HEARING SUMMARY:
6/20/97

Subject: Hearing on the Status of the International Space Station Program.

Members Present Chrm. Frist (R-TN), Senator Hutchison (R-TX), and Full Committee Chrm. McCain (R-AZ)

Chairman Frist conducted the hearing on the current status of the the International Spce Station (ISS) program. He cited his concerns with the program: (1) the recent reallocation of funds from shuttle to station; (2) the Russian portion of the program; and, (3) the contingency plan in case of Russian non-compliance.

Mr. Goldin was the witness in the first panel; his testimony focused on the prograss made at the Heads of Agencies meeting in Japan and the cooperation that has been achieved with our international partners. He also commented on his concerns about the performance of the Station prime contractor, whose costs for the past 22 months for work performed have continued to climb. Questions from Chairman Frist, Senator Hutchison, and Committee Chairman McCain focused on Russian participation and concern for their ability to contirbute as planned, the possibility of legislating a cost cap for ISS, and a possible Congressional review and/or redesign of the ISS program. Mr. Goldin agreed to work with Congress on any reviews that the Congress may feel necessary, but said that he felt the program would not be able to endure another redesign. He stated that he had no disagreement with the Government Accounting Office (GAO) testimony which would be presented in the second panel of the hearing by Mr. Thomas Shulz. Chairman Frist asked if the ISS program costs were crowding out science programs, to which Mr. Goldin responded that NASA hasn't had as strong a science program as it has today in a decade. The Administrator asked that NASA's science program be measured by how robust the science is rather than the amount of dollars being invested. Chairman Frist also asked if there were sufficient reserves in the Station program at this juncture, to which Mr. Goldin responded that the situation is very tight; NASA will be doing an analysis with Boeing over the next month and will have a more accurate assessment sometime in July.

The second panel consisted of Thomas Shulz, Associate Director, National Security and International Affairs for the GAO; Marcia Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy for the Congressional Research Service; and Dr. Larry DeLucas, Director of the Center for Macromolecular Crystallagraphy at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. Tom Shulz testified about the pending update to the GAO report on the ISS program, which concludes that if costs continue to increase, threats to reserves increase, and the Russians don't comply, ISS would have to be delayed and would increase costs. The risks have increased due to the 8 month delay caused by the Service Module delay. He testified that cost controls by the prime contractor have worsened and that unless action is taken, will continue.

Marcia Smith was asked to testify in response to the questions: Why are we building an International Space Station? What are its goals? She cited the following reasons: (1) next logical step in the space program; (2) direct and indirect creation of 40,000 jobs; (3) foreign policy, preeminence in space; and, (4) space lab for life science, biomedical, and materials research. She stated that Congress and the international partners continue to support Station and, barring unforeseen catastrophe, we can expect that support to continue. However, the current focus on who has caused the cost overruns diverts attention from the fundemental question, which is where will increased resource requirements for Station come from after FY 1998? She listed 4 possibilities: (1) an increase in the overall NASA budget; (2) money transfer from other NASA programs; (3) stretch in the delivery date; and, (4) a redesign to fit the $17.4 billion cap. She thinks that as long as there continues to be strong support for the program, we should focus on how to budget, not on the $17.4 billion cap.

Dr. DeLucas testified on the benefits for space research, and described how some protein crystals require a month to fully develop, which would require a space station rather than a 10-day shuttle mission to accomplish. He described the Commercial Space Center (CSC) in Birmingham which he runs, funded partially by NASA and partially by industry. He predicted that within one year after ISS is finished, scientific research will exceed everything done on all the shuttle missions to date.

Questions from Chairman Frist for this panel focused on the commercial aspects of the CSC and the future commercialization of the Station, the possibility of a cost cap, and the savings to the program by Russian participation. Tom Shulz described NASA's budgeting process as having "gimmicks" and recommended a review of all costs in order to develop a realistic cap. He stated that "earlier is better" and that this hearing helped in reaching that goal. Chairman Frist concluded the hearing by thanking the witnesses for their work in reaching the same common goal.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to present my statement for the record regarding the current status of the International Space Station program.

We have overcome many challenges since President Clinton asked NASA, in the spring of 1993, to redesign the Space Station. Development progress has steadily and aggressively advanced toward the on-orbit assembly of this unprecedented international orbital research facility. Our steps have taken us far, and we are nearing the doorway to the future of human space exploration.

With fifteen international partners, twenty-six collective hardware providers, launch sites in Tanegashima, Japan; Kourou, French Guiana, Baikonur, Kazakhstan; and the Kennedy Space Center here in the U.S., the Space Station program rivals the complexity of any the Agency or Government has ever undertaken. This is a very large program with a very demanding and challenging task of building, testing, outfitting, launching, assembling in orbit and operating a 900,000 pound engineering marvel. The journey hasn’t been easy. We have overcome many challenges internationally, as well as here in the U.S. But, as we approach the two-thirds completion mark of the development program, I am happy to say that our international partnership remains solid, our development activities are largely on track, and our research capabilities upon completion of assembly are being enhanced.

Phase 1

While the first phase of preparation for International Space Station (ISS) assembly and operation is still underway at this time, I can already state with confidence that we will certainly meet the objectives set originally for this joint undertaking with our Russian partners.

As you will recall, the Phase I program objectives intended for us to capitalize on existing U.S. and Russian space assets and know-how by (a) learning to work with the Russians; (b) reducing the risk on the ISS program in areas of technology and assembly/operation procedures; and, (c) utilizing the space station Mir for conducting early science research requiring longer duration than provided by Shuttle missions. By exercising crew exchanges, science research, hardware delivery, on-board repairs and servicing, and operational testing, we have in all of these categories gained much more from our collaboration with Russia than many experts expected at the outset.

Since the flight of Dr. Norman Thagard to Mir on a Soyuz launcher in March 1996, American astronauts at this time have maintained a continuous presence in space for over 430 days. With the rendezvous and docking of Space Shuttle Atlantis/STS-84 on May 16, we have now successfully conducted six of nine planned Shuttle/Mir docking missions, in addition to one earlier rendezvous mission. Both on the ground and in space, U.S. and Russian engineers and spaceflyers, as a result of performing joint operations, have developed mutual understanding in spite of historically dissimilar design philosophies, and established close rapport despite cultural differences. Through the Shuttle/Mir program, we have accomplished more days with U.S. astronauts in space that we were able to accumulate over the last 10 years in the Shuttle program. It is this long-duration flight experience that is so valuable in preparing us for the ISS and further human exploration of the universe.

The important lessons that we have learned from Phase I derive from the fact that Mir, unlike the Shuttle and its relatively short-duration operations in space, has circled Earth for well over eleven years (Mir Core launched: February 20, 1986). The difference is notable, comparable to the operation of a airplane versus that of a ship at sea. If a problem on a plane develops, one lands for servicing as soon as possible, On a ship, corrective actions and necessary maintenance, including the change out of faulty equipment can generally be conducted at sea. Only in an extreme emergency would one make use of the lifeboats to evacuate. The International Space Station will be very similar to operation of a ship. The manner in which research is conducted follows similar lines. The Shuttle science is task-oriented; we conduct science for two weeks at a time in space, and spend an enormous time in preparation. Hence, we have developed procedures to address specific tasks scheduled to be performed on a mission or which might occur in-flight. The Russian cosmonauts train to be skill-oriented, and have used their advantage in long-duration missions to learn how to live and work effectively in space. This difference makes the Mir an excellent early model for building and using the ISS. Starting from the very beginning of a typical Shuttle mission to a space station, we have gained experience in preparing and stowing cargo for efficient unloading and transferring, proved the feasibility of maintaining the critical 5-to-7 minute Shuttle launch window, verified rendezvous and docking operations of massive space vehicles using newly developed technology and procedures, and gathered experience in joint ground and mission control operations. Other major lessons, taught us by the joint missions to date, pertain to the intravehicular transfer of life support and consumables supplies, delivery of science equipment, transfer of bulky repair and servicing apparatus and tools, such as the Elektron oxygen generator or the vacuum cleaner on STS-84, and the development of joint EVA techniques, including the first-time use of a new Russian spacesuit by an American crewmember. Along with successfully conducted joint science experiments, the mutual development of detailed multilingual design and operations documentation, the joint resolution of safety and acceptance testing differences, and the performance of special risk mitigation experiments in support of the ISS, such as a demonstration of the Active Rack Isolation System, these accomplishments place us into an excellent position for initiating and conducting the assembly and subsequent operation of the ISS with richer experience, reduced risk, greater confidence and in all likelihood reduced learning-curve expenditures in time and costs.

