1.2 Allocations for Pressurized Volume Area Share (%) Microgravity sciences 30 Life sciences 30 Commercial 30 Other (Office of Space Flight, student programs, and Office of the Administrator) 10 TABLE 1.3 NASA Allocations for External Attached Payloads Following “Assembly Complete” Sponsor Share (%) Office of Space Science 25 Office of Earth Science 25 Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences 5 Office of Space Flight 25 Commercial cooperative/reimbursable 20 International Agreements on Utilization Allocations 4 Each of the partners in the ISS program has agreed to an allocation of user accommodations in the pressurized volume of the ISS and for attached, external payload accommodations in accordance with its contribution to the ISS infrastructure (Table 1.4). Each of the partners is entitled to a similar share of allocated user resources (currently only average annual power and non-Russian crew time) and to purchase a share of supporting services such as pressurized launch and return mass, unpressurized launch and return mass, pressurized launch and return volume, and communications data transmission capacity. Russia's utilization resources are not included in the numbers above. The Russian Space Agency (RSA) retains access to 100 percent of utilization resources that it provides to the ISS. It also has the rights to the on-orbit crew time of three crew members when there is a crew of seven (crew rights before reaching a seven-person crew capability are not yet settled) to be used for utilization and operations in its own segments. 4   The allocated accommodations and resources for each of the partners are denoted in the Memoranda of Understanding for each partner. Sections 8.3a and 8.3b of the Canadian agreement are referenced at < ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/nasa_csa.html >. All of the MOUs are equivalent in form and content.

OCR for page 8
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH TABLE 1.4 Allocation among ISS Partners Partner Share (%) Canada 2.3% of all racks and attached sites ESA 51% of the ESA Columbus rack sites and 51% of the attach points on the Columbus module Japan 51% of the Japanese module rack sites and 51% of the attach sites on the Japanese external facility United States 97.6% of U.S. laboratory racks 97.6% of racks in the centrifuge module 97.6% of NASA truss attach points 46.7% of rack locations and attach points in/on Columbus 46.7% of rack locations and attach points in/on the Japanese module SUMMARY Briefings and documentation from NASA, from which the preceding information about the ISS program is abstracted, provided the starting point for the task group's deliberations on the context and principles that would have to underlie an entity charged with managing the utilization of the ISS research capability. Some guiding principles are recommended in Chapter 2. REFERENCES National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1999. International Space Station Assembly Sequence, IS-1999-06-ISS011JSC . National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1998. Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station. November 16.