Commercial Space Transportation Study

Appendix C Space Manufacturing Appendix

C.1.1 Introduction

In addition, the power system mass was bounded by two approaches, 1) a combination of silicon (Si) solar arrays and nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries, and 2) a combination of gallium arsenide (GaAs) arrays and nickel-hydrogen (NiH2) batteries. Of course, it is possible that cost considerations would result in a mixed case, but cost trades were not included in the study. A more comprehensive assessment including launch vehicle type, detailed subsystem design, service module cost, and life cycle cost was beyond the scope of this study.

The assumptions and values associated with the spacecraft power system are critical to the trade results. Several references (listed at the end) plus data from actual programs were used in the study, and use of a particular reference is indicated in parentheses. A Direct Energy Transfer (DET) power system (ref.2) is chosen along with solar arrays and secondary batteries. The equation for the solar array power requirement (ref.1) is:

Pa = PTe /XeTd + P/Xd

where: Pa = power required from array during daylight period

P = required spacecraft power (assumed the same for daylight or eclipse)

Te = length of eclipse period in minutes

Xe = efficiency of path from arrays through the batteries to the individual loads

Td = length of daylight period in minutes

Xd = efficiency of path directly from arrays to the loads

Although a full sensitivity analysis was not conducted, a discussion of sensitivity is provided later in the paper. Mass must also be allocated for electrical power system electronics (power control, conversion), and a value of 0.02 kg/watt is used (ref.3). It should be noted that the number of watts used in this relationship refers to the usable onboard spacecraft power (e.g. 20 kw). As a point of reference, the LMSC Bus 1 value is about 0.015 kg/watt.

Although the sun synchronous mission involves continuous solar array illumination, backup or auxiliary battery power is still required. It is assumed that a capability of 1000 watt-hours is provided for this purpose. Very few cycles are involved for the sun synchronous mission, therefore 100% will be used for depth of discharge (DOD) for NiH2 batteries and 80% for NiCd batteries (ref.1). For the 28.5 deg orbit with thousands of recharge cycles, the NiCd DOD is taken to be 25%, and a value of 0.9 is used for transmission efficiency between battery and load (ref.1). For NiH2 batteries, a 50% DOD is used (ref.1,3). The required battery mass is:

Mb = (watt-hours)/(DOD*Xt*Xb)

where: Mb = battery mass in kg

Xt = transmission efficiency

Xb = battery mass factor in watt-hr./kg

The mass for the other spacecraft subsystems was estimated as a percentage of dry spacecraft weight, using the following relationships:

C.1.4 Results

C.1.5 Sensitivity Assessment

For the 28.5 deg orbit to be competitive with sun synchronous in terms of usable payload to orbit at the 20 kw level, an increase in efficiency of greater than 50% over values used in the study for GaAs/NiH2 systems is required. Of course, even in this event, the service module would be larger and presumably more costly than the sun synchronous version.

1. From the standpoint of usable mass to orbit, the sun synchronous orbit is superior to the 28.5 deg orbit at the 20 kw power level unless solar array and battery efficiencies much higher than today's GaAs/NiH2 technology are incorporated into the service module.
2. Using GaAs/NiH2 technology, the usable mass capability at the different orbits is equivalent only at the lower 10 kw power level. The 28.5 deg service module would still be larger and presumably more costly.
3. If use of the lower cost Si/NiCd power system is desired, the sun synchronous orbit is clearly superior over the 10-20 kw range.

Note: Refinements to the above trade study comparing orbit inclination preferences could involve consideration of two additional factors, i.e. the mass assigned to power conditioning equipment and the relative degree of radiation exposure.

In a dynamic and AC load environment with drastic cycling between battery and solar power in the low inclination case (LIC) and almost no cycling in the high inclination case (HIC), the design of power conditioning equipment for the LIC must be quite a bit more complex than the HIC. This complexity and additional mass, if included in the evaluation, would further favor the HIC.

A quantitative analysis of the relative degree of radiation exposure was evaluated using radiation environments derived from the NASA spacecraft radiation design models (AP8MIC and AE8MAX) for the worse case (high solar activity) steady Van Allen belts environment, plus the JPL special model for solar proton events (SPE). SPE's are catastrophic solar explosions that occur about 3-4 times per 11 years for a duration of about 2 days each time.

A satellite in low earth orbit can encounter low altitude lobes of the radiation belts. For the HIC orbit, both belts will be encountered. For the LIC orbit, the inner belt only will be encountered. The South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (shift of the center of the earth's magnetic axis towards Brazil) causes local distortion of the inner radiation belt. A LEO satellite in a LIC orbit will encounter this local inner belt distortion in each of about 15 orbits daily.

Two orbit cases were evaluated: LIC =400 nmi altitude, 28.5 deg. inclination, and HIC = 400 nmi altitude. 90 deg.inclination. The combined Van Allen and solar proton event dose was integrated over 7 years, assuming 75% confidence level that a total of 2-3 SPE's will access the spacecraft over the polar caps.

The following table shows the accumulated dose in particles/sq cm for electrons of energy greater than 1 MeV, and protons of energy greater than 4 MeV.

The conclusion is that HIC will receive 10 times the total dose of these damaging components of radiation. However, these levels for HIC are two orders of magnitude lower than that which is encountered at GEO (about 2.0 x 10^13). The net result is that weather satellites are almost never damaged by radiation in their HIC orbit, unlike the GEO satellites. The difference between HIC and LIC, in our opinion, is not worth application of any extra shielding of significant mass, perhaps only to critical components . The designs of sun-synchronous orbit weather satellites, such as DMSP and NOAA, follow this practice and normally function without degradation in these polar LEO orbits perfectly well for between 5 and 7 years.

References

1. Space Mission Analysis and Design (J.R. Wertz and W.J. Larson, 1991)
2. Satellite Technology and Its Applications (P. Chetty, 1988)
3. TRW Space Data (1992)
4. Key Small Satellite Subsystem Developments (AIAA-90-3576 by J. Stuart and J. Gleave, 1990)

Space Manufacturing Prospective Users

C.3.1 Instrumentation Technology Associates (ITA) with John Cassanto

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Date 9 August 1993; Revised: 10 August 1993
Organization Contacted: Instrumentation Technology Associates (ITA)
35 East Uwchlan Avenue, Suite 300
Exton, PA 19341
Tel: 215/363.8343 FAX: 215/363.8569
Researchers: Bill Walsh, Lockheed, and Henry Hillbrath, Boeing

The researchers met with John Cassanto, president and Ulises (Al) Alvarado, System Engineering Manager, on 8/6/93 for three hours at ITA , Exton, PA to discuss the commercial space manufacturing markets and applications for space and the related launch system attributes.

Summary

The firm has been in business since 1982, providing technical space services and space hardware (instrumentation and materials processing in space (MPS) hardware and containment devices) to university researchers, and biotechnology and drug companies who want to perform experiments in space. They employ about five full time personnel, with an additional 10 to 20 part-time personnel available, as required to support specific projects, or space shuttle launches. Messrs. Cassanto and Alvarado, and other personnel previously worked for GE Aerospace, Valley Forge, PA. Mr. Cassanto left GE/VF to start Instrumentation Technology Associates (ITA).

The firm provides their engineering services and hardware to drug (pharmaceutical, chemical, biotechnology, etc.) companies. They provide the technical understanding of space to drug company researchers who want to place their experiments on the shuttle, Spacehab, or the MIR. ITA developed the Materials Dispersion Apparatus (MDA) minilab which can accommodate as many as 150 sample data points during protein crystal growth, casting thin film membranes, cell research, encapsulation of drugs, and conducting biomedical and fluid science experiments. Four MDA units are accommodated in current shuttle flights, in mid deck lockers, and provide 500 to 600 data points. Mr. Cassanto says other types of experiment holders that are available to researchers typically provide six sample points.

A major product area for ITA includes providing their services and equipment to researchers who are experimenting with space-grown protein crystals. Researchers have demonstrated they can grow larger, more uniform protein crystals faster in a micro-gravity environment than can be done on earth. The three-dimensional molecular structure of the larger, space grown crystals can be determined using X-ray diffraction. Determining the molecular structure is an essential step in several areas of medical research and rational drug design.

At the current cost and infrastructure, the experimenters will continue their current level of space research, primarily to exploit the two principal attributes of space: the diminution of gravity and the attendant virtual absence of convection. There have been no scientific breakthroughs that would indicate a high growth space market. There is no certainty that a breakthrough will occur in the foreseeable future. ITA Personnel believe that the probability of a biomedical breakthrough could be enhanced by increasing the data yield per mid deck locker. One approach to accomplish this is to use high density space processing hardware devices that allow multiple techniques to process samples. This can be made available through the private sector. ITA has the technology and equipment on hand to increase the data yield by an order of magnitude, e.g., from the present ~ 60 samples to 600 samples per mid deck locker.

1. What is the maturity of the users' space applications? The users of space are in various stages of space experimentation, according to ITA. No single end user has made a decision to use space for processing, manufacturing or production of a product. ITA provided a Mission Operation Report, which listed 23 separate examples of space experiments that the company has been involved with through its affiliation with the CCDS program and directly with university researchers, and biotechnology and drug companies. The main commercial applications include: protein crystal growth, micro-encapsulation for drug delivery, cell research, and thin film membranes. The firm also are performing experiments to demonstrate that high quality Zeolite crystals can be produced in space.

2. What are the payload form factors? Mr. Alvarado said the requirements for growing crystals in space are: Most experiments operate in 1 atmosphere, and a temperature range of 4 to 37 degrees centigrade. Power is 110 Watts, continuous. Vibration/shock on orbit should be limited to 10E-5 to 10E-6 Gs, 1 to 10 Hertz.