Thanks to the Phase I program we have been able to test schedules for long duration (Mir) and short duration (Shuttle) crew work-rest cycles during the docked and undocked phases of missions. Based on our Mir experience, we are adjusting our training protocols to focus on skill development rather than focusing on specific tasks as we have in the past, and we are improving and expanding our capacity for in-flight training on long-duration missions. We have learned some very important lessons in human factors and the importance of cultural support and have modified our operations accordingly. We have sharpened our criteria and work procedures for safety, hardware, and personnel issues, and we have cooperated to establish international health care requirements. We are using Mir to investigate how to maintain the health of crews living in space over extended periods, and how to manage readaptation to gravity on return to Earth. We are learning about reliability, maintenance and unforeseen repairs of onboard systems, as well as long-term aspects of crew safety considerations, identifying risks and developing remedial procedures.

Let me dwell a moment longer on the crucial subject of onboard repairs. Mir is an aging spacecraft that has long exceeded its original design life and is exhibiting an increasing number of in-flight anomalies. We have assured ourselves that these equipment malfunctions, which may reoccur in the future, generally do not constitute a safety of flight concern. While the reliability of several Mir systems has been observed to be degraded, Mir itself has, over the last several years, actually grown in its robustness due to redundancy added by the newer modules. Problems such as an in-flight anomalies in a gyrodyne attitude control unit, the failure of a carbon dioxide scrubber and of an oxygen generator, or coolant loop leaks due to corrosion in the aluminum alloy pipes do present operational challenges. They are certainly not insignificant and require remedial attention, but they do not pose major safety concerns. In fact, since this type of equipment deterioration can be expected to also occur on the ISS during its later stages of operation, dealing with it on board Mir provides us an early learning experience in handling such emergencies and developing procedure for repairs, containment, control and, if necessary, evacuation to protect the health and safety of the crew. Even a real emergency situation like the onboard fire in the secondary solid-fuel oxygen generator on February 23, 1997, proved to be easily manageable by the cosmonauts because they were well trained and equipped for such an eventuality, with a nominal, reliable way to return to Earth remaining available at all times.

Let me assure you that no one is more concerned about the safety and well-being of our astronauts than myself and our NASA and industry team. And I might add that our joint experiences with our counterparts at the Russian Space Agency (RSA) and its industrial suppliers indicate that they share that concern to no lesser degree. NASA and RSA flight surgeons and systems experts are monitoring the Mir missions from Houston and Moscow day and night, just as we do Shuttle missions, and they feel keenly responsible for protecting the health and safety of the humans on board. And let me repeat that the crew has the means to come home at any time, should a serious safety concern make it necessary, just as it will be able to do during ISS assembly and operation, using the Russian Soyuz spacecraft in the early years and the planned Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) after completion of the assembly.

The Mir is not one hundred percent safe. Space exploration is dangerous by its vary nature and the safety of the crew can not be guaranteed. However, their safety will always be maintained within an acceptable level of risk.

The mechanical problems have been, or are in the process of being addressed. Prior to our decision to launch astronaut Mike Foale to Mir on STS-84 this May, the NASA Shuttle-Mir Program Manager, Astronaut Frank Culbertson, conducted his own internal safety review, as did my Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance, Astronaut Fred Gregory. Lieutenant General Tom Stafford was also asked to lead an independent assessment of the Mir’s safety. Their assessments all validated the continued U.S. presence on Mir, clearly indicating that the crew transfer to replace Jerry Linenger with Mike Foale should proceed as planned. In addition to delivering Astronaut Foale, the Shuttle delivered a replacement oxygen generation system and other equipment to enhance the Mir’s life support capability.

Both the U.S. and the Russian side have grown through this continuing process of joining our space activities in Phase I to an ever-increasing degree of effectiveness. The problems which we have jointly overcome have increased our confidence in each others decision-making and action-taking ability. Thus, as intended by the Phase I program objectives, we have strengthened our capability to deal with on-orbit situations which will undoubtedly arise with the ISS and for which we, unlike the Russians, have had not much experience before. I am therefore greatly pleased to call, as of now, our Shuttle/Mir cooperation with the Russians an unequivocal success.

As a precursor to ISS development and operations, the Shuttle-Mir program has been essential. But it has provided much to the scientific research community as well, demonstrating that future ISS science will support space missions while helping to improve the quality of life for our citizens here on Earth.

We continue to develop and test our medical countermeasures using data and experience on Mir. Long-term observations on Mir are helping to shed light on the mechanisms behind space-induced bone loss. Bone loss in space flight is similar to bone-loss associated with aging and osteoporosis, but researchers have yet to determine if the underlying mechanisms are the same. Continued study of accelerated bone loss in space may lead to valuable insights into the treatment of conditions like osteoporosis that affect millions of people on Earth.

New technologies demonstrated on Mir have substantially increased the number and quality of crystals grown in protein-crystal growth experiments. Researchers grow protein crystals on orbit in order to define the structures of proteins. They use structural information for developing drugs. Major drug companies are already using information from protein crystals grown in space (though not necessarily on Mir) to develop drugs for improved treatment of diabetes, to reduce inflammation associated with open-heart surgery, and even to help treat influenza. Many important proteins take weeks or longer to crystallize, so long-duration platforms like Mir and the International Space Station are ideal for that type of research.

Astronauts have planted and harvested dwarf-wheat crops using Russian/NASA equipment on Mir, improving our understanding of what will be needed to grow food in orbit or to integrate plants into life support systems. Plant research in space promises to help us better understand plant growth and development here on Earth as well. For example, studying plant growth on orbit is helping researchers to identify and understand the process by which plants produce lignin, the primary constituent of wood, in response to gravity and other source of mechanical stress. This information may be applied to future efforts to develop more productive plants for forest products and agriculture.

NASA has developed a revolutionary system for culturing cells by suspending them in a rotating bioreactor to simulate the effects of low gravity. On the ground, this system has enabled researchers to grow much more realistic tissue samples for research including cancer tumors, cartilage, and tissues from the lymphatic system used in the study of AIDS. (Traditional methods for culturing these tissues generally produce thin films of cells that do not reproduce any of the three dimensional structure of the original tissue.) The full potential of this bioreactor technology for growing tissues outside the body is now being achieved on Mir as researchers have completed the first long- duration experiments in low gravity. This research may lead to deeper understanding of how cancer tumors grow and develop, how diseases like AIDS infect the tissues of the body, or even how tissues like cartilage for transplant surgery may be grown. An overview of this work appears in the May/June 1997 issue of Science and Medicine.

