<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:41799.wais]
NASA'S INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
PROGRAM: STATUS AND ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-96
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-799 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
DAVID WU, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MIKE ROSS, Arizona JO BONNER, Alabama
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
April 24, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 20
Written Statement............................................ 21
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Panel 1:
Dr. Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Louis S. Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies;
Associate Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering Sciences,
University of Colorado at Boulder
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 38
Dr. Cheryl A. Nickerson, Associate Professor of Life Sciences,
School of Life Sciences, Center for Infectious Diseases and
Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 44
Mr. Thomas Boone Pickens, III, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, SPACEHAB, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 48
Biography.................................................... 52
Discussion
ISS Productivity and Utilization............................... 53
Differences Between Government and SPACEHAB Activities......... 55
Commercial Activity at the ISS................................. 57
Uncertainty Pertaining to Long-term Research................... 58
ISS Lab Compatability.......................................... 59
Panel 2:
Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space
Operations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 62
Written Statement............................................ 63
Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 70
Written Statement............................................ 71
Biography.................................................... 85
Dr. Jeffrey P. Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical
Research Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 85
Written Statement............................................ 87
Biography.................................................... 97
Discussion
Cost of ISS Operations......................................... 98
Logistics Flights.............................................. 99
Soyuz Safety Issues............................................ 100
Exception to INKSNA............................................ 101
Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer.................................... 102
Russian Cooperation and Capabilities........................... 104
Additions to the ISS........................................... 105
INKSNA Amendment............................................... 106
Soyuz Landing Problems......................................... 108
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................ 112
Dr. Louis S. Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies;
Associate Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering Sciences,
University of Colorado at Boulder.............................. 114
Dr. Cheryl A. Nickerson, Associate Professor of Life Sciences,
School of Life Sciences, Center for Infectious Diseases and
Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University. 118
Mr. Thomas Boone Pickens, III, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, SPACEHAB, Inc......................................... 121
Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space
Operations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)......................................................... 123
Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office.............. 129
Dr. Jeffrey P. Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical
Research Institute............................................. 131
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of the American Society for Gravitational and Space
Biology........................................................ 138
NASA'S INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION PROGRAM: STATUS AND ISSUES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NASA's International Space Station
Program: Status and Issues
thursday, april 24, 2008
10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 10:30 a.m., the House Committee on
Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will
hold a hearing to examine the status of the International Space Station
(ISS) and issues related to its operation and utilization, including
the planned and potential uses of the ISS to meet both NASA and non-
NASA research needs.
Witnesses
Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include the
following:
William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Mission
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,
Government Accountability Office
Dr. Jeffrey Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical Research
Institute
Dr. Edward Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Thomas B. Pickens III, CEO, SPACEHAB, Inc.
Dr. Louis Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies, Aerospace
Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado
Dr. Cheryl Nickerson, Associate Professor, Center for Infectious
Diseases and Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State
University
Potential Issues
The following are some of the potential issues that might be raised
at the hearing:
Status and Risks of ISS Assembly and Logistics Flights
<bullet> What is the status of ISS construction and logistics
flights and what issues could impact the planned construction
schedule and sequence?
<bullet> What are the main risks and challenges to
successfully assembling the ISS by the time the Shuttle is
retired?
<bullet> What is the impact on programmatic risk of the low
level of reserves ($32 million) requested for FY09?
<bullet> What are NASA's options if scheduled and proposed ISS
assembly and logistics fights are not completed by the end of
2010 and how will this impact future ISS utilization and
operations?
<bullet> What challenges, risks and assumptions does each
option pose?
<bullet> Do any of the options require prior action by the
Congress?
<bullet> What has been the progress in securing a commercial
cargo transportation capability?
<bullet> What planned actions have the international partners
indicated they will take to maintain access to the ISS during
the ``gap''?
<bullet> Will operational, wear, or failure data now available
have an impact on NASA's current ISS logistics strategy?
Utilization of the ISS and the ISS National Laboratory
<bullet> How does ISS research contribute to reducing risk in
human space exploration? How much of that risk will be retired
by the Administration's proposed 2016 ISS end date?
<bullet> How much of NASA's on-orbit research facilities and
racks are currently being used to support research?
<bullet> Does NASA have a plan with priorities for ISS
research to be conducted in the post-2010 period, and if so,
what is NASA doing now to prepare that research for flight?
<bullet> How many experiment facilities/ hardware to support
research investigations have been completed but are not planned
for flight, and what if any plans does NASA have to fly that
hardware on the ISS, free-flyers or other microgravity
platforms?
<bullet> What advantages does the ISS National Laboratory
provide to Laboratory partners, public and private?
<bullet> How will agency or commercial participants in the ISS
National Lab get access to the ISS and who will pay for
transportation?
<bullet> When will NASA know how much up-mass and down-mass is
available to support research through commercial cargo
vehicles?
<bullet> Will NASA's decision to support investigations on ISS
be determined by commercial logistics availability or will NASA
seek to supplement, if necessary, logistics requirements for
research needs through non-U.S. launch capabilities?
<bullet> What lead time is required for potential ISS users,
including other governmental agencies, to prepare experiments
to fly on the ISS?
<bullet> What impact does the uncertain status of the ISS past
2016 have on potential users being able to plan long term
research using the station?
<bullet> What will NASA do with the unused capacity and
capabilities of the ISS if other agencies decide not to make
significant use of it?
<bullet> What is the status of NASA's (1) development of
educational projects to be conducted on the ISS, and (2) plan
for research that supports national competitiveness in science,
technology, and engineering, as directed in the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69)?