A quasi steady state micro gravity environment of 10E-6 is optimum. The shuttle acceleration environment, while on orbit, is typically from 10E-3 to 10E-5 Gs. Typical payload weights (for growing protein crystals) are 40 pounds for the crystal growing containers, and 30 pounds for the refrigerator; approx. 70 pounds total.

A low g (<3g) environment during reentry from space is required for the delicate crystal experiments, and physical specimens, such as cells and micro capsules. However, some crystal experiments can tolerate 8 to 10 Gs. Greater than 14 Gs will destroy the crystals. Mission duration on orbit vary from experiment to experiment, with the min/max varying between 8 to 60 days.

Flights other than on the shuttle, require a reentry system because the researchers want the space grown crystals returned to earth for evaluation and assessment.

3. What infrastructure and support to the user must the launch system company provide? The launch system provider should reduce the number of organizations that the end users and ITA, as their technical space representative, must interface with. ITA spends a significant amount of time interfacing with NASA/JSC and their support contractors on technical and safety requirements before they can get approval to fly in the shuttle mid-deck locker. There are also numerous integration and safety documents, and flight readiness review meetings that ITA must attend before they get final certification from NASA to fly on the shuttle. These add complexity, more planning and lead time, and added expense that ITA passes on to the experimenters. The firm estimates it costs them $68,000 worth of expenses to provide a crew for ground processing, integration and launch operations, when flying on the shuttle. That equivalent work costs only $15,000 when flying on a sounding rocket.

Because some of the ITA experiments require extended times on orbit, i.e., 30 to 60 days, ITA has pursued agreements with NPO Energia for launches to the Russian MIR orbiting facility. ITA is now able to provide to their customers access to MIR which include Russian launch services.

4. What is the end user market infrastructure? The end users are not familiar with the technical and NASA imposed requirements for performing space experiments. They select companies, such as ITA, to represent their interests in preparing the experiments for space.

See the figure below, entitled -- Space Manufacturing Infrastructure -- for a notional summary of the space infrastructure.

6. If the users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space? Some protein crystals that are grown on Earth are not suitable in size or degree of perfection to characterize the molecular structure by means of X ray diffraction. Researchers are continuing to experiment with medically important proteins whose molecular structure can be determined from space grown crystals but not from Earth grown crystals.

Mr. Cassanto believes that researchers will find such a protein crystal within the next five years. However, experts have been predicting this breakthrough for the past ten years. When and if this breakthrough occurs, the demand for space crystals will accelerate rapidly, requiring a major increase in launch vehicle traffic to LEO and return to Earth to support the growth.

Another reason for the delay in crystal experimentation is that there are too few shuttle flights and the number of space experiments must be stretched. With the introduction of Spacehab, experimenters can reduce these delays by paying for an equivalent standard mid-deck shuttle locker. ITA says the costs for a Spacehab locker is $1.8 M to the experimenter. This price level can only be afforded by government organizations at this time and appear to be more than most experimenters are willing to pay to increase their frequency of space experiments. For instance, Spacehab has no commercial users. Most experimenters will opt for longer delays between flights by going through the CCDS industrial affiliate membership approach, which provides a shuttle flight to the commercial experimenter with no launch vehicle costs.

7. What are the current and near term costs associated with using space? The cost (and length of time) of getting to space is too expensive for the researchers. If researchers perform their experiments through the CCDS', they must deal with the NASA infrastructure, which can be costly and time consuming. The researchers, biotech and drug companies select a company with space engineering experience, such as ITA , to ensure that their experiments meet all NASA-imposed bureaucratic requirements, safety and technical (ground processing, launch, on-orbit, and re-entry) criteria which must be met before flying on the shuttle.

8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced? Launch System Demand Elasticity: To the CCDS affiliates, NASA provides free shuttle launches. Some drug companies become CCDS affiliates to get free access to space. ITA has customers who are CCDS affiliates and others who are not. For the latter, the cost to the end user is ITA's value added expenses for their technical services and equipment, and the launch cost. The launch costs for a shuttle mid-deck locker range from $150,000 to $200,000, depending on the complexity of the experiment.

The recent addition of the Spacehab has provided an alternate to going through NASA for space on the shuttle mid-deck lockers. The Spacehab can provide between 30 to 40 equivalent mid-deck lockers. According to ITA, a Spacehab locker costs about $1.8 million. The end users think this is too expensive. The firm indicates there is a trend to use the MIR orbiting facility to get lower cost access to space. ITA has an agreement with the Russians for space experiments on the MIR. The company says the costs for launch, space on MIR, and recovery of experiments are proprietary.

9. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space? ITA says that the drug and biotech companies do not have enough empirical data to make a decision on expanding their use of space. There have been too few experiments to reach a conclusion to expand the use of space research. Consequently, the drug companies have not set a high priority on space research. Decisions on expanding the use of space are normally made by drug company executives who are involved with setting the firms' research budget.

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making the business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? ITA focuses their customer contacts at the researcher and lab manager level in the university, biotechnology and drug companies. They could not provide the names of decision makers who make the research decisions at the senior executive level.

Review and Revision Status: 8/9/93 Submitted research report to ITA for review, comments and concurrence with data. 8/10/93 Messrs. Cassanto and Alvarado replied with comments and concurrence. Research report revised and closed out.

C.3.2 Consortium for Commercial Crystal Growth (CCCG) with Dr. William Wilcox

Mission Area : Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Date 31 August 93; Amended with CCCG's comments 11 October 93
Organization Contacted : Consortium for Commercial Crystal Growth
Clarkson University
Camp Building, Room 320,
Potsdam, NY 13699-5700
Who Contacted: Dr. William Wilcox, Center Director; Mark Pasch, Director of Technology Development Professor Liya Regel, Professor of Research & Associate Director.
Researchers: Don Barker (Lockheed)/Richard Freeman (Martin Marietta)/Henry Hillbrath (Boeing)

Summary

The Center, established in 1986 under NASA Code C funding, conducts technology development for commercial growth of electronic, photonic and detector crystalline materials.

Crystal growth activities in space are experimental rather than commercial manufacturing and the Center has been involved with five Shuttle based micro gravity related experiments in 1992. Their experience indicates skepticism about immediate space applications from the commercial sector due to high costs. Their view is that a preferred facility for conducting micro gravity experiments should be automated, unmanned and should provide extended duration orbital flights.

They believe that one of the greatest benefits achieved by the CCDS's is the development of ground based capabilities in commercial crystal growth.

The launch system company should provide support to the user by affording on schedule launches, return of samples to a predetermined location, access to extended duration orbital flights in a simple straight forward way with an absence of bureaucratic procedures.

Commercial value added companies should be encouraged to provide instrumented sample containment equipment for general application in ground and space related activities. There appears to be little short term benefit in "manufacturing" crystalline material in the space environment since to date there has been no statistically significant evidence of a higher performing infrared or semiconductor crystal material which has been produced using methods unique to the space environment.

With reference to space application activities, there appears to be currently near zero sensitivity of user demand to launch system cost. This is due to the free rides currently offered by NASA and also the fact that few higher performing materials have been produced using methods unique to the space environment. The lack of experience with regard to space applications, shown by non-space commercial companies, is such that informed opinions on the investment potential of space based business is difficult to obtain at this time.

1. What is maturity of users' space application? The center was established in 1986 under NASA Code C sponsorship with the original title of "Center for the Development of Commercial Crystal Growth in Space." The Center title has evolved into The Consortium for Commercial Crystal Growth. The center mission statement as quoted by Clarkson University is "to enhance the global competitiveness of North American industry by developing improved crystal products and processing through space and ground based research and development."

The Consortium's main goal is to develop the technology for commercial growth of electronic, photonic and detector crystals Ð activities include vapor growth for cadmium telluride, solution growth of triglycine sulfate (TGS) and L-arginine phosphate (LAP) and floating zone growth of gallium arsenide, cadmium telluride, bismuth germonate and germanium cadmium arsenide and solidification of Cd Te et al. These crystalline materials have commercial application to high speed integrated circuits, infra-red sensors, optical communication and radiation sensors.

The Consortium has a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) whose members are primarily from companies with interests in crystal growth and related technologies.

Literature obtained from Clarkson University lists 18 consortium participants, two of which (Metrolaser, Irvine, CA, and Potsdam Semiconductors Research, Potsdam) are partners, six of which are industrial affiliates (including Electrofuel Manufacturing Co., Ontario, Canada) and two co-operating institutions which are Canadian Government Federal Agencies (Canadian Space Agency and Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology). The balance of participants are those in which Principal Investigators at U.S. universities are supported by CCCG funding. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is also involved as a participant.

A consortium partner may have ownership of intellectual property rights as opposed to an affiliate membership where experimental data may be publicly shared . This appears to offer a methodology of preserving commercial proprietary data. With reference to the maturity of the center's space applications, Appendix I to this report lists the center accomplishments and capabilities. They have been involved in two STS flights which carried micro gravity related experiments namely IML-1 (STS-42, January 92, ~ 8 days on orbit) and USML-1 (STS-50, June 1992, ~ 14 days on orbit).

The Center personnel confirmed that no manufacturing in space was occurring. All space applications are experimental and most involve the Shuttle configured with various experimental facility inserts Ð International Micro gravity Laboratory, the US Micro gravity Laboratory and Spacehab. These experimental facilities provide up to 14 days in orbit.