BION
Cooperation with the Russian Space Agency includes life sciences research conducted aboard Russia’s uncrewed Bion spacecraft. Bion satellites, developed by the Russians, fly biological experiments with primates, rodents, insects, and plants in near-Earth orbits. In very general terms, the major objectives of the Bion biosatellite investigations are to study the biological effects of low gravity and the space radiation environment on the structure and function of individual physiological systems and the body as a whole.

U.S. participation in the last nine Bion missions has provided a major source of space flight opportunities for the U.S. science community and has complemented the Space Shuttle program. The Bion program has resulted in the flight of more than 100 U.S. scientific experiments and the publication of more than 90 peer-reviewed scientific papers. It has accounted for one half of all U.S. Life Sciences flight experiments accomplished with non-human subjects.

As a result of the unexpected post-flight death of a Rhesus monkey following the successful flight and landing of Bion 11, NASA has suspended its participation in primate research on the next planned Bion mission, Bion 12. NASA’s decision was based on the recommendations of an independent review board. The board found that there was an unexpected mortality risk associated with anesthesia and surgical procedures (biopsy of bone and muscle) on the day following return from space. NASA determined that this risk is unacceptable and has therefore discontinuing its participation in the primate portion of the BION Program.

The use of non-human primates is a small but important part of NASA’s overall research program that provides valuable and important biomedical and behavioral data. This research will continue. NASA is deeply concerned with the welfare of its animals and is fully committed to conducting its animal research programs in conformance with accepted standards. NASA has an outstanding policy on animal research with official “ethical” standards. This was recently recognized by the National Institutes of Health Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR). On May 30, 1997, the OPRR issued a statement saying:

We are pleased to call your attention to an important new development in the ethical consideration of animals in research from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
In March 1997, NASA promulgated the enclosed document, “NASA Principles for the Ethical Care and Use of Animals.” It is intended to guide careful and considered discussion of the ethical challenges that arise in the course of animal research under NASA’s auspices. You may find it useful in your endeavors, as well.

NASA will continue studying the effects of post-flight anesthesia and surgery. Bion 11 created profound implications for clinical care in-flight and post-flight. The need for additional research and new technologies is imperative to address these important questions. Some of that research will include biocomputation and appropriate subjects including primates when such experimental models are scientifically justified. I would like to underscore that NASA’s decision to withdraw from primate research in Bion 12 was not the result of any external pressure.

With the exception of Skylab, our thirty-six year old Space Program has consisted of relatively short-duration flights. Medical capabilities on board those flights have consisted primarily of equipment, medications, and techniques almost identical to standard Earth-bound medical care. We have focused primarily on first aid and temporizing measures and an emergency return capability. The NASA’s stringent astronaut physical selection process, exhaustive training, and superior engineering have kept the number of in-flight medical events to a minimum and of a benign nature only. However, these short-duration flights have not allowed the full impact of the physiological adaptation process on the human body to become manifest.

As has been true throughout the history of medicine, the unanticipated death of a biological subject, in this case the primate of Bion 11, has taught us, as most biological research does, an invaluable medical lesson, now highlighted by our sense of urgency to understand and learn from this infrequent but medically catastrophic event. We highly value the contribution it will make to the future of medical science for the space program. This unanticipated anesthesia-related death on the first day after return from space has spurred us on to measures which we feel will enhance the health and safety of our flight crews in Space and upon return to Earth, a priceless lesson learned. We have analyzed all prior events with primates and rodents, reviewed all the biological specimens from our data archives and worked very closely with the experts at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. We also requested that medical experts conduct an independent review of the above findings and existing procedures of medical care to recommend future directions, both in research and medical practice, to take care of astronauts returning from Space.

With the help of the Aerospace Medicine and Occupational Health Advisory Subcommittee, chaired by Dr. Ronald C. Merrell, Chief of Surgery at Yale University Medical School, we have outlined changes to the monitoring and rehabilitation program of returning long-duration flyers, beginning with Dr. Jerry Linenger, who just returned from an extended and challenging stay onboard the Mir. In addition, should Dr. Linenger or any other returning long-duration flyer require anesthesia in the immediate post-flight period, we will now treat them, not as anesthesia Level One risks, as their outward health might suggest them to be, but as anesthesia Level Four risks, similar to patients with autonomic dystrophy (failure of nervous system control) and myocardial impairment (advanced diabetics for example). Such patients are routinely and successfully managed in operating rooms all over our country.

In addition to the immediate changes made to the post-flight health care regime, and going beyond the excellent fundamental research still slated to look closely at the physiological changes which I alluded to above, we also must ascertain if medications and techniques which we use for certain illnesses on Earth are adequate for related conditions in space. Will the proper antibiotic to treat pneumonia on Earth be similarly absorbed, distributed through the body and successfully address an infection in an astronaut whose immune system may be altered by space flight? Will critical care techniques for patients whose infections may have progressed to sepsis succeed in microgravity?

The challenges for developing an adequate space medicine capability for long-duration missions are substantial. Modifying Earth-based models of clinical care for application in space is not a simple process. To adequately address clinical care, we must have an adequate knowledge base for dealing with the classical triad of medicine: prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Clinical equipment must also be developed and proven to function in the space environment. Finally, the skills to practice medicine in space must be developed, maintained, and constantly improved upon.

A key to the success of the process of establishing this capability is to develop an ongoing program utilizing human subjects, animals, and computer models (biocomputation) as well as to establish a group of properly credentialed physicians and other paramedic equivalent providers with appropriate knowledge, skills, and training in the practice of medicine in the extreme environment of space, as well as post-flight here on Earth, and on the surfaces of other planets. In order to assure that medical risks are addressed, medical errors are avoided, and no life is lost due to negligence, this group of health care providers must have experience in space flight. They must understand the space environment more fully and must be able to apply and attempt to validate the treatments devised. Our medical operations team at Johnson Space Center is hard at work developing a plan of medical research and training. This plan, which will also involve other NASA Centers, such as the Ames Research Center, will define the best methods to seek this new knowledge and how best to utilize the time and capabilities of those health care providers once in space.

Now America, along with our international partners, is preparing to undertake long-duration space flights. Much valuable research has been, and will continue to be directed toward understanding the physiological changes the human body undergoes during space flight. That research will answer those significant unanswered questions which remain. Despite the physiological adaptation process, this work will allow modified Earth-like medical treatment and medications to achieve usefulness in space and upon the return of an astronaut to Earth, and ultimately achieve medical autonomy on missions beyond low-Earth orbit, where rapid return to Earth is not possible. We are also proceeding to establish a formal review process to provide periodic accreditation for our standard of medical practice and care. To achieve this goal, we are working with the American Medical Association and the Joint Commission for Accreditation. (International).

International

I have just recently returned from a meeting in Tsukuba, Japan, with the heads of the other space agencies involved in the International Space Station. This was our first meeting since 1994, when early progress on incorporation of Russia was the primary focus of discussion. The heads of agencies acknowledged the major achievements and progress made, emphasized the importance of the utilization potential, and reconfirmed the significance of the International Space Station for the future of humankind. The heads of agencies also agreed that the necessary plans are in place to move ahead, unanimously affirming their resolve and commitment as a partnership to make the International Space Station a reality.

Canada, Europe and Japan have proven their commitment to this international venture for humankind, investing nearly $6 billion to date for design and development of their hardware contributions.

