Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Enninoor y UllUII~I ye to the Long-Term Operation of the International Space Station Committee on the Engineering Challenges to the Long-Term Operation of the International Space Station Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract No. NASW 4938. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this pub- lication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number: 0-309-06938-6 Available in limited supplyfrom: Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, HA 292,2101 Consti- tution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. (202) 334-2855 Additional copies available for sale from: National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. 1-800-624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan area). http://www.nap.edu Cover: Art by Marco Zambetti. Courtesy NASA, 1998. Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
National Acaclemy of Sciences National Acaclemy of Engineering Institute of Meclicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engi- neer~ng. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsi- bility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medi- cine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Acad- emies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD WILLL\M W. HOOVER, chair, U.S. Air Force (respired), Williamsburg, Virginia A. DWIGHT ABBOTT, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California RUZENA BAJSCY, NAE, IOM, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia WILLIAM F. BALEHAUS, JR., NAE, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland ACUITY I. BRODERICK, Aviation safetr consultant, CadeH, Virginia AARON COHEN, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Sta bon DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Lompoc, California HOYT DAVIDSON, Donaldson, Lapin, and lenreHe, New York, New York ROBERT A. DAVIS, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington DONALD C. FRASER, NAE, Boston Un~versitr, Boston, Massachusetts JOSEPH FULLER, 1R., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland ROBERT C. GOETZ, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Paimdale, California RICHARD GOLASZEWSIG, GRA, Inc., Jenlcintown, Pennsylvania JAMES M. GUYE Al it, RoBs-Royce North American, Reston, V~rgnua FREDERICK HAUCK, AXA Space, Bethesda, Maryland JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus Industrie of North America, Washington, D.C. GEORGE MUELLNER, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JAMES G. O'CONNOR, NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut WINSTON E. SCOTT, Florida State University, Tallahassee KATHRYN C. THORNTON, Un~versitr of Virginia, Charlottesville DIANNE S. WILEY, Northrop Grumman, Pica Rivera, Califomia RAY A. WILLIAMSON, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Staff GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director 1`J
COMMITTEE ON THE ENGINEERING CHALLENGES TO THE LONG-TERM OPERATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION THOMAS KELLY (chair), Grumman Corporation (retired), Cutchogue, New York JOHN E. BLAHA, United Services Automobile Association, San Antonio, Texas BERT BULKIN, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (emeritus), Woodbridge, California JOHN T. COX, CSC Healthcare, Warrenton, Virginia LARRY E. DRUFFEL, SCRA, Columbia, South Carolina JOEL GREENBERG, Princeton Synergetics, Princeton, New Jersey HERBERT HECHT, SoHaR, Beverly Hills, California ANDREW J. HOFFMAN, East Windsor Associates, Broad Brook, Connecticut JACK KERREBROCK, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge DAVA NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge STEPHEN ROCK, Stanford University, Stanford, California Staff THOMAS J. ALBERT, Study Director GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board MARVIN WEEKS, Senior Project Assistant v
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD WILLIAM W. HOOVER, chair, U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia A. DWIGHT ABBOTT, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California RUZENA BAJSCY, NAE, IOM, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., NAE, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, aviation safety consultant, Catlett, Virginia AARON COHEN, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Lompoc, California HOYT DAVIDSON, Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette, New York, New York ROBERT A. DAVIS, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington DONALD C. FRASER, NAE, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland ROBERT C. GOETZ, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, California RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI, GRA, Inc., Jenkintown, Pennsylvania JAMES M. GUYETTE, Rolls-Royce North American, Reston, Virginia FREDERICK HAUCK, AXA Space, Bethesda, Maryland JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus Industrie of North America, Washington, D.C. GEORGE MUELLNER, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JAMES G. O'CONNOR, NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut WINSTON E. SCOTT, Florida State University, Tallahassee KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville DIANNE S. WILEY, Northrop Grumman, Pico Rivera, California RAY A. WILLIAMSON, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Staff GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director v~
Preface During the early 1960s, in the shadow of the Apollo lunar landing program, NASA undertook the study of three "next- step" scenarios for human operations and exploration in space. In the then-named Advanced Manned Mission Pro- gram, a lunar base was studied, flight opportunities to Mars and Venus through the 1980s were defined, and a conceptual design of an Earth orbiting space station was developed. Although the lunar base and the space station concepts could have been implemented using existing technology, national priorities dictated that these programs be deferred. Instead, the next major initiative in the development of flight systems for the human exploration of space was the development of a reusable launch system, the Space Shuttle. In the mid-1980s, with the Space Shuttle operating and available for crew rotation and logistic support, the space station program was initiated. As the station design pro- gressed through several interations between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, it was progressively reduced in size and scope because of escalating cost projections. The inter- national partners in the International Space Station (ISS) program include Japan, the European Space Agency, Canada, Italy, Russia, and Brazil. Russia's participation in full partnership with the United States includes the fabrica- tion of ISS modules, the assembly of ISS elements on orbit, and, after assembly is completed (so-called "Assembly Complete"), day-to-day operation of the station. The U.S. Congress has maintained an intense interest in the ISS program since its inception. In the Appropriations Act of October 27, 1997, the Senate included language directing the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (NASA) as follows (Public Law 105-65~: .... [undertake] a study by the National Research Council . . . that evaluates in terms of the potential impact on the Space Station's assembly schedule, budget, and capa bilities, the engineering challenges posed by extravehicular activity (EVA) requirements, United States and non-United . . vat States space launch requirements, the potential need to up- grade or replace equipment and components after Assembly Complete, and the requirement to decommission and disas- semble the facility. As the plans for this study were defined in detail, NASA and the National Research Council (NRC) decided the focus should be on the anticipated challenges in the continuous operation and maintenance of the ISS after assembly of the on-orbit facility has been completed. This would encompass the operational years, from late 2004 (if the current schedule holds) to 2020-2025. The final Statement of Task for this study is a negotiated departure from the original language of the enabling legislation in the Appropriations Act of Octo- ber 27, 1997, eliminating an assessment of the assembly phase (i.e., the 46 component delivery and assembly flights during the five-year period for construction of the ISS on orbit). The final charter for this study is defined in the fol- lowing Statement of Task: The study will assess the potential effect of long-term operational engineering issues on the budget and capabili- ties of the International Space Station (ISS) and, where appropriate, recommend procedures and hardware upgrades to mitigate their impact. The study will focus on the follow- ing issues: 1. Long-term ISS maintenance requirements. 2. Extravehicular activity (EVA) requirements to sup- port ISS operations and maintenance (in light of experience with the Mir space station). 3. The use of an international fleet of launch vehicles to support the ISS. 4. The need for and capability to upgrade and replace ISS equipment and components after the station's as- sembly is complete. This includes the need to replace laboratory equipment as it becomes obsolete. Decommissioning and disassembly of the station at the end of its useful life.