The Center personnel noted that a preferable facility for conducting micro gravity experiments would be automated, unmanned and would provide extended duration orbital flights, i.e. unmanned would eliminate extraneous platform vibrations and avoid costly provision for life support with attendant safety considerations. In addition, the facility would stimulate the development of dual use robotic subsystems which would be applied on earth as in orbit.

The Center personnel expressed enthusiasm about the U.S. COMET program which, if developed, would provide an unmanned free flyer on orbit for 30 days.

Authors note: It is interesting to note that an ESA sponsored European Retrievable Platform (EURECA-1) was deployed by the Shuttle in August 1992 and recovered by the Shuttle in about April 1993. This provided about 9 months of automated capability for extended duration micro gravity experiments. Again, with reference to maturity of space applications, the Center personnel confirmed that in their experience there was skepticism about space manufacturing from the commercial sector. The Challenger accident in 1986 dampened enthusiasm with regard to access to space; the current NASA way of doing business is incompatible with quick turnaround, simple access and low cost; payload manifest changes are frustrating to commercial schedule containment and the resolution of safety issues associated with manned flights are extensively time consuming and costly.

It was also stated that the largest benefits of the CCDS is from ground based experiments and theory in preparation for space flight and from spin off technology.

2. What are payload form factors? Specific form factors were not recommended by the center at the time of interview. A description of such form factors for protein crystal growth are referenced in the Lockheed Engineering Memo relating to Payload System Inc. dated 19 August 1993 and revised 22 September 1993. The form factors pertaining to crystal growth of IR detector and semi-conductor materials will generally demand larger weights, higher power requirements and may be more tolerant of higher ascent and descent accelerations.

3. What infrastructure and support to user must launch system company provide? The launch company should provide an unmanned orbital experimental facility which affords an extended duration time on orbit with automated experimental facilities.

Experimental packages need to be launched specifically to an agreed schedule and returned to a guaranteed predetermined location.

The process of obtaining orbital flights must be simple and straightforward with an absence of bureaucratic procedures.

4. What is end user market infrastructure? The current end user market infrastructure is to become a partner or affiliate of the CCDS and obtain access to space through the center affiliations with NASA. The CCDS involve other commercial companies in the design, development and instrumentation of experimental materials containment and processing equipment. In some cases, the CCDS invite the participation of these commercial companies in the packaging design and development activity and subsequently license the company to manufacture these facilities for general application for both ground and space use.

5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce costs of space produced products? Reduced cost of space produced products (space experiments in the near term) will be obtained by a payload pre launch processing cycle unencumbered with review processes associated with manned experimental facilities, fixed and dedicated payload manifesting, reduced time to launch and launch/recovery on schedule.

6. If users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space. According to the current view of this CCDS, there appears to be little short term hope of "manufacturing" crystals in the space environment with current costs and procedures. There is an advantage obtained for the experimental production of relatively large, pure crystal structures in a micro gravity environment in low earth orbit. However, to date, there has been no statistically significant evidence of IR or semi-conductor crystal materials having been produced in space which have not been duplicated on earth. This is because space experiments relevant to a particular material have not been repeated rather than due to scatter in the sample measurement data obtained.

7. What are current and near term costs associated with using space? No specific figures were offered with reference to the use of space. It is known however that the CCDS's provide access to space without charge to the user other than the cost of commercial company in kind and cash support of the CCDS organization as a partner or affiliate and the cost of commitment in labor and materials necessary throughout the experiment preparation, conduct and subsequent analysis.

8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost. How many more times will they use space if launch costs are reduced? With reference to this CCDS's space application activities, which are currently in an experimental phase, there is currently near zero sensitivity of user demand to launch system cost. This is probably due to the NASA Office of Commercial Programs having a signed flight agreement, called the Center for Commercial Development of Space Flight Agreement, with each CCDS. This agreement serves to delineate all responsibilities, procedures and activities involved in the use of the Shuttle by the CCDS's including provisions for Shuttle services at no charge.

The level of demand is thought to be simply a function of the fact that, to date, there has been no statistically significant evidence, demonstrated and widely publicized, of a higher performing infrared or semiconductor crystal material which has been produced using methods unique to the space environment.

9. What decision making process is used to decide on the use of space? Decision making process with regard to commercial space application must rest with the premise of a demonstrated enabling technology unique to the space environment, the exploitation of which would lead to a business base whereby financial returns would significantly outweigh costs and risks.

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? The Center did not disclose specific identifies of executive managers who may be involved in decisions to invest resources into producing products in space. It was reiterated that currently, and probably within the next five years or so, commercial space applications would be for experimental purposes and certainly not full scale manufacturing of products.

In addition, the lack of experience with regard to space applications, as generally pertains to non-space commercial companies, is such that informed opinions on investment potential of space based business would be difficult to obtain at this time.

C.3.2.1 Consortium for Commerical Crystal Growth, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Accomplishments

1. Developed a new furnace for vapor growth and a low-velocity laser Doppler velocimeter.
2. Developed a low-cost, low-power, gradient freeze furnace.
3. Determined the influence of vibrations, accelerated crucible rotation, and current pulses on InSb, InGaSb, and MnBi-Bi eutectic solidification.
4. Achieved seeded vapor transport of large diameter CdTe at commercially useful rates.
5. Developing an automated floating zone melting mirror furnace.
6. Successful solution crystal growth of doped triglycine sulfate (TGS)and L-arginine phosphate (LAP), improving device performance and reducing material cost.
7. Coated growth ampoules with pyrolytic boron nitride (PBN) for improved crystals; developed eddy current technique to aid in crystal growth analysis.
8. Developed computer models for heat transfer, thermal stress, and convection during crystal growth.
9. Float zoned GaAs using liquid encapsulant; float zoned CdTe, yielding single crystals.
10. Solution crystal growth of higher quality TGS on IML-1.
11. Crystallization of larger zeolite crystals on USML-1.
12. Measured mechanical properties of CdTe at high temperature and observed dislocation movement in real time.

Additional Capabilities

1. Directional solidification and floating zone melting of CdTe; floating zone melting of GaAs, BGO (bismuth germanium oxide), BiSO, and GeCdAs4.
2. Materials processing in high gravity, with the world's only centrifuge facility dedicated to materials processing and flow visualization research.
3. Robotic thermal processing of device structures.
4. Real time synchrotron x-ray topography and neutron diffraction for observation of crystallographic defects.

C.3.3 Payload Systems Inc. with Dr. Javier de Luis

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Date: 19 August 1993; Revised 22 September 1993
Organization Contacted: Payload Systems Inc.
276 Third Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Tel: 617/868.8086; FAX: 617/868.6682
Researchers: Bill Walsh, Lockheed; and Henry Hillbrath, Boeing

Summary

The researchers met with Dr. Javier de Luis, president, Payload Systems Inc. (PSI), and with Dr. Anthony Arrott, formerly with PSI, on 8/3/93 to discuss the commercial markets for space. For reference: Dr. Arrott can be reached at Arthur D. Little, Acorn Park, Cambridge, MA 02140-2390. Tel 617/498.5886 and FAX: 617/498.7007. The firm began business operations in 1984 They currently employ about __ personnel. The three hour meeting focused on applications in commercial space research markets.

PSI provides space experiment containment devices or holders and instrumentation, the combination can be referred to as "mini-labs." They also provide space engineering and payload integration services to drug companies (i.e., pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical), universities, and government researchers who want to perform experiments in space. Recently, the firm received a contract from the Canadian Space Agency to develop a furnace and data management system that will support Canadian researchers needs. The equipment will fly on Spacehab.

The company was flying 3 missions per year on NASA's C-135 parabolic, zero G flights. However, they have stopped these flights because NASA-HQs lawyers redefined the liability to the user to include the aircraft and crew. The insurance is now more than the flight costs.

Dr. de Luis commented ... "they are helping experimenters get into space." PSI has moved aggressively into providing innovative space services to the users. In 1988 they began contracting with the Russians to fly on MIR. This move has been successful for the company and they are seeing an increase in the frequency of biomedical research. Some key reasons why researchers want to fly on MIR are:

1. MIR provides the researchers with more than two weeks on orbit.
2. The experimenters do not have to disclose the specific research compounds.
3. The Russians can accommodate an increased frequency of space experiments.
4. There is less lead time for reserving space on MIR.
5. There is much less preplanning, meeting, reviews than with NASA flights.

1. USA: BioServe Space technologies, Kansas State, Penn State (CCR/CCDS), Bionetics, MIT, Instrumentation Technology Associates, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
2. Japan: Hitachi, Fujitsu Laboratories, Ishikawayima-Harima Heavy Industries.
3. Europe: Novaspace, Kayser-Threde, OHB System.
4. Canada: Alberta Research Council, National Research Council of Canada.

2. What are the payload form factors? The requirements for growing crystals in space are:

1. Ambient pressure: 1 Atmosphere operation in space
2. Temperature range: 4 to 23¡ C
3. Gravity: <10E3 minimum, note a
4. Power: TBD Watts, continuous
5. Experiment Weight: TBD lbs, note b
6. Vibration: note c, d
7. Shock: note c, d
8. Time on orbit: >15 days, note e
9. Recovery: Crystals must be returned to earth.
10. Notes:
    1. Quasi steady state micro-gravity environment of 10E-6 is optimum during protein crystal growth. During orbital maneuvers rating can range from 10E-3 to 10E-5 Gs.
    2. 70 pounds total. Typical payload weights (for protein crystals) is approx. 40 pounds for the materials, holders, and instruments; and approx. 30 pounds for refrigeration.
    3. On orbit vibration/shock should be limited to <10E-5 to <10E-6 Gs, 1 to 10 Hertz.
    4. A low G environment (<3g) during reentry is required for delicate crystal experiments. However, some crystal experiments can tolerate 8 to 10 Gs. Greater than 14 Gs will destroy the crystals.
    5. Mission duration's vary from experiment to experiment, with the min./max. varying between 15 to 60 days.