In late 1995, the European Space Agency (ESA) confirmed its commitment to a three-component ISS contribution: the Columbus Orbital Facility (COF), the COF utilization plan and the Automated Transfer Vehicle which will be launched by Ariane 5 and provide pressurized or unpressurized logistic-services and reboost activities for Station. In March 1996, the ESA entered into the largest single contract in ESA history for development of the Columbus Orbital Facility (COF). In exchange for Shuttle launch services for the COF, NASA and ESA have reached an agreement in principle on the provision of Nodes 2 and 3 and utilization facilities. ESA and NASA are also currently studying joint participation on the development of a crew return vehicle.

The Japanese program is solid and on track with its contributions of the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), the JEM Exposed Facility, and the JEM Experimental Logistics Modules. The JEM Pressurized Module Engineering Model and the Qualification Test Article arrived at the Tsukuba Space Center in late April from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ Tobishima Plant in Nagoya. Post-delivery activities, including ground support equipment setup, hookups and connections, have began and will continue through mid-June. The JEM Exposed Facility engineering model system test is continuing at IHI Mizuho. Preparations have been completed for system level testing for the JEM robotics systems over the next several weeks. NASDA is also working with NASA to offset the Shuttle launch services costs associated with the JEM assembly flights through the provision of the Centrifuge and associated hardware and services. We expect to sign an agreement in principle shortly. NASDA also desires to use its H-2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV) to offset common operations obligations and is engaged in discussions with NASA in this regard.

Canada’s key contribution to the ISS is the Mobile Servicing System (MSS). The MSS, consisting of a mobile base system, two manipulators( the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM)) and a Canadian Space Vision System will be used in the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station. The SSRMS will be a new-generation manipulator featuring seven motor driven computer controlled joints. The SPDM, having the fidelity of a human hand, will augment the robotics system already being provided by Canada with additional capabilities to carry out on-orbit maintenance and operation of the Space Station. Canada is making good progress across the board, with Canadian Government approval of funding for the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) having just been recently secured in spite of constrained budgets. This underscores their commitment to this program.

The Russians, in the face of tremendous economic challenges, have experienced serious difficulties in meeting their commitments. They have missed a number of development milestones for their ISS contributions, including the delivery of the Service Module (SM) which has been delayed from April to December 1998. This issue was addressed at the highest levels of both U.S. and Russian Governments and top-level Russian officials committed that adequate funds would be provided in 1997 to keep Russian elements on track.

NASA initiated contingency plans to provide an Interim Control Module last December to protect for further Service Module delays. Prior to the Space Station Control Board (SSCB) held on May 14th, NASA and its partners agreed on the need to baseline a single assembly sequence to bring stability to the program and avoid the costs and inefficiencies of parallel paths. Russia was informed that baselining the Service Module launch for December 1998 was NASA’s preferred approach, but that decision would be made only if Russia met the following criteria: Russian contractors’ receipt of Russian Government funding in April and May 1997; completion of a Service Module General Designer’s Review; and, satisfactory progress by Service Module subcontractors to support a December 1998 launch.

RSA’s total funding for ISS in CY 1997 is to total 1.8 trillion rubles. This is to be comprised of 300 billion rubles through RSA’s normal budgetary processes. In addition, 1.5 trillion rubles in supplemental funding to the RSA budget for its Space Station contributions has been approved through the Ministry of Economic Development. The 1.5 trillion rubles in supplemental funding was to be provided in two increments -- 800 billion rubles by the end of May, with another 700 billion rubles to be provided later. RSA expects the process for obtaining the additional 700 billion to be defined by the end of June 1997.

Prior to the SSCB, RSA had received over 900 billion rubles in CY 1997 funding for the ISS. Of this amount 188 billion rubles was through the normal RSA budgetary process, the rest coming from the supplemental funding. RSA had distributed 217 billion rubles to Energia and 217 billion rubles to Khrunichev, the primary two Russian companies supporting the RSA. The remainder of the funding is being distributed to other enterprises according to contracts approved at the General Designer’s Review.

The Service Module General Designer’s Review, held on April 24, 1997, with RSA, RSC-Energia, Krunichev and all major subcontractors (over 40 companies) reconfirmed that there were no known technical impediments to completion of the Service Module in support of a December 1998 launch. NASA senior managers were in attendance during this open and candid review which focused on technical issues. Schedule milestones were reviewed in detail and all Russian parties stated that the current Service Module schedule for a December 1998 launch is feasible. They then committed to the schedule execution necessary to hold this launch. As a result of the GDR, we now have a signed overall Service Module schedule and detailed delivery schedules for the subcontractors.

At the May 14 SSCB meeting , in conjunction with all of our international partners, we officially rescheduled the launch of the first element, the Functional Cargo Block, to June 1998. This was done in order to work around the Service Module delay to December 1998. The reason for this action was that the U.S.-owned Functional Cargo Block (FGB) is designed to perform critical control and stability functions for only the first several assembly flights. The Service Module, upon its delivery to orbit, then takes over these functions until arrival of the U.S. Laboratory Module. Unfortunately, as currently designed, the FGB cannot adequately provide control functions for the assembly sequence beyond the arrival of the U.S. Node. The FGB’s on-orbit avionics and fuel reserves would also be stretched beyond acceptable limits, if we were to continue to hold its scheduled November 1997 launch date. As we will not expose flight hardware to unnecessary risks, the first element launch was delayed.

The assembly sequence baselined at the May 14 SSCB provides for the Service Module launch in December 1998, in lieu of a U.S.-developed interim control module. This decision reflected a renewed confidence by all the international partners that Russia will deliver its commitments on schedule. There were many factors that the U.S. and the other partners considered in making this decision, but, it was ultimately based on a visible and concrete demonstration by Russia of their resolve. This doesn’t mean NASA will slow down work in an Interim Control Module. We will continue its development to support a December 1998, reviewing Russia’s progress this fall to determine whether the Service Module remains on track.

The Service Module delay imposed slips in launch dates for all the partners. While a six-person permanent habitation capability is still scheduled for the year 2002, the delay has now pushed the completion of assembly into 2003. We have spread the schedule impacts as equitably as possible. The partners are in agreement with the new assembly sequence and International commitment to the program remains solid.

At the Tsukuba Heads of Agencies meeting, the outcome the SSCB meeting was discussed and endorsed. While acknowledging that the program delay embodied in the new assembly sequence had adverse impacts on each of the participating nations, the heads of agencies collectively confirmed that moving to the new assembly sequence was a logical and necessary decision. A broader strategy to mitigate assembly delays and other impacts from recent program developments was also endorsed, including consideration of collaboration on additional utilization missions to minimize the impacts to on-orbit research programs resulting from the assembly schedule slippage. All expressed the determination to strive for long-term stability in the program and to accomplish the International Space Station without further delay.

U.S. Development

The largest international, scientific research facility in history is rapidly becoming a reality. The ISS Program has now passed the 60% milestone completion mark, having built nearly 200,000 pounds of U.S flight hardware. As testing of more design units is completed, we are seeing production runs of hardware and software increase. The final quarter of CY1996 marked the largest increase in the amount of flight hardware built since the Program’s inception, over 30,000 pounds. Design and fabrication of flight elements for the first six American flights are almost complete. Qualification testing is well underway across the program and flight hardware is being assembled and checked out. Integrated test and verification planning is progressing well and steps are being taken to provide even more integrated testing at the Kennedy Space Center. The NASA/industry team has worked long hours and demonstrated a true commitment to the American people in delivering the International Space Station. It is important to note that despite manufacturing and testing difficulties, the US Node and Payload Mating Adapters would have been ready to support their originally planned launch in December of this year. Now, the delay in the Service Module and our subsequent deferral of the first two missions until next summer, provides ample time for the final development, testing and check-out of those modules for launch. The additional time also allows us to perform full integration and verification on the ground of flight elements for the first five U. S. flights.