. . . vile In March 1998, the NRC formed the Committee on the Engineering Challenges to the Long-Term Operation of the International Space Station, under the auspices of the Aero- nautics and Space Engineering Board, to carry out this task (short biographies of the committee members appear in Appendix B). In September 1998, the committee met with NASA managers and congressional staff and was given pre- sentations by NASA Space Station program managers on the plans for the development, assembly, and operation of the ISS. Two more meetings of the full committee were held at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, in December 1998 and March 1999 to gather more detailed information. The full committee met again in May 1999 at the NASA Kennedy Space Center to review the draft report. In addition to these meetings of the full committee, commit- tee members met with staff at NASA Headquarters, the Johnson Space Center, and the Goddard Space Flight Center, as well as managers at several NASA contractor sites, and conducted group assessments by telephone conference throughout the study. This study focuses on the U.S. operation of the ISS after Assembly Complete, including cooperative efforts by the United States and Russia. The study and the ISS program have both benefited from lessons learned during the Phase 1 portion of the ISS program (March 1995 to June 1998), dur- ing which U.S. astronauts lived and worked on the Mir space station. A primary objective of the Phase 1 program was to develop an experience base in extended-duration space flight and space station operations for the United States. The com- mittee, therefore, drew heavily on the experience of the U.S. astronauts who worked on Mir during the 33 months of the Phase 1 program, and the committee' s recommendations re- garding the ISS crew are, therefore, based largely on this unique experience base. The work of the committee was enhanced in this regard by having one Phase 1 Mir astronaut as a committee member and another who shared his experi- ences with the full committee in a briefing at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The committee's recommendations pertaining to crew matters were developed through a variety of sources including: personal accounts of U.S. astronauts; NASA's documentation of the Phase 1 Mir experience; interviews of the Mir astronauts conducted as a part of the "Living History" initiative in progress at the NASA Johnson Space Center; and NASA's responses to questions from committee members pertaining to the Phase 1 Mir experi- ence (included in this report as Appendix C). The Governing Board Executive Committee of the National Academies that approved the plan for this study in November 1997 expressed a special interest in NASA's plan PREFACE for ensuring access to the ISS. The board requested that the committee's assessment of the national and international launch vehicle fleet specifically address the ability of the fleet to sustain the ISS throughout its operational lifetime. That question was pursued with NASA and is addressed in this report. The committee would like to thank the many dedicated individuals at NASA and their contractors who took the time to answer the committee's questions pertaining to the ISS. The committee would particularly like to thank Mr. Pat McCracken, NASA Headquarters, and Mr. Bruce Luna, NASA Johnson Space Center, for acting as liaisons between NASA and the committee throughout the study. This report is the committee' s response to the Statement of Task. The report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the NRC. The purpose of this independent review was to provide candid and critical comments to assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu- tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsive- ness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following indi- viduals for their participation in the review of this report: Aaron Cohen, Texas A&M University George J. Gleghorn, TRW Space and Technology Group (retired) Richard Kohrs, Kistler Aerospace Corporation Walter B. LaBerge, Institute for Advanced Technology (retired) Louis J. Lanzerotti, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University Cornelius J. Pings, Association of American Universities (president emeritus) Norman E. Thagard, Florida State University John M. Logsdon III, Space Policy Institute While the individuals listed above provided constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final con- tent of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Research Council. Thomas Kelly, chair Committee on the Engineering Challenges to the Long-Term Operation of the International Space Station
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 INTERNATIONAL LAUNCH VEHICLE FLEET Crew Transport, 8 Propellant Resupply and Reboost, 8 Alternatives to Resupply by Progress, 8 Logistics Transport, 10 Crew Return Vehicle, 10 U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicles, 11 Assured Access to the ISS, 11 Role of the International Launch Vehicle Fleet, 12 3 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND RELIABILITY Daily Flight Crew Scheduling, 13 Onboard Maintenance, 13 Staffing of the Operations Control Center, 14 Communication with Principal Investigators, 14 Payload Specialist, 15 Crew Handover, 15 Onboard Failure Detection and Corrective Action, 15 Safety, Reliability, and Maintainability Program, 16 Spare Parts Philosophy, 16 4 EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY, ROBOTICS, AND SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGIES Extravehicular Mobility Unit and Extravehicular Activity Tools, 18 Prebreathe Procedures, 19 Space Suit Upgrades, 20 Reliability of the Simplified Aid for Extravehicular Activity Rescue (SAFER), 20 Robotic Systems, 21 Visual Inspection Aids, 21 Advanced Robotic Technologies, 22 Extravehicular Activity and Robotics, 23 Six 6 8 13 18
^ 5 [QUOTIENT UPGRADED SOFTWARE, AND CO~UNICATIONS Com~c~ion~ 24 Payload Co~uhng Support, 25 Housokooping Co~uhng-H~dw~c Pa 25 Sonar, 25 Tclocom~nic~ons Sccudty, 26 Summed, 27 6 [ND-OF-LI~ DISPOSAL APPENDIXES A St~cmcut of Task, 33 B Biopr~bica1 Skotchcs of Com~Ucc ~c~cr~ 34 ~ Pbasc 1 air Program, 36 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 24 ~0 ~0 43