4. What is the space research market infrastructure? The end users, i.e., drug companies, universities, and government labs, are not familiar with the technical requirements for performing space experiments. They select companies, such as Payload Systems Inc., to provide the proper packaging of experiments, technical support and to represent their interests in preparing the experiments for space.

The infrastructure illustrated below was developed in agreement with Drs. de Luis and Arrott.

5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products? Shorten the time it takes to prepare to fly on the shuttle. Some suggestions include: reducing the number of technical, flight, and programmatic reviews; and reduce the certifications and documentation that is required before flight. This could be done by reducing the number of governmental organizations and government contractors involved with flying on the shuttle. Today, there are several different NASA organizations and their support contractors involved with approving a flight experiment before the actual shuttle flight. To respond to all the government organizations cost the end user time and money.

Reducing flight delays can also reduce the user's costs. Each time a shuttle launch is delayed, the end user's and their support contractor's must standby. Improving launch reliability is essential to eliminating stand-down costs of the customer.

The Russian's approach to flying on MIR is much more streamlined and business-like. When PSI flies on MIR, the firm interfaces with a single organization. The technical, schedule, programmatic requirements, and documentation for MIR flights are much less onerous.

In general, PSI thinks the U. S. launch system infrastructure must be streamlined to eliminate a lot of the time and expense associated with reviews and documentation. Eliminate or at least ease the burden of the shuttle constraints in areas of -- integration, documentation and safety Reducing the overall launch and recovery system costs will stimulate more space research.

In discussion with Drs. de Luis and Arrott, the infrastructure below was defined as a future approach to reduce flight lead time and costs. The premise for this notional approach is that a launch system infrastructure without NASA involved is essential in the long term for the commercialization of space.

6. If the users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space? It is not clear when commercial products will be produced in space by the drug companies. There have been no examples of research that has lead to producing commercial products. Much more research must be accomplished before it will be possible to estimate producing products.

The researchers anticipate there will be breakthroughs in crystal growth that will prove-in the benefits of space, but they cannot predict when. Researchers have been predicting a breakthrough for several years. Much more empirical data on how to use space for research must be accumulated and disseminated in the research community. However, industry thinks there is too much risk. This is demonstrated in how they spend their R&D budget. As illustrated in the figure below, the "Traditional" research approaches receive the largest share of the funds.

7. What are the current and near term costs associated with using space? Drug companies consider $1,000 per Well for growing protein crystals in space as an upper cost limit. A Well is about 1 cubic inch, and there are 50 wells per holder (referred to as a "brick," because the physical dimensions are similar to a brick's). A shuttle mid-deck or Spacehab locker can accommodate 10 bricks, or about 500 wells. Using these data, the drug companies will decide not to use a Spacehab locker at $2 million per locker, i.e., equivalent to $4,000 per well.

A graduate student growing crystals for six months can produce 500 trial cells for a total cost of $50,000, or approximately $100 per crystal.

A commercial New Jersey lab can produce 10,000 protein crystal trial cells for about $300,000 per year, or approximately $30 per crystal.

A Russian Institute can produce protein crystals for considerably less than the graduate student and the commercial lab. For reference, a protein research lab and equipment cost about $30,000 per year. However, the Russian prices are being reviewed and subject to major upward revision.

8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced? Launch System Demand Elasticity: Drug companies become CCDS affiliates to get free access to space. PSI has customers who are CCDS affiliates and other customers who are not. For the latter, the cost to the end user is PSI's value added expenses for their technical services and equipment, and the launch cost. As discussed in 7 above, the Spacehab locker cost is about $4,000 per well.

Another approach to estimate demand elasticity relative to the cost of a Spacehab locker, which is approximately $2 million per flight. If the cost to the user were reduced by one magnitude there would be significant interest in micro gravity research. If cost were reduce by 2 magnitudes of order, there would be substantial interest in space experiments. This is summarized below:

Another perspective: Since the inception of the CCDS's (Commercial Centers for the Development of Space) seven years ago, approximately $360 million has been spent on space research. Approximately $130 million from industry and $230 million of NASA funds, exclusive of launch costs. This indicates a substantial research investment for commercialization of space.

9. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space? The drug companies do not have enough research data to make a technical decision on expanding their use of space research. There have been too few experiments to reach a conclusion on expanding their research in space.

Decisions on expanding the use of space are normally made by drug company executives who are involved with setting the firms' research budget.

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making the business decisions to invest their resources into space research? Dr Arrott suggested we get in touch with the following persons:

• Protein Crystals: Drake Eggleston, Smith, Kline, Beecham, King of Prussia. PA. 215/270.6690.
• Osteoporoses Research: John Termine, Executive Director, Lily, Indianapolis, IN, 317/276.0670. Mr. Termine has been involved with the Penn State CCDS.
• Protein Crystallographer: Dr Alex McPherson, U. C. Riverside, 714/787.4227. Dr McPherson has been involved with a broadest range of protein crystal growth research. He has been involved with nearly every company, university, and government initiative, including foreign activities.

C.3.4 University of Alabama - Birmingham with Dr. Charles Bugg

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Source Contacted: Dr. Charles Bugg, Director
Center for Macromolecular Crystalography (CMC)
Univ. of Alabama - Birmingham
Box 79 - THT, UAH Station
Birmingham, AL 35294-0005
Tel# 205/934.5329; FAX # 205/934.0480
Contacted by: Bill Walsh, Lockheed, 408/742.4781
Person Contacted: The writer met with Dr. Charles Bugg, at the UAB Basic Health Science Center, Room 262, on 7/16/93 to discuss the Center for Macromolecular Crystallography (CMC) projects he manages as part of the NASA CCDS program. Dr. Bugg is the Research Center director for the CMC projects at the Univ. of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB).

Summary

The CMC specializes in space grown crystals of biological materials which are identified by participating firms in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and chemical industries (i.e. drug companies). The goal is to work with companies to develop the technology and applications for space based materials processing of biological crystals. The mission of the center focuses on:

1. Developing new techniques for protein crystal growth on Earth and in space. (This report summarizes the space related activities.)
2. Structural studies of biological macromolecules using protein crystallography for drug design and protein engineering.
3. Definition and development of hardware and software for performing various macromolecular crystallography experiments.

There are also plans to perform CMC flights on free flyers in space. CMC experiments had been designated to fly on the Comet free flyer, however, the Comet project is on hold (see Comet Summary below) pending additional funding to complete the development. Another alternate is the LABS, a new free flyer project discussed below.

Launch Frequency/Experiment Form Factors and Cost Currently, the demand for space launches which support CMC experiments is established by the availability of the shuttle. Other factors which influence the rate are the funding of experiments by the NASA-CCDS program and the drug companies. The CMC experiments are typically about 100 lbs each and have been housed in shuttle mid-deck lockers and more recently in lockers on the Spacehab module.

There are no launch cost to the drug companies for flying their experiments aboard shuttle. Dr Bugg stated that the drug companies would stop experimenting in space if they were charged a proportional amount of the launch cost, or even a nominal amount.

An estimate of the flights under various scenarios for a five year period are included in the table below. The current level of NASA support to the CCDS program and to the CMC results in a flight rate of about 5 space flights per year, (see scenario 1). In scenario 2, Dr Bugg estimated the CMC is able to manage up to 12 flights per year in the near term. Under ideal conditions, Dr Bugg would like to increase the frequency to one flight per week, scenario 3. As discussed above, scenario 4 predicts that the drug companies would discontinue their space experiments if they were charged for the launch system cost.

Dr Bugg has several active projects with drug companies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and chemical industries. He classifies the work as mostly Space Research. Some Space Manufacturing work has been done in the past, but to a much smaller extent.

In Space Research, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and chemical companies perform experiments to form new protein crystals in space. It has been demonstrated that these space experiments sometimes produce improved crystals that cannot be formed in an Earth based laboratory. The space grown crystals have no intrinsic value. After the crystals are formed in space, they are X-rayed to determine their molecular structure. The structure is used to design new pharmaceuticals, which can then be manufactured on earth. The experiments performed to date have not demonstrated a technical or costs advantage over other research protein products developed in an earth based lab. The goal is, however, to begin flying experiments that would demonstrate consistent superior experimental results to an earth-based research facility.

The approach being used for the experiments requires a host platform, such as the shuttle, for the companies to perform their experiments in a microgravity, pressurized compartment. The companies provide the materials for the experiment and NASA makes available the pressurized equipment bay and the launch system. Dr. Bugg mentioned the experiments have been flown on the shuttle, and with the most recent flight, in the Spacehab module. He said that COMET is a candidate for free flyer missions, however, that project is in trouble with funding to complete development and first flight, and it may not be available for future experiments.

Dr Bugg says drug companies do not have technical aerospace staff and consequently the firms are not able to respond to technical questions about the use of space. They do not have a staff that can discuss the form factors of the satellites that would be required to support their experimental payloads . Dr. Bugg is familiar with the drug companies applications and thinks he is able to respond to any space related questions CSTS researchers may have.

The U. S. pharmaceutical industry spends approximately $15 billion annually in research on new drugs. Nearly all of the research funds are spent in earth-based labs. Typically, the companies will spend about $3 to 4 million to prepare their experiments for space.

There are executive decision makers (VPs or directors) within the companies that manage these research budgets, however, he cannot provide their names.