The Space Station Program continues to demonstrate a high level of performance, completing approximately 97% of scheduled work at approximately 104% of budgeted cost. Given the breadth and complexity of the ISS Program, and taking into account the experiences of other major Government development programs, we are convinced that we have demonstrated strong performance.

Nevertheless, the performance of the ISS prime contractor is of significant concern. For 22 months now, the cost for work performed has continued to climb. For the last six months, Boeing and its subcontractors have spent about twenty percent more than planned to perform the contracted scope of work. Boeing is addressing the technical problems identified to date and continues to work hard to solve the myriad of challenges encountered as the program moves through the qualification testing and production phase of the development cycle. They are continuing to make progress in the process. However, the individual product groups and their subcontractors have had higher than anticipated technical and schedule performance problems associated with the delivery of both hardware and software products. This is a complex and difficult undertaking. But, we believe they can improve their planning, scheduling, control process and their execution of their systems integrator responsibilities, bringing and keeping the right level of management experience and tools on the program. Recovery plans will mitigate cost and schedule variances, but the continued cost growth and performance problems have strained near-term reserves and will continue to require the use of reserves in the future. We are not faulting the people at Boeing and its subcontractors for lack of dedication, they have provided outstanding support. We will continue to work closely with Boeing corporate management to ensure that required corporate assets are available to this critical program and that the necessary levels of management experience and tools are applied. Although Boeing has had some performance problems in the past, I am encouraged by recent discussions I have had with the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Boeing.

As we approach the Congressional Budget decisions for FY 98, we recognize our challenge to manage within our available resources will be greater than ever before. We have just agreed to a new assembly sequence that addresses the Russian Service Module delay. While the assembly schedule has slipped, we are attempting to hold many delivery schedules to their original dates. This should allow us to transition people of the program or onto other tasks. It should also allow us to achieve hardware-to-hardware integration and verification tests at the Kennedy Space Center for the first flights. But, not all the details, including the total cost of these changes has been worked out. We are also in a critical phase where a considerable amount of hardware is being assembled and tested, and software is being developed, integrated and checked out. Further, peak manufacturing and testing activity is occurring through 1998, the same year when we will now start on-orbit assembly. The potential for unforseen challenges to our cost and schedule targets is extremely high. We have at the close of fiscal years before, faced financial challenges which we have fortunately overcome. Our management flexibility will again be challenged, but there is less certainty that we can meet all of the cost, schedule & technical goals for FY 98. As we proceed over the next few months and develop a better understanding of the funding situation, we will continue to keep you fully informed.

It is certain that the program does not have adequate reserves built into the total development estimate to address Russian contingencies, which I will address later. There is also the issue of the impact the Russian delay has had in pushing completion of the assembly sequence beyond 2002, which must be addressed. Clearly, the drawn out timeframe for development and assembly will increase program cost. The exact extent of this cost is being worked. NASA has made decisions independent of the Russian delays that must be considered in determining cost accountability. The delay also requires adjustment of the schedule for achieving full operational capability, for which it is too early to determine all the financial implications.

Alternative Research Flight Opportunities

The schedule changes resulting from the eight-month delay of the Russian Service Module have impacted both assembly and utilization flights. We are evaluating the addition of up to three Shuttle missions for the purposes of bridging the utilization gap created by the delay. These utilization missions would provide a continuing opportunity for our research and private sector communities in the areas of commercial space product development, life sciences and microgravity research. They would also provide opportunities to continue to test some of the capabilities to be deployed later on the ISS, including more extensive teleoperations and telescience. For the first mission, the Research theme would be biotechnology with specific research efforts in protein crystal growth/structure-based drug design, cell culture and plant studies. The two additional missions would focus on the areas of microgravity research and life sciences with contributions from other disciplines, including commercial research. The theme of the microgravity research will be an extension of the Microgravity Spacelab mission objectives in combustion, fluid physics and biotechnology, while the theme for the life sciences would be a better understanding of the aging process. Both missions will have the possibility for contributions from other disciplines including commercial payloads. The missions would be shared with our international partners, but nominally on a cost sharing basis. We are also looking at increased access to the Space Shuttle middeck for small payloads and studying the feasibility for additional flights using robotic missions. In the event such opportunities emerge, we intend to invite international and commercial participation in order to minimize cost impacts.

Contingency Planning

The events that have taken place in Russia over the last few months have resulted in an increased confidence in their ability to meet ISS commitments, specifically, the delivery of the Service Module. They have begun to demonstrate through concrete actions what it will take to deliver on their commitments. In turn, we, along with our International partners have baselined the Russian Service Module for launch in December 1998. This does not mean that we now have complete confidence in Russia’s ability to deliver the Service Module. What it does mean, is that the risk to its delivery schedule has been sufficiently lowered, to the extent that it is now within an acceptable margin. While it appears that FY 1997 funding for the Service Module is being applied, continued uncertainties regarding Russia’s long-term ability to maintain necessary funding will exist for some time. We are not so confident in Russia’s ability to secure funding that we will chance further Russian delays, without having a reasonable fallback to protect schedule.

Quite frankly, contingency development has been extremely difficult for NASA because we have confronted, in effect, a moving Russian baseline for over a year. While I am certainly not pleased with the delay in the delivery of the Service Module, the experience of the last year and a half has taught us quite a lot about working with our partners to mitigate the impact of funding problems. In the process, we were able to fund some contingency activities, but, until a few months ago, we had neither sufficient insight into the status of Russian funding nor did we have confidence in the true arrival date of the Service Module. As a result, it was only recently that we were able to determine a clear course of action, in close consultation with our international partners, that would minimize the impact on the partnership caused by the delay of the Service Module. I have instilled in my management team the need to maintain close scrutiny on the Russian situation in order to act quickly should the Russians again have difficulty in meeting their commitment to the ISS. With limited near-term reserves available and with our focus on meeting schedule commitments, it is imperative that we continue to refine our contingency plan. Let me assure you, contingency planning for the case of potential problems among our partners is receiving constant attention. To ensure that the partnership moves forward in the event of unforeseen problems on the part of any partner, we have developed a contingency strategy that will allow the program to continue the assembly phase under a variety of circumstances, including renewed Russian funding shortfalls.

In April, I informed the Congress of NASA’s plan to reallocate $200 million in FY 97 funds within the Human Space Flight account to a new budget line item -- “Russian Program Assurance” -- at no change to NASA’s total budget. This new line is the source of funds to reduce the cost and schedule risk resulting from Russian uncertainties. This reallocation enables NASA to support the initial steps of contingency plans addressing the Russian uncertainties. Of the $200 million reallocated to the “Russian Program Assurance” line, $190 million is drawn from available program reserves within Space Shuttle Program and $10 million from the Payload and Utilization line. Implementation of these contingency plans is prudent, will not impact the planned Shuttle activities or Shuttle safety, and will likely need to be built upon.

There are those that question why NASA has not come forward with a plan to remove the Russians from the Program. If NASA were to follow through with this suggestion, it would likely result in an increase of billions of dollars for a less capable space station. NASA has no desire to assume the responsibilities of another partner, and has every intention to minimize the cost to the U.S. taxpayer, while at the same time maximizing the return on investment. To realize this, NASA is taking an approach to contingency planning that is similar to the procurement of insurance. For example: one could look at the $200 million being reallocated for Russian Program Assurance as an incremental payment on a risk reduction policy. With it, the United States procures necessary hardware and software to continue the assembly sequence should Russia have further problems delivering the Service Module, reducing the schedule and costs impacts should they not succeed. Thus, we reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk to the program. We continue to carry certain risks, but the onus to deliver remains with the partner.