In Space Manufacturing, Dupont Corporation was interested in space manufacturing in the past. However, the company has recently moved its space manufacturing group to the newly-formed DuPont/Merck venture, according to Dr Bugg.

Comet Summary

The Comet free flyer is a development project managed by the NASA. The project is on hold, waiting for additional funding. NASA and the Comet contractors are arguing over who should absorb the development cost overruns. Westinghouse has pulled out of the project. Space Industries remains involved, although they are not investing any more company money in the project. According to Dr Bugg, a lawsuit was initiated to force the contractor(s) to continue work on the project or recover the costs from them for completing the project.

The estimated cost of a COMET flight is $30M, which includes: ground operations and launch vehicle, the on-orbit free flyer, a recovery module, and the mission and recovery operations. The launch vehicle candidate includes the EER Corp. Conestoga launch vehicle.

Other Free Flyer Projects A follow-on free flyer project to the Comet is the Laboratory for Automated Biomedicine in Space (LABS). The launch vehicle is unknown.

Boeing has been talking to pharmaceutical companies about a free flyer vehicle. The space hardware part of the program is a joint effort between Boeing and the Russians. A Russian launch vehicle would be used. The Boeing contact is Harvey Willingberg, Hunstville, Alabama.

Space Processing Providers There are a few companies, in addition to Space Industries/Westinghouse and Spacehab, who are trying to commercialize space develop in the payload processing area. They are focussing on providing space platforms for experiments and manufacturing or processing applications. The firms include:

1. Payload System, Cambridge, MA,
2. ITA Company, Exton, PA
3. INTOSPACE, in Europe

C.3.5 Space Vacuum Epitaxy Centers with Dr. Alex Ignatiev

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Processing) Date: 20 August 1993; Revised: 31 August 1993
Organization Contacted : Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center
Science and Research One, Building 1, Room 724
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-5507
Telephone: 713/743.3621 FAX: 713/747.7724
Researchers: Bill Walsh, Lockheed, and Robert Cleave, Rockwell

Summary

The researchers met with Dr. Alex Ignatiev, director of the Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center (SVEC), at the University of Houston on 7/29/93 to discuss the commercial markets for space, including space manufacturing. The SVEC is a NASA Commercial Center for Development of Space (CCDS). Their primary technical area is applied engineering on thin film epitaxy using molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) processes for producing a new generation of semiconductor, magnetic, and superconductor thin-film materials. The 1-1/2 hour meeting focused on the SVEC's plan to produce higher quality thin films in space than can be produced in earth based, production vacuum chambers. Several years of work have led up to a space demonstration flight of the deposition of thin films of Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) wafers, layer-by-layer in a harder vacuum than can be achieved in a manufacturing environment on earth.

SVEC researchers conceived a Wake Shield Facility (WSF), with a 12-foot disc flying in low earth orbit. The free flying facility will deployed from the shuttle. The stainless steel disc is estimated to provide a vacuum of 10 E-14 torr on the wake side. The first of four flights, a two day mission, will demonstrate thin film growth of several Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) 6 to 7 micron wafers, using MBE processes. Three additional flights will expand the thin film processing capabilities and the autonomy of free flight WSF operations.

Wake Shield Free Flyer Concept

The first flight is on STS-60, scheduled for early 1994. The second and third shuttle flights will increase the duration of processing operations and autonomy of free flight operations. For the first flight, the WSF hardware is estimated to cost $12.5 million. Additional hardware through flight three will increase the facility costs to $22 million. The industrial partners are contributing an additional $3 million. Space Industries Inc., is the principal industrial partner for developing the WSF flight hardware. A fourth flight would demonstrate pilot commercial operations, but will require additional industrial funding. The WSF is a proof-of-concept (Mark I) demonstration program. Dr. Ignatiev has plans for a follow on program (Mark II), which will demonstrate commercial approaches to thin film deposition process on GaAs wafers.

The University of Houston Business School, estimated a free flyer Mark II facility, with a five year operational life, would be economically feasible. For commercial operations, approximately four resupply flights per year would be required. Each flight would deliver approximately 100 pounds of materials for processing; and return an equal weight of finished product to earth. The facility would cost about $30 million to build.

1. What is the maturity of the commercial users' space applications? There are no commercial companies, such as semiconductor manufacturers, producing materials in space today. Through the NASA CCDS, Dr. Ignatiev is working with industrial affiliates to define viable epitaxial processes that can be used in space for synthesizing thin film electronic, superconducting, and magnetic materials and devices. The Wake Shield Facility represents the first flight demonstration of the thin film, vacuum deposition process. If successful, the space-based epitaxy process could revolutionize the manufacturing of microcircuit wafers, though higher quality, more uniform and capable products. A few more years of space demonstrations and analysis are required to refine the space processes and produce the technical and economic data required to evaluate the costs and benefits of space processes to the semiconductor, superconductor, and magnetic materials industries.

2. What are the payload form factors? The launch system will be the shuttle for the demonstration flights. The requirements for the Wake Shield Facility, Mark I variant are:

1. Orbit: Shuttle altitudes, any inclination, note a
2. Operation: Free flight in LEO, note b
3. Deployment: Deployed and recovered by shuttle
4. Recovery: Retrieved by shuttle RMA, stored in cargo bay, note c
5. Experiment Weight: 7500 pounds, note d
6. Volume: 1250 Cubic Feet,(12 feet diameter, 11 feet length)
7. Time on orbit: up to 90 days
8. Notes:
   1. Epitaxial growth is not sensitive to inclination. However, a sun synchronous orbit may be preferred for providing solar power for the arrays.
   2. Vibration/shock must be limited to 1 to 10 Hertz during processing operations.
   3. Processed wafers must be protected during reentry from high G shock and vibration to prevent damage. < 3 G and < ___ Hertz are required.
   4. Typical payload weights are 3500 pounds for the wake shield, and 4000 pounds for the carrier. A Mark II version could be made using lighter weight materials.

1. Orbit: 250 to 300 nmi altitude, sun synchronous inclination,
2. Operation: Free flight, note a
3. Resupply: Provide 100 pounds of raw material every three months.
4. Facility Weight: 4000 pounds
5. Volume: 900 Cubic Feet, (12 feet diameter, 8 feet length)
6. Time on orbit: 5 years minimum
7. Resupply: One flight every three months, with 400 lbs of raw materials.
8. Recovery: Return to earth with 400 pounds every three months, note b.
   1. NOTES:
   2. Vibration/shock must be limited to 1 to 10 Hertz during processing operations.
   3. Processed wafers must be protected during reentry from high G shock and vibration to prevent damage. <3 G and <10 Hertz are required.

Please provide any additional comments you think are appropriate for Mark II facility.

4. What is the space manufacturing market infrastructure today? There are no end users performing space manufacturing. Industrial companies interested in space manufacturing are affiliates of the NASA CCDSs. The infrastructure illustrated below was discussed with Dr. Ignatiev.

1. Reduce the technical, schedule, programmatic requirements, and documentation requirements for flights. If they are much less onerous they will be less expensive.
2. Reducing flight delays can reduce the overall launch costs. Each time a launch is delayed, the payload customer and their support contractors must standby. Improving launch reliability would reduce these stand-down costs of the customer.

6. When will end users begin manufacturing products in space? The Wake Shield Facility demonstration flights must prove in the technical feasibility of growing thin films wafers in space. If the process proves-in, the Mark II Wake Shield Facility operating cost estimates indicate economic feasibility can be reached with only one percent of the wafer market.

The microcircuit industry produces $59 billion worth of chips annually. 99.9 percent of that market is silicon microcircuits. The Mark II facility must be able to accommodate the large wafers (8 to 10 inch diameter), which are the current industry standard. If the Mark II were capable of producing thin film wafers, one percent of the market would provide about $590 million in annual revenue. Dr. Ignatiev thinks this sales base would justify producing the Mark II Wake Shield Facility.

Other microcircuit operations, which require large facility expenditures, can also be performed in space. Photolithography operations used in manufacturing microcircuits can be performed in space. Class 10 clean rooms are required to perform these super clean operations. The facilities are very expensive to operate. Dr. Ignatiev's studies have concluded photolithography operations can be done in conjunction with space thin film processing in a cost effective manner.

7. What are the costs associated with manufacturing space products? The space processing facility costs for thin film wafers are estimated as follows:

8. How sensitive is the user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced? Assume a Mark II facility is operational. The facility must be resupplied with about 100 pounds of wafers every three months. An equal weight of processed wafers must be returned to earth. The round trip cost for each flight depends on whether it is on a dedicated mission or is combined with other payloads.

Another major factor to the end user is the reliability of the production process. There must be low risk to the stream of product produced by the space processing facility.

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who will make the business decisions to invest company resources in space manufacturing?

Review and Revision Status: 8/23/93 Submitted research report to SVEC for review, comments and concurrence with data. 8/25/93 Dr. Ignatiev provided partial comments. Sent missing page of report to Dr. Ignatiev for consideration. 8/31/93 Dr. Ignatiev provided remainder of comments. Report completed.

C.3.6 University of Alabama-Huntsville with Dr. Charles Lundquist

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Date: 2 July 1993
Organization Contacted : Dr. Charles Lundquist, Director
Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Research Institute Building M65
Huntsville, AL 35899
Tel# 601/688.2509; FAX # 601/688.2861
Contacted by: Bill Walsh, Lockheed, 408/742.4781

Summary The writer contacted the Dr. Lundquist, director, UAH-HSV. They are a university organization working as part of the NASA Center for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) program. They are lead center for materials development in space.

Regarding CSTS, he commented there has been many studies, several per year. The companies and his activity are getting tired of so many studies.