Rather than take on another ISS partner’s responsibility, we incrementally fund only those activities that will allow us to move forward without them. It is a process based on the identification of risks, development of contingency plans to reduce these risks, the establishment of decision milestones and the criteria by which action will be taken, and further implementation of contingencies as necessary. Our ISS partnerships are based on mutual benefits. Should a partner not meet its commitments, a readjustment could be made in the sharing of resources. Ultimately, it is in each partner’s interest to meet its commitments. Our approach of setting criteria which need to be achieved, then taking the necessary action to move forward, allows us to maintain the pressure on the other partners to produce. I believe this method has been instrumental in leveraging Russian funding for the Service Module.

Our approach, to some, may appear reactive rather than proactive. Let me assure you, NASA has assessed, and will continue to assess, many possibilities in the development of its plans. The risks and ramifications change with time and with progress in the development of hardware. As such, the specifics of our contingency plans evolve, but there does exist a top level set of decision points, correlating to phased increases in the level of contingency implementation that I would like to lay out for the Committee.

The first step in our contingency planning is already being implemented. This step protects as against a potential further delay in the Service Module up to December 1999. However, we do carry certain risks forward by not baselining the ICM rather than the Service Module for the December 1998 launch. These will increase with time to a point, this fall, when we will need to reevaluate Russia’s development progress. We will fully implement the ICM into our baseline plans if Russia’s performance on the Service Module is not up to expectations. The cost for this first step is up to $250 million. These additional funds are not going to Russia to have the U.S. taxpayer fund what the Russian government has committed to contribute to the program. These funds will largely be spent in the United States. Work performed in Russia will go to modify the U.S.-owned FGB, and the procurement of an additional docking adapter to assure the Interim Control Module can be accommodated in the assembly sequence.

We may want to make some initial decisions relative to the second step in our contingency plan the early fall. It is important to understand that the ICM provides us only temporary relief should Russia falter. If we do not have either a Service Module or follow-on propulsion supply module in orbit approximately a year after launch of the ICM, we will be worrying about the loss of millions of dollars of hardware already in orbit -- not a mere schedule delay. At this point in time, if there is not certainty as to whether Russia will ultimately deliver the Service Module, it may be prudent to incrementally fund this additional step, thus, buying down the risk inherent with non-delivery of the Service Module. Costs to fully implement the second step of NASA’s contingency plan are estimated at three quarters of a billion dollars. However, the funding could be applied incrementally. That way, if the risk of Russian nonperformance diminishes through concrete actions, we can retain the option to discontinue some of this activity.

We now have access to the Russian Space Agency’s detailed development milestones. It is my intention to provide an assessment of the risks associated with the delivery of Russian contributions as NASA identifies funding requirements for further Russian contingency activities. It is essential that the Congress be involved in these decisions to either carry forward or reduce the risks to the program.

Beyond the issue of hardware development is the potential that Russia may not be able to fully support, the currently planned number of Russian-funded logistics flights to ISS. Contingency plans to reduce the risks from this threat are forthcoming. We are working with our international partners to determine the extent that the Japanese H2 launch vehicle and the European Space Agency’s Automated Transfer Vehicle can be accelerated, as well as developing other options. The availability of these offsets is enabling us to respond in part to changes to the basic infrastructure driven by Russian funding shortfalls. As you are aware, we are entirely reliant on the Russian Soyuz for three person crew return capability until a permanent six person Crew Return Vehicle can became available. A solution to the crew return requirement is being addressed if the Soyuz is not available. We are and will continue studying further options which can be taken as circumstances warrant action.

Shuttle Safety

Let me emphasize the commitment of the entire NASA team to the Safety of the Shuttle as the Agency’s highest priority. I am convinced, as are the Shuttle program managers that the reallocation of these funds will have no effect on the safety of the Shuttle Program or on activities planned for FY 1997. The funds are available as the result of careful and efficient performance by the entire Shuttle team, and have been carried separately in the Program Manager’s reserves for program changes from the beginning of the fiscal year.

NASA remains unwavering in our commitment to improving Shuttle safety. It has been our highest priority. In 1991, the probability of catastrophic loss on ascent for the Shuttle was one in 78. Today, is one in 248. NASA has achieved a 50% reduction in the number of flight anomalies per flight since FY 1993 from 14.3 to 6.8. The Agency has also reduced the number of monthly mishaps during Shuttle processing at the Kennedy Space Center by almost 50%, from 0.9 on FY 1993 to 0.5 in 1996. At the same time we have worked diligently to reduce Shuttle operating costs. Since FY 1993, the amount of Shuttle processing overtime has been reduced by 37%. This means our teams are not overworked and thus susceptible to making mistakes, and that we are meeting budgetary commitments.

Space Station Utilization

In our intense focus on the day-to-day issues of schedules, budgets, international cooperation and contingency plans, it is easy to lose sight of the ultimate objective of our efforts. We are leading the world in the construction of a space station of unprecedented size, complexity and capability. Upon completion of the assembly phase the research program will enter into a period of steady-state operations with resources of unprecedented magnitude. Research power will range from 26 to 45 kw (compared to 2.5 kw on Spacelab). There will be at least 2 dedicated crew for research operations 365 days per year (compared to 14 days per year on Spacelab). The laboratory volume will house at least 26 payload racks for the U.S. (compared to 7 racks on Spacelab). A 50 Megabits per second communications downlink with simultaneous uplink for teleoperations will be available (efforts are underway to upgrade to 150 Mbps). Finally, five shuttle flights per year are planned for periodic resupply of research samples and equipment. These capabilities will be “on-line” 365 days per year to support continuous research. The international nature of the program will lead to truly premier research, drawing upon the best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs from around the globe to engage in the exploration and development of the space frontier and the expansion of human knowledge.

The Research Plan for the International Space Station summarizes the overall objectives and content of the scientific, technological and commercial research program that will utilize the multidisciplinary laboratories, technology testbeds and observatories. The plan enumerates six goals for the research program:
· on an international scale establish an unprecedented microgravity research program in gravitational biology, chemistry, and physics with applications benefiting both life on Earth and development of space;
· facilitate the development of an international industrial collaborative test bed program in engineering and space operations to enable the study of infrastructure and technology for human research & development;
· increase the knowledge base of biomedical responses of humans living and working in the space environment on a routine basis, in order to enable the next generation of space travelers to pursue exploration and development of space and to improve medicine hear on the ground;
· foster private sector investment and utilization of space, either on-orbit or using knowledge gained from the unique environment of space, for terrestrial applications;
· establish the station as a unique vantage point for conducting Earth science, space physics, astrophysics and planetary research programs on an international scale to further civilization’s understanding of our world and the universe; and
· bring together the world community in this historic endeavor through government, academic, and private sector cooperation to revolutionize the approach to exploration and development of the space frontier.

International Space Station research will provide research benefits including: improving industrial processes on Earth, providing a better understanding of health and the aging process, and helping us to develop concepts for innovative new materials of the future. Orbital research is a source of technological innovation for application both on Earth and in Space. The Space Station will also be a platform for engineering research and for learning how to live and work in Space. We will learn how to assemble and sustain large structures in space and vastly improve our capabilities for providing medical care and support for long duration space crews. Orbital research on controlling the physiological effects of space flight and providing regenerative life support systems is a prerequisite to future human missions of exploration.