Dr. Lundquist has 8 to 10 ongoing, active materials development initiatives as part of the CCDS program. Some are with small companies, other with large business.

Small business examples are with ITA, John Casanto, in Pennsylvania. They are selling space on a facility that can go into LEO to other companies.

Another small business is SHOT (Space Hardware Optimization Technology), Floyds Know, Indiana. Contact is Mark Duser, president. Application is biological separation.

Dr. Lundquist promised to send complete contact information for these referrals. He also promised to provide recent reports on their accomplishments.

An agreement was made to follow up with meetings or telecons in the later part of July to discuss these applications, when the alliance begins the market research phase.

C.3.7 Grumman Corporation with Mr. Louis Hemmerdinger

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Date: 1 September 1993; Amended following Grumman validation 11 October 1993
Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Organization Contacted : Grumman Corporation
Stuart Avenue
Headquarters Building
Bethpage, Long Island, NY 11714
Who Contacted: Mr. Louis Hemmerdinger, Corporate Technology Advisor;Dr. David Larson, Grumman, Corporate Head of Research; Mr. Grant Hedrick, Grumman Consultant
Researchers:Don Barker (Lockheed), Richard Freeman (Martin Marietta), Henry Hilbrath (Boeing)

Summary

Grumman has considerable experience in research and development of crystalline Group III-V materials. They have also been involved as a commercial member with the Center for Commercial Crystal Growth in Space at Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.

This membership has been discontinued due to the perception that the Center activities seem to emphasize university based research rather than commercial based research. The apparent trend of the CCDS's is to conduct growth experiments on smaller samples, requiring less on orbit power, than is required for commercial products. In addition, the quality and size capability of ground based crystal growth furnaces is increasing rapidly whereas the NASA trend is to smaller size equipment for space applications.

A past Grumman proposal to utilize a limited number of initial no cost Shuttle flights to demonstrate proof of concept for an in-space commercial crystal growth venture was mutually terminated by NASA and Grumman following the Challenger disaster, due to a 4-5 year delay to launch the furnace system. Grumman has no current plan to participate in space applications of crystal growth or subsequent manufacturing. Prevailing NASA sponsored flight qualified equipment and power limitations are considered inappropriate for the crystal materials they would be interested in producing.

In addition, the limited on orbit duration and extended turn around time between experimental proposal request and actual flight for Shuttle based flights is not compatible with Grumman's commercial scale requirements.

Grumman appears to favor a commercial access to space launch system which must provide reliable, launch on schedule, extended duration orbital facilities, recovery capabilities and with appropriate contractual agreements with regard to payload accommodations and multiple launch commitments. Grumman does not anticipate a significant space manufacturing market until the current experimental exploitation of space for crystal growth has demonstrated a conclusive advantage for material processing in a micro gravity environment.

Given this successive demonstration and low cost of access, Grumman may use the system about four times annually.

The decision criteria for space application depends also on the availability of equipment (furnaces) and adequate power to support large crystal growth.

1. What is maturity of users' space application? Grumman has been involved for many years in the research and development of crystalline materials including Silicon, Gallium Arsenide, Cadmium Telluride and Cadmium Zinc Telluride.

They have been associated as a commercial member of the Clarkson University, Potsdam, Center for Commercial Crystal Growth in Space working with Dr. Bill Wilcox. This association has now been discontinued although they are supporting independent research by a member of the Clarkson University research staff.

Grumman's perspective is that the CCDS are in general doing a good job promoting the commercial utilization of space. The Joint Endeavors Agreement, which affords a no cost Shuttle ride for access to space, is commendable.

Their decision to discontinue the association with the Center at Clarkson was due to a perception that activities tended to emphasize university based research rather than commercial based research. This decision was based on the assessment that the excellent ongoing work was simply not compatible with the commercial objectives of the corporation.

They did note that competition from Japan, with reference to crystal growth in the micro gravity space environment, was being aggressively pursued by that country.

A comment was made regarding the preferred physical sizes of useful ground grown crystals i.e. silicon (14 inch diameter), GaAs (4-6 inch diameter) and CdTe (3 inch diameter). Electrical power of about 6 kw are needed for such sizes. The apparent trend of the CCDS's is to conduct growth experiments for samples about 0.5 inches square using about 1 - 2 kw of power. These physical sizes and power requirements are appropriate for basic research but not for scale up to commercial products.

In addition, Grumman noted that the quality and capability of ground based crystal growth furnaces is rapidly increasing and that furnaces for space applications are somewhat lagging. The commercial market needs larger furnaces whereas the NASA trend appears to be to smaller furnaces for space application. An opinion was expressed that even the Space Station Freedom power availability will not be sufficient to support the growth of commercial size crystals, but could be used to verify scale-up.

Grumman also advised that a few years ago they had proposed to NASA a program which would have utilized the Shuttle, with no cost initial flights, to demonstrate the feasibility of an in-space commercial crystal growth project with three flights leading to commercial confirmation of concept definition. Thereafter they would utilize ELV flights at around $25M each to service a commercial orbital facility visited on a 90 day periodicy. The project was mutually terminated following the Challenger disaster. A projected launch date for the program was estimated as 4 - 5 years beyond the earlier anticipated launch date.

2. What are payload form factors? Grumman has no current plan to participate directly in space applications of crystal growth or subsequent manufacturing and therefore did not respond to this question with specifics. The prevailing NASA sponsored rack based hardware and experimental power limitations are not considered appropriate for the crystal materials they would be interested in producing.

In addition, the limited on orbit duration (< 14 days) and extended turn around time, between experiment proposal request and actual flight, for shuttle based flights is not compatible with Grumman's commercial scale requirements.

3. What infrastructure and support to user must launch system company provide? Grumman appears to favor a commercial access to space launch system. The commercial concept they discussed (as above) seems to correlate well with the "concept" of the COMET program although the launch weight of the COMET program (~450 lbs) and on orbit power capability (~2 Kw) is not appropriate. The launch system company must provide reliable, launch on schedule, extended duration orbital facilities, recovery capabilities and with contractual agreements with regard to payload accommodations and multiple launch commitments.

Grumman did not appear to need an intermediate value added payload accommodations contractor between themselves as the user and the commercial launch system company.

4. What is end user market infrastructure? The end user of space grown crystal materials would initially be Grumman internally for research and evaluation. Subsequently Grumman's customer would be the military and their suppliers although a wider commercial market could result for unique material.

5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce costs of space produced products? Major change to reduce cost is to encourage the commercial ownership and operation of the launch system. The layers of bureaucracy associated with access to space as afforded by NASA is simply incompatible with commercial business practices.

6. If users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space. Grumman does not anticipate a significant space manufacturing market until the current experimental exploitation of space for crystal growth has demonstrated a conclusive advantage for material processing in a micro gravity environment. They also anticipate that major advances to ground based processing will occur based on results of micro gravity experimentation - if it is of adequate dimensional size of approximately equal to or greater than 2 inches in diameter.

7. What are current and near term costs associated with using space? In the free ride scenario currently available, the costs are for labor, materials samples and experimental containment devices. No specific figures were offered.

8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost. How many more times will they use space if launch costs are reduced? Grumman's opinion is that reduced launch cost for a commercially owned and operated launch system would stimulate demand and that price would be a function of the capability versus the potential market and selling price of the product. They would use such a system possibly 4 times annually.

9. What decision making process is used to decide on the use of space? Decision process depends entirely on demonstrated material characteristics advantage and the availability of support equipment and adequate electrical power to support large crystal growth.

Crystal manufacturers would each use their own furnace since these devices are the discriminators for high quality crystals.

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? Lou Hemmerdinger and Dave Larson would directly recommend investment in space applications to the Grumman executive management.

C.3.8 Research and Development Facilities Ð Lockheed Missiles & Space Company with Mr. Chuck Rudiger

Mission Area: Research and Development Facilities
Date: 13 August 1993
Organization Contacted : Lockheed Missiles & Space Company
1111 Lockheed Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
NASA Programs Office Ð Bldg. 580
Crossman Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Who Contacted: Mr. Chuck Rudiger, New Business Manager, Lockheed NASA Programs Office
Researchers: Don Barker Ð Lockheed CSTS

Summary

Unique environmental conditions obtainable within an earth orbital asset should be a stimulant to space borne research and development particularly for materials and life sciences considerations. Payloads which feature research and development assets will be broad based and therefore no specific form factors were estimated at this time.

The launch system company must provide a go and return capability in support of an orbital R&D facility. In addition, human two-way transportation, stringent environmental and temporal constraints on access and return and autonomous rendezvous and docking capability may need to be provided. Current infrastructure involves NASA and the government central to the whole process of access to space. The incumbent bureaucracies, uncertain STS flight schedules and the potential for priority manifesting are not conducive to the concept of commercial use of space for R&D facilities.

The commercial user must be offered on-time, reliable, cost effective and efficient access to space and safe return of processed experimental assets to a guaranteed specific landing location. All these attributes must be available with absolutely minimum bureaucratic procedural processes.

The current costs burdened on the space experimenter user community are far too high even though the actual ride is free. These costs include the use of an in-flight protective container, resources and materials commitment to experiment planning, multiple sample preparation, recovery from landing sites and final analysis of resultant materials. Some of these costs are significantly influenced by STS flight schedule uncertainties and priority manifesting.

Acquisition of independent company funding for space based research is usually more difficult than for non-space based projects, is usually associated with business development opportunities for large programs and incurs the risk of cancellation due to Shuttle flight delays and NASA procurement decision fluctuations.