Biomedical Research:
“The Space Station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury.” “Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space of only about two weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to years--to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs.” Dr. Michael DeBakey, Chancellor and Chairman of the Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine

The human body has evolved to operate in ordinary Earth gravity (1g). When people orbit the Earth, they experience a new gravitational environment which is unanticipated by our evolutionary history. Nearly every system in the body is affected. For example, when the body is released from the downward pull of gravity its fluids shift upward toward the head. This shift causes changes in hormones and nervous system responses and causes red blood cell production to change and the heart, lungs, and kidneys to make adjustments. Eventually, the number of red blood cells in the body begins to decrease. Meanwhile, the organs and systems that the body uses to balance and orient itself are receiving conflicting signals from the environment. Later in flight, muscles begin to atrophy and bones begin to weaken as the body continues to adjust to its new, weightless condition. NASA is still seeking to understand the long term implications of changes that occur in the immune system, in how the body absorbs and distributes drugs and nutrients, and a host of other issues associated with exposing humans to low gravity environments.

NASA seeks to understand and control these phenomena in order to ensure the safety and efficacy of humans living and working in Space. In addition, the medical knowledge this research creates can be applied to improve treatments here on Earth. For example, research on orbit provides a unique perspective on bone remodeling (the process by which bone is renewed and changes composition over time) which may be directly relevant to the study of osteoporosis. In cooperation with investigators at Genentech, Inc., NASA researchers have demonstrated that muscle atrophy can be reduced in experimental animals using a combination of exercise and growth hormone. This approach opens new therapeutic avenues for rehabilitation, as well as for preventing some of the changes that accompany aging.

Many of the changes experienced in microgravity are at least superficially very similar to changes that occur during the aging process. Research on the international space station holds the potential for elucidating the underlying causes of both sets of changes.

Gravitational Biology
The International Space Station will allow biologists to exploit the unique environment of space to address basic biological questions. Areas of study include Plant Biology, Developmental Biology, Evolutionary Biology, Population Dynamics, Chronobiology, Cell and Molecular Biology and Radiation Biology. The Space Station will provide researchers with the ability to isolate and control gravitational stimuli using a centrifuge. The knowledge generated from these studies will be broadly applicable to medical and agricultural research on Earth as well as to increasing our ability to live and work effectively in space. For example, preliminary experiments appear to have established a firm link between exposure to gravity during fetal development and the control of movement later in life. Future research may lead to a deeper understanding of human development and neuronal renewal processes throughout life. Studying adaptation to microgravity over generations in different living species including cells, plants, and animals will have profound implications for our understanding of the evolution of life and importance of planetary environments for the genesis of life.

Advanced Human Support Technology:
Scientific, technological and engineering research on the Space Station will address future life support systems. Work on advanced human support technology will be used to evaluate advanced life support systems for their effectiveness in the Space Station environment in preparation for full regenerative life support systems for exploration missions. Advanced life sustaining technologies will combine physical, chemical and biological processes to safely increase the duration and self sufficiency of future human space missions. These technologies will have numerous applications in environmental and agricultural settings here on Earth, including vastly improved air and water quality sensors and analyzers, air revitalization systems and means to capture and dispose of airborne particulates. NASA research has already resulted in a prototype “electronic nose” that can detect a broad range of chemicals in spacecraft atmospheres. The electronic nose is based upon advanced electronic “neural networks” and draws upon NASA’s new millennium technology. The nose will be an invaluable technology for monitoring the air quality of spacecraft, aircraft, submarines or any enclosed vessel or space. It can be used to monitor important gases aboard the space station, detect chemical leaks, or possibly act as an early detection system for fires.

Microgravity Science:

“As is usually the case in the physical and biological sciences, discoveries are made when a new area or novel parameter space is explored. Microgravity research, despite its relative infancy, is no exception. Increasingly, fundamental processes that were though to be well understood under terrestrial (1-g) conditions have, in fact, proved to behave in altered and even startlingly unfamiliar ways when observed and measured in reduced gravity environments. Space experiments in areas such as combustion, fluid flow and transport, phase separation fundamental physics, and biology have revealed new phenomena and have demonstrated new and occasionally unpredicted behavior.” (page 24, Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s, National Research Council)

The International Space Station will give researchers control over a series of phenomena that obscure or mask more subtle phenomena on Earth. On Earth, gravity acts on density differences that are present in almost any fluid to drive materials resulting in mixing or settling phenomena that can disturb and obscure more subtle processes. For example, the intricate process by which atoms arrange themselves into crystals is difficult to study when gravity creates nearly imperceptible swirling currents of liquid that push and pull on the growing crystal and disturb the orderly aggregation of atoms. Similarly, the processes that influence the burning of even a simple flame cannot be fully studied and understood until gravity can be excluded and the underlying process exposed for study in the absence of the swift currents of air that gravity and heat combine to create. Orbital research provides low gravity conditions that reduce the confounding effects of gravity. It allows scientists to lift the veil of gravity and study phenomena such as solidification, crystal growth and combustion with an unprecedented clarity.

Biotechnology:

“I view the space shuttle program as a stepping stone to the ultimate program that will guarantee prolonged efforts in microgravity. . . .Ultimately our hope is to be able to crystallize proteins in microgravity, conduct all x-ray data collection experiments in Space and transmit the data to Earth for processing. This can only be done in a Space Station.” Dr. T.L. Nagabhushan, Ph.D. -- Vice President of biotechnology Development, Schering-Plough Research Institute

In the discipline of biotechnology, the low gravity environment available on the International Space station will allow researchers to expand on work conducted on Mir and the Space Shuttle to grow three-dimensional tissue samples, including cancer tumors, that are much better models for research than the best available samples grown on Earth. NASA’s bioreactor, developed to simulate low gravity, has already proven dramatically successful as an advanced cell culturing technology. This success has led to an extensive collaboration with the National Institutes of Health. Work with NASA bioreactors at the NIH has already produced advanced cultures of lymph tissue for studying the infectivity of HIV. Initial results of tissue culture research on the Mir Space Station are very positive and suggest the possibility of major advances in tissue culturing once the International Space Station becomes available.

Biotechnology researchers will also use the International Space Station to produce protein crystals for drug research that are superior to crystals that can be grown on Earth. Already researchers have produced superior protein crystal samples for proteins important to the study of AIDS , emphysema, influenza, diabetes and other diseases as part of NASA’s protein crystal growth efforts. Commercial researchers at BioCryst pharmaceuticals have used space-grown crystals of the protein neuraminadase to design a drug to stop the spread of the flu virus.

Combustion Science

"Almost every chapter in the combustion textbooks will be rewritten as a result of the microgravity work."
Prof. Howard Palmer, Prof. Emeritus, Penn State University

Combustion scientists seek comprehensive understanding of the physics and chemistry of combustion. They study how fires begin, spread and die. They study how fires produce pollution and how various fuels burn in different configurations (e.g., the combustion of liquid fuel droplets dispersed in air). Research has shown that combustion is a highly complex process involving many factors, such as: the physical flow of fuel and oxygen; the chemical conversion of fuel and oxygen into heat and chemical products ––some of which may be pollutants; and the transfer of heat (for example, between flames and unburned fuel). In many cases, combustion processes are so complex that scientists have difficulty developing accurate, complete models of them. By significantly reducing gravity’s effects, scientists can study subtle aspects of combustion that gravity hides. For example, in the near-absence of gravity's effects, scientists can study how fuel and heat are transported into and out of flames during combustion at the molecular level. Microgravity combustion research could produce knowledge that will allow us to improve the efficiency of combustion processes in converting fuel into heat. Such knowledge from microgravity research could be used on Earth to redesign burners for both home and industrial use to improve fuel efficiency and reduce pollution. In 1996, Dr. Robert Cheng and Dr. Larry Kostiuk, combustion science researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under contract to NASA, were awarded a patent for a Ring Flame stabilizer which significantly reduces pollution from natural gas burners. Fitted into an off-the-shelf home heating furnace, the device reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by a factor of 10, while increasing efficiency by 2%. The device can be readily sized to industrial scales. Academic Press, a major publisher of scientific and engineering texts, recently asked a NASA Lewis Research Center senior scientist to edit and co-author the first textbook dedicated strictly to microgravity combustion science. Several internationally recognized academicians active in microgravity research were selected by this editor and have already agreed to write chapters in the book. A first draft would be due next year.