1. What is maturity of users' space application? Lockheed's NASA Program Office has been actively involved in the development of products for space applications for many years. These products include subsystems for SSF, the Hubble Space Telescope and various scientific satellites with specific missions. The products have included life support, scientific observation of the solar system and earth observation research. The Space Systems Division with which this office is affiliated has developed and delivered over 350 satellites since 1964.

According to the interviewee the application of commercial R&D facilities in a space environment is relatively immature. NASA sponsored experimental shuttle based carriers such as Spacehab, Spacelab J and US Microgravity Payload have provided recent access to space for experimental research. About 50 individual microgravity experiments have been flown on these carriers. Prior to the Shuttle era (pre 1980's), Skylab (1973) provided the first opportunities for materials processing experiments and before that Space Processing Applications Rocket flights carried small experimental packages which typically provided 5 minutes of space environment exposure facilities.

The advent of US managed long duration and manned experimental R&D facilities await the introduction of the SSF. The Russian MIR Space Station currently represents the sole available human tended extended duration space environment R&D facility and has recently invoked support to foreign utilization. A further NASA sponsored US effort (COMET), to provide a 30 day on orbit unmanned experimental space based platform, ELV launched and capable of reentry and recovery is currently subject to development and funding problems. A commercial spin-off of this program called WESTAR (Westinghouse Space Transportation and Recovery Services) is planned to utilize developments derived from COMET and is therefore also subject to delayed availability.

2. What are payload form factors? This question was considered to be too broad for specific recommendations at this time for this topic. Payloads which will feature as research and development will be broad based Ð from small payloads of the COMET type (~ 450 lbs unmanned) intended for 30 day orbital missions to larger, more complex, payloads intended for delivery to SSF or MIR (acting as the host orbital R&D facility).

3. What infrastructure and support to user must launch system company provide? The launch system company must provide a go and return capability in support of R&D facilities in space. Certain samples developed within an orbital asset may require return for proprietary comprehensive analysis. It is also conceivable that qualified personnel from specific commercial organizations may require to visit and work within the orbital facility.

Research payloads associated with biomedical or biotechnology products will impose stringent environmental and temporal constraints on both ascent and descent flight characteristics as well as pre and post flight preparation and temporary storage facilities.

For R&D space borne facilities consisting of a limited duration free flyer (e.g. COMET), or longer duration facilities (SSF or MIR), the launch system company will probably need to provide the means for autonomous rendezvous and capture of the space asset containing the experimental materials. In addition it may be necessary to provide a R&D facility asset capable of commanded deorbit and safe landing.

4. What is end user market infrastructure? Current infrastructure involves NASA and the government central to the whole process of access to space. The incumbent bureaucracies, uncertainty of flight schedules and potential for priority manifesting are not conducive to the concept of commercial utilization of space for R&D facilities. The end user currently interfaces as a member or affiliate to the NASA sponsored Centers for Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) with associated value added payload engineering/hardware and packaging companies.

5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce costs of space produced products? The end user market infrastructure should involve substitution of NASA by a commercial entity as the central agency involved in payload processing and certification, mission operations and interface with the launch system.

The user should have simplified access to space which could involve a one stop shopping whereby the launch system provider directly accommodates payload requirements.

The user must be offered on time, reliable, cost effective and efficient access to space and safe return of experimental processed assets without the lengthy bureaucratic procedures currently associated with the Shuttle access program.

6. If users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space. This question not strictly relevant to R&D facilities in space. However the response to the general question is that the advent of commercial production in space will depend on the demonstration of a useful product with market potential whose fabrication is uniquely limited to implementation in space. In addition, access to space must become routine, non bureaucratic and cost effective.

7. What are current and near term costs associated with using space? Current costs burdened on the user community are far too high (even though, through the CCDS's, the actual flight may be free) and the uncertain schedules and bottleneck of over demand for Shuttle acommodation results in cost commitment for involvement. Safety issues associated with the crew carrying Shuttle vehicle are a major source of cost commitment to the commercial user from resources to redundancy design. The fish bowl scenario associated with STS is also a concern to proprietary interests of commercial users.

8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost. How many more times will they use space if launch costs are reduced? Currently launch cost is free to commercial users of STS Ð costs are incumbent on use of an inflight environmental protective container (~ $2M/locker Spacehab) and in resources/materials commitment to the experiment planning and sample preparation, recovery and analysis.

Rudiger considers that if the current cost drivers as described above in (7) were relieved, coupled with reasonable launch costs, then this would certainly act as a stimulant for R&D facilities in space.

9. What decision making process is used to decide on the use of space? Internal to Lockheed NASA - Programs Office, independent development funding is competed on the basis of new business development usually related to the capture of large programs. Acquisition of funding, specifically for space based research projects is usually more difficult than non-space projects due to the perceived reduced bang for the buck. Shuttle flight schedule delays and NASA procurement decision fluctuations also incur the risk of cancellation of independent company funding for research .

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? Gus Guastaferro is the executive decision maker within Lockheed NASA Programs Line of Business for investment recommendations to the Space System Division New Business Council chaired by Mel Brashears, VP & AGM -SSD.

C.3.9 Spacehab Incorporated with Mr. Al Reeser

Mission Area: Space Manufacturing (Space Research)
Date: 7 August 1993; 28 August 1993
Organization Contacted: Spacehab Incorporated
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1500
Arlington, VA 22202
Tel: 703/553.8100; FAX: 703/553.8107
Researchers: Bill Walsh, Lockheed; and Henry Hillbrath, Boeing
The researchers met with Mr. Al Reeser, president and CEO, and David Rossi, vice president - business development, from Spacehab Inc., Alexandria, VA on 8/4/93 for 1-1/2 hours to discuss the commercial space markets, applications, and the related launch system attributes.

Summary

Spacehab Incorporated is a commercial company which offers a pressurized habitant module that flys in the shuttle cargo bay. The SH-1 SPACEHAB module first flew on STS-57 on June 3, 1993. The module provides pressurized lockers, single and double rack enclosures for commercial and government researchers to conduct experiments in the micro-gravity environment of space. During the initial flight, crew members operated and monitored 21 laboratory experiments during the eight day mission.

The firm's headquarters are in Alexandria, VA, with business operations near Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Johnson Space Center (JSC). They have a payload processing and launch operations facilities near KSC and mission operations offices near JSC.

1. What is the maturity of the users' space applications? The users of space are in various stages of space experimentation, according to Mr. Reeser. The types of experiments included in the STS-57 mission included: materials processing, biotechnology experiments (such as protein crystal growth, organic separation, cell research, etc), and thin film coating. In general, any experiments that can take advantage of a low G environment are candidates for flying in the Spacehab module.

Mr Reeser has given up on thinking you can manufacture products in space. He pointed out, however, that there may be a possibility of doing space processing of contact lens.

2. What are the payload form factors? The Spacehab module weight is 4923 kg. Major dimensions are: 3 m long by 4 m diameter. Overall volume of the module is 31.1 mE3.

The module is integrated into and remains in the cargo bay during all phases of flight. The module accommodates up to approximately 1360 kg of payload in a pressurized environment. Orbital and environmental parameters are those available from the shuttle, i.e., nominal 28.5 deg. inclination, 460 km altitude. On orbit time is dependent on shuttle flight duration. A tunnel from the shuttle mid-deck locker compartment provides crew access to the Spacehab cargo.

3. What infrastructure and support to the user must the launch system company provide? Spacehab is launched on shuttle. As the figure below illustrates Spacehab Inc. is dependent upon NASA for launch and mission services. Spacehab Inc. provides payload accommodations (integration of individual customer experiments) to each user that flys in the module.

The firm has a facility near NASA/KSC to assemble the Spacehab module and integrate the experiments. The company contracts with McDonnell Douglas for ground processing of the Spacehab module. McDonnell Douglas services include the processing of experiment payloads, and integration of the Spacehab into the shuttle cargo bay.

Many users do not have technical staff with the required engineering experience and capability to perform space experiments. The users typically contract with low costs specialty companies which can provide payload engineering, any unique space hardware required for performing space experiments, and the assembly and packaging of experiments to the format that will acceptable to the Spacehab module, the shuttle, and NASA.

4. What is the end user market infrastructure? Commercial users can contract directly with Spacehab Inc for launch services, however, they usually decide to become industrial affiliates of the NASA CCDSs to avoid paying for the launch costs. The latter provide free launch services to their affiliates, along with expert technical assistance to the users in the specific science and technology areas of the experimenters.

Most commercial users opt for the CCDS approach because they are not familiar with the technical constraints of space and the NASA imposed requirements for performing biological experiments in the shuttle. Additionally, they do not have the space engineering staff capable of preparing the experiments properly for space. Consequently, as illustrated in the figure above, they contract with companies which specialize in providing payload engineering, space hardware, and packaging services. These value added companies are typically small businesses who are providing these services at very low costs to the experimenters.

5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products? The number of people required to support the shuttle launches must be substantially reduced. Mr Reeser said that the Spacehab company employs 44 people at its KSC payload processing operations. On the other hand, the combined NASA/KSC personnel and the contractor personnel who support the shuttle at KSC exceeds several thousand.

Mr Reeser agreed with the writer that the organizational infrastructure supporting the shuttle includes substantial redundancy and overlap; and results in higher costs than are necessary. He also acknowledged that it takes too long from the time a user makes a decision to perform a space experiment and the actual execution of the experiment.

For both cost and schedule to be reduced substantially, a new launch system infrastructure must evolve which avoids dependency upon the current approach described in #3 above. A new organizational infrastructure, see below, that should evolve and become operational in the future was defined and discussed.