Fluid Physics

For these reasons, a research program on fluid physics, aimed at primarily fundamental studies of fluid mechanics and transport phenomena that are partly or completely masked at 1 g, has been under way for the past several decades, and the committee recommends that this program be continued. (page 51 Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s, National Research Council)

International Space Station research promises to produce new insights into the behavior and properties of fluids. One of the most significant forces affecting fluid behavior on Earth is gravity. Gravity causes heavier, more dense materials to settle to the bottom of a container and lighter, less dense materials to rise. Thus, the force of gravity gives rise to disturbing fluid flows whenever a fluid is heated or cooled unevenly, when two non-mixing liquids are contained together (such as oil and water) or when a liquid contains suspended solid particles (such as flour and water paste). On the International Space Station, where gravity's effects will be greatly reduced, scientists will observe aspects of fluid behavior that are difficult or impossible to understand in normal gravity. Space Station research will deliver a deeper understanding of fluids not only to advance physical research, but also to improve a broad range of economically important processes and procedures. Aspects of fluid behavior are critically important in a variety of situations. The stability and performance of a power plant depends on the flow characteristics of vapor-liquid mixtures. Oil recovery from partially depleted reservoirs depends on how liquids flow through porous rocks. Safe engineering of buildings in earthquake-prone areas requires an understanding of the fluid-like behavior of soils under stress. Perhaps most significantly, advances in materials engineering require a better grasp of how fluid behavior determines the structure of a solid material during solidification. Space Station research will allow fluid physics researchers to open a new window on the underlying physics behind these important phenomena.

Fundamental Physics
Microgravity allows researchers to design physics experiments that achieve a measurement accuracy not possible in the gravity environment of the Earth. International Space Station research will test physics theories at levels of resolution that will serve as a new standard. Areas of investigation will include research on general relativity, critical phenomena, laser cooling for ultra-precise measurement of atomic electronic properties, as well as other thermophysical measurements of interest in condensed-matter physics. Scientific results from the highly successful Lambda Point Experiment, flown aboard the Space Shuttle, were published in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters in February, 1996 by John Lipa of Stanford University. The Lambda Point Experiment confirmed the validity of a Nobel prize- winning theory describing the conditions under which matter will change between different states, such as from liquid to gas or from conductor to superconductor. This theory constitutes one of the greatest achievements of theoretical physics of the past 30 years and has very broad application. This theory is very important to scientists seeking to develop better models for how water seeps through soil, how frost heaving occurs in arctic climates, and how turbulent weather systems evolve.

Materials Science:

The microgravity environment, by reducing these gravity driven phenomena, clearly offers new opportunities to metallurgists to develop and enhance control of materials processing. (page 77 Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s, National Research Council)

Materials science is an extremely broad field, encompassing systems as diverse as multi-ton ingots of steel for the automotive industry, super alloys for advanced aerospace applications, precision electronic materials for computers and medical instruments and exotic glasses for high-speed optical communications. Production of these materials includes, as part of the production sequence, processes affected by gravity. In each case, an increase in the fundamental understanding of the underlying physics and chemistry of the processes could allow researchers to improve their control over the microstructure of materials during fabrication and thus improve the properties of the final product. Microgravity is an important tool for exploring the details of many important materials processes because microgravity allows researchers to study important phenomena that are normally obscured by gravity. The Space environment can be used to study how gravity influences the formation of defects in materials which can affect the properties of that material. For example, Dr. David J. Larson of the State University of New York at Stony Brook has reported that cadmium zinc telluride (CdZnTe) crystals grown on Space Shuttle missions have 50 times lower levels of a key defect than the best commercially available crystals. Dr. Larson has used space flight to verify his mathematical models for semiconductor crystal growth which can now be applied to improve semiconductor fabrication on Earth.

Earth Observation and Space Science:
The International Space Station will be a unique platform with multiple exterior attach points from which to observe the Earth and the Universe. Conceptualized by Nobel prizewinning scientist Dr. Sammuel Ting of MIT, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer experiment will search the universe for antimatter and “dark” matter in an attempt to prove cosmological theory with direct evidence. The Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment, SAGE-III will obtain global profiles of aerosols, ozone, water vapor, and oxides in order to determine their role in climatological processes.

Researchers from academia, industry, and government look forward to conducting scientific research on the International Space Station which simply cannot be accomplished on the ground. Cooperation in Space will help the nations of the world forge closer relationships and enhance international stability and security. We will use the Space Station to learn how to live and work in Space and how to capture the unique resources of the space environment for human benefit. At the same time, the knowledge and experience we gain on the International Space Station will reduce the risks faced by those humans who eventually leave Earth orbit for destinations beyond. The International Space Station challenges us. It is a step into the unknown. When we, as a people have found the courage, the resources and the faith to venture into the unknown we have always found rewards their that have justified our efforts. We are doing everything that we can to keep surprises to a minimum, yet, it is precisely to the surprises that we look forward as we begin this new phase in the exploration and development of the space frontier.

Conclusion

NASA is meeting its commitments to the Congress and the American people in building the ISS. The ISS program continues to identify ways to maximize program efficiencies and leverage investments to enhance the capabilities of the Space Station. NASA, the Administration and the Congress recognized the risks and challenges involved in undertaking a partnership on the International Space Station with the Russian Federation, but agreed that the risks were outweighed by the tremendous benefits. We have already learned much from the Shuttle/Mir Program. The International Space Station remains a much more capable and robust laboratory facility than it would be without the Russian contributions -- we will gain incredible scientific capabilities; we will develop cutting-edge technology. As I have said earlier, the American taxpayer has gained by the Russian involvement, and would stand to lose a great deal if Russia does not continue as part of the program. The Russian funding shortfalls have presented challenges. Now, in conjunction with our international partners, we have developed the necessary plans to move ahead, while still providing the opportunity for the Russians to participate in the program. With the support of this Committee and the Congress, we can enhance program stability and adapt to the realities that have come with Russia’s involvement.

The International Space Station is an initiative of significant size and complexity, offering enormous returns. It is a demonstration of America’s leadership in the development of peaceful cooperative ventures entering the 21st century. Humankind’s thirst to expand its knowledge and desire to explore the unknown are essential elements to our continued growth as a Nation and as a world community. The Space Station is our opportunity to prove America’s commitment to lead the way. This is a partnership based on mutual benefits. With Russia, we receive the benefits of a mature and experienced space program. However, their financial commitment must be maintained. It is important to remember that before the Russians joined the partnership, the cost of the space station was $2 billion more and would have started a year later, even with the current change in the first element launch. We continue to believe it is important that Russia remain a partner in the International Space Station; however, we will continue to monitor the situation and make appropriate adjustments to our baseline assembly sequence, per our contingency plan, as required based on Russia’s ability to continue to meet their commitments. We must not be overly dependent on them, or any of our other partners.

Last updated 6/27/97 by Julie Meredith