An interim stage will be needed where the shuttle and Spacehab support the commercial users as space platforms for performing experiments. However, on the longer term, new free flying space processing facilities and reentry vehicles will be required to substantially reduce space launch system costs and schedules.

6. If the users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space? Mr. Reeser believes that manufacturing products in space is not a good idea. He does, however, think that processing, such as contact lens in space may be viable.

7. What are the current and near term costs associated with using space? Commercial users are charged $1.8 million for a Spacehab locker. Spacehab's lease and integration is only $1 million. The remainder goes to to NASA for flight costs. A single locker provides the experimenter with 2.2 cu ft and up to 60 lbs. For a mid-deck locker in the shuttle, NASA charges $800,000 for an equivalent size locker.

If all the Spacehab module payloads are commercial the firm pays NASA $33 million per flight. However, NASA has committed to use some space on the module.

Mr. Reeser commented that it is very difficult to find commercial customers who will pay for the launch costs. NASA is providing free shuttle flights to space experimenters through the CCDS program. However, even though the ride is free, the companies will spend between $3 to $7 million of their own NRE funds to prepare and complete each space experiment.

The Spacehab was developed for $240 million. Mr Reeser estimated that it would have cost $1,200 million for NASA to develop the module.

The company has a fixed priced contract with NASA to fly twice per year. Spacehab has been manifested for seven more flights. The next flight was November 1993, but has been delayed by NASA until early 1994.

8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced? Launch System Demand Elasticity: To the CCDS affiliates, NASA provides free shuttle launches. Commercial companies become CCDS affiliates to get free access to space.

The recent addition of the Spacehab provides an alternate to going through NASA for space on the shuttle mid-deck lockers. The Spacehab provides a total of 61 equivalent mid-deck lockers, however, a typical configuration is 412 lockers plus 2 double racks. The end users think that $1.8 million for a Spacehab locker is too expensive.

10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making the business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? There are no companies producing products in space. They are performing space experiments. Mr. Rossi promised to provide the names and contact information on all the commercial company Principal Investigators which flew in SH-1 on STS-57.

Review and Revision Status 8/16/93 Submitted research report to Spacehab for review, comments and concurrence with data. 8/28/93 Mr. Rossi replied with comments and concurrence.

C.3.10 Space Agriculture Ð Lockheed Missiles & Space Company with Dr. Steve Schwartzkopf

Mission Area: Space Agriculture
Date: 13 September 1993; Amended following LMSC validation 11 October 1993
Organization Contacted : LMSC Ñ Sunnyvale, CA
Who Contacted: Dr. Steve Schwartzkopf, Manager, Lifesciences & Biotechnology
Researchers: Don Barker/Bill Walsh (Lockheed)

Summary Lockheed has participated in the STS based Life Science Flight Experiments program. Pertinent to space agriculture, the program seeks to identify the role of gravity in plant cellular processes, embryonic development, morphology and physiology. An attempt is ongoing to identify mechanisms of gravity sensing and the transmission of gravity sensing perception information in plants. The interaction of light and stress stimuli are also being studied. Perhaps the main emphasis of understanding plant growth and metabolism is to provide for long term survival and self operation of bioregenerative systems for future space missions.

Lockheed has developed a number of flight qualified common module type life science laboratory equipment items which have flown on the Shuttle.

A general characterization for space agricultural payloads is that of similarity to those required for human transportation.

Experiments require a Life sustaining environment with nutrients, temperature, pressure, airflow, illumination and contaminants carefully controlled.

This Life sustaining environment is required throughout the flight experiment including prelaunch, recovery and delivery back to the original sample source, although the levels can be changed during launch and landing.

The enclosures must allow confident identification of the isolated effects of microgravity. Flight durations of 14 days maximum as obtained via the Shuttle are only of limited value in the study of plant physiology in microgravity Ð durations of 30-90 days would be more valuable to researchers. No agricultural products are currently being manufactured in space. Companies involved in ground based production of agricultural products are mostly inexperienced in space applications. The opinion was expressed that there is currently no predictable benefit to producing plants in space, in fact some plants have become sterile when exposed to microgravity. Effects observed to date are stochastic rather than deterministic.

The effects of microgravity on plant growth are not understood and there appears to be no reason to suppose that the environment of space "encourages" growth.

It appears that the primary reason for plant based research experiments in space are in support of development of a bioregenerative environment to sustain human life in space vehicles or planetary colonies rather than the discovery of a new generation plant species derived from growth in microgravity.

The interviewee felt that reduction in launch costs either direct or indirect would lead to an increased demand for experimental missions. This demand may be rapidly accumulative if a unique advantage of the space environment were demonstrated, particularly in the microbiology field rather than space agriculture.

The launch system must allow late access to samples (2 hours), have high launch reliability, launch on schedule and guaranteed return to a post flight collection point.

1. What is maturity of users' space application? Lockheed has participated in the STS based Life Science Flight Experiments (LSFE) program in a major way. The program objectives are to conduct studies in the area of space biology and medicine, to understand the basic mechanisms of biological and medical processes achieved via research conducted both on earth and in space.

Three major program thrusts are 1) study of the physiological effects of the space environment including µ gravity and radiation, 2) study of in flight observation of humans experience in space environments and, 3) studies in exobiology with special emphasis on the origins and distribution of life in the universe. The LSFE program includes experiment design, development, in flight execution, data analysis and reporting.

Pertinent to space agriculture are to identify the role of gravity in plant cellular processes, embryonic development, morphology and physiology. Identification of the mechanisms of gravity sensing (geotropism) and transmission of gravity perception information within plants. Identification of the interactive effects of gravity and other stimuli (light) and stresses (vibration) on metabolism. Use of gravity to study the normal (1G) nature and properties of living organisms. Extension of understanding of plant growth and animal growth and metabolism to provide for long term survival and bioregenerative systems.

Lockheed was involved in the development of a number of common modular life science laboratory equipments including a plant growth unit (flew 2 in 82), Research Animal Holding Facility (flew in 85/91, planned for Oct 93), General Purpose Work Station (flew in 91 and planned Oct 93) and a Vestibular Research Facility. Participation in development of the Variable Gravity Research facility program (now SSF Centrifuge Facility Project) is also anticipated in the near future.

2. What are payload form factors? General rule of thumb for space agriculture payloads environment on launch and reentry is similar to that for human transportation. Each experiment requires a minimum sustaining controlled environment of about 2 cubic feet in volume; typical enclosure unit weight is ~ 50 pounds for 6 chamber unit each containing 16 seedlings and utilizes about 75 watts. Typical temp control is 74¡ and 78¡F ± 1¡F at night and day respectively. Plant growth in orbit also requires uniform lighting with spectral characteristics in the 400-700 nm wavelength band.

The above self contained enclosure is configured to provide continuous monitoring of temperature/pressure/air flow/chamber gas sampling.

3. What infrastructure and support to user must launch system company provide? Payload accommodation with late access (say 2 hours) is a primary direct support required from the launch systems company. Payloads involving living organisms require sustaining facilities continuously outwards from the original users facilities to their safe return. This implies sustaining facilities prelaunch, during powered flight, on orbit, through descent and during off load and post flight, although the environment can be changed during launch and landing.

Enclosures containing organic materials must be designed as a comprehensive full cycle subsystem such that the true effects of unique characteristic such as microgravity associated with the orbital flight can be confidently identified.

High launch reliability, launch on schedule and guaranteed return to a specific post flight collection point must also be provided by the launch systems company.

The flight duration associated with STS spacelab experiments is between 8 and 14 days which is marginal for observation of many micro gravity induced changes (if any) in plant physiology and metabolism. Preferable support to the user would be a launch/recovery system capable of providing 30-90 days on orbit for operational plant physiology payloads.

4. What is end user market infrastructure? Companies currently involved in ground based production of agricultural products are likely to be inexperienced in space applications and therefore need an interface service.

This service is currently provided by the NASA sponsored CCD's or small independent "value added" companies, the latter offering proprietary protective containers. These containers also seemed to be designed only for installation into Spacehab or Spacelab host subsystems carried within the shuttle.

Given the availability of modular specimen containers (possibly by technology transfer from NASA), a CST may well select to contract directly with the end user for payload accommodation services.

5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce costs of space produced products? No agricultural products are currently being "produced." All experiments to date have involved the STS with incumbent extended time scales for payload manifesting and the usual NASA business culture. This provides a free ride to orbit but still involves commercial time and materials commitment to an uncertain launch slot and an uncertain return location.

The changes needed are reliable launch date, short prelaunch timescale, definitive landing location and avoidance of routine NASA safety reviews and prelaunch administrative problems.

6. If users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space. The interviewee considered that there is currently no predictable benefit to producing plants in space, in fact some plants have become sterile when exposed to µG. The effects of microgravity on plant growth are not understood and there is no reason to suppose that space "encourages" plant growth. He also disagrees that gene transfer in a micro gravity environment may be enhanced as suggested by the CCDS at the University of Winsconsin.

Effects observed to date are stochastic, not deterministic . He did think that space may provide an advantage for bacteriological production and noted that some companies are interested in the concept namely ALZA, GENENTECH and AMGEN. In fact, Genentech has already run a flight experiment with rats. (Note Ð the former two companies have been contacted by the CSTS previously and did not disclose that they were interested in or had actually conducted space application experiments.)

The primary reason for plant based research experiments in space are in support of developing a bioregenerative environment to sustain human life in space vehicles or planetary colonies. Interesting to note that some estimates indicate that a cultivation area of between 20-30sq meter is required to sustain each human in a bioregenerative enclosure.

7. What are current and near term costs associated with using space? Most Lockheed work in this area has been under contract