BACKGROUND
Overview
The ISS is the most complex international scientific and
technological endeavor ever undertaken, involving the United States,
Russia, Japan, Canada, and 10 nations of the European Space Agency. One
of the fundamental objectives of the ISS is to enable astronauts to
learn how to live and work in space for long duration missions. When
President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration in 2004, he
made completion of the ISS an important part of the overall exploration
initiative. The ISS has been continuously crewed for over six years; a
six-person crew capability is planned to start in 2009. At assembly
complete, the ISS will have a pressurized volume of over 33,000 cubic
feet and a mass of over 925,000 pounds.
Development and construction of the ISS has been a difficult
journey. In addition to schedule delays of its own, the ISS was
severely impacted by the loss of the Shuttle Columbia and its crew. The
ISS was in the midst of assembly when the accident took place. Today,
construction is over 65 percent complete. Development is mostly done
and components only await their turn on the Shuttle manifest for on-
orbit assembly. The most recent additions to the ISS happened in March
with the attachment of the Canadian-built Special Purpose Dextrous
Manipulator and the Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module--
Pressurized Section. Later next month, STS-124 will take up the
Japanese Experiment Module's Pressurized Module and the Japanese Remote
Manipulator System.
The retirement of the Shuttle currently scheduled for 2010, will
cause the U.S. to rely on partners such as Russia to provide routine
transportation and emergency crew return from the station or acquire
commercial services. That period of time during which the U.S. will
have no crew transportation capability is referred to as ``the gap.''
While NASA is encouraging the development of a commercial crew and
cargo capability, the availability of such a capability is uncertain at
this time. The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is NASA's effort to
foster the development of a cost-effective commercial space
transportation capability for the post-Shuttle Era. Initially, this
capability will be used to carry cargo to the ISS; future options could
involve developing a crew transportation capability. The development of
the commercial cargo/crew transportation capability is being funded in
the Constellation budget managed by the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD). While the services will be demonstrated through the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) project, the
operational responsibility for the program will move to the ISS program
within the Space Operations Missions Directorate (SOMD).
NASA is seeking partnerships with other government agencies and the
commercial sector to utilize the ISS as a National Laboratory, as
designated by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. NASA's plan for the
ISS National Laboratory, the National Lab Report, was submitted to
Congress in May 2007. Interest in ISS use has been demonstrated in the
areas of education, human health-related research and defense sciences
research. A Memorandum of Understanding for ``Cooperation in Space-
Related Health Research'' between the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and NASA was signed on September 12, 2007. This could be the
first in a series of Memorandum of Understandings with U.S. Government
agencies that have expressed interest in access to the ISS for research
and development purposes. In addition, NASA issued an announcement of
``Opportunity for Use of the ISS by Non-Government Entities for R&D and
Industrial Processing Purposes'' on August 14, 2007, and is planning to
enter into several Space Act Agreements as a result.
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
NASA's FY09 budget provides $2.06 billion for the International
Space Station Program under the direction of SOMD. It should be noted
that NASA's FY 2009 budget has been restructured pursuant to the
Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2008, and is now presented in seven
accounts. In addition, the budget estimates presented in the FY 2009
request are in direct program dollars rather than in the full cost
dollars used in previous Presidential budget requests. From a direct
cost perspective,\1\ the proposed FY09 budget for the ISS is an
increase of $247 million from that appropriated in FY08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As part of the Congressionally directed budget restructuring,
NASA shifted from a full-cost budget, in which each project budget
included overhead costs, to a direct cost budget. All overhead budget
estimates are now consolidated into the Cross Agency Support budget
line. NASA has stated that maintaining a full cost budget with seven
appropriations accounts would be overly complex and inefficient. The
direct cost budget shows program budget estimates that are based
entirely on program content. Individual project managers continue to
operate in a full-cost environment, including management of overhead
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISS Program budget funds:
<bullet> ISS operations. The FY09 request for ISS operations
is $1,755.4 million, a slight increase from the $1,713.1
million enacted in FY08. The ISS Operations budget funds
several key activities: Program Integration, Multi-User System
Support, Avionics and flight software, and Launch and Mission
Operations.
<bullet> ISS Crew and Cargo Services. The FY09 request for ISS
Crew and Cargo Services is $304.8 million, an increase from the
$100.1 million enacted in FY08. The purchase of ISS Cargo Crew
Services was transferred from ESMD to SOMD in the FY 2008
budget. The total available funding for the purchase of cargo
transportation services is $2.6 billion over five years.
Funding for research conducted on the ISS is included in the budget
managed by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The FY09
request for ESMD's Human Research Program (HRP) is $151.9 million in
direct program dollars. The HRP identifies risk for human exploration
of space and measures to mitigate the risks. According to NASA's Fiscal
Year 2009 Budget Request, the HRP includes $19.9 million for the ISS
Medical Project, which ``includes current ISS biomedical research
capabilities and on-orbit validation of next generation on-orbit
equipment medical operations procedures and crew training concepts.''
ESMD's budget request also provides $168 million for Exploration and
Non-Exploration research to be conducted on the ISS, free-flyers, and
through ground-based activities, of which $138 million is for
Exploration and $30 million is for Non-Exploration research.
Exploration research focuses on physical sciences in the areas of life
support, thermal control, fire prevent, detection, and suppression, and
on fluid flow. Non-Exploration research supports fundamental research
in the areas of material sciences, fluid physics, combustion sciences,
cellular and animal research, and microbial research, among other
areas.
Assumed Budget Growth for the ISS Program FY 2009-FY 2013
NASA's out-year projections for the ISS Program in the President's
FY09 budget request show minor funding level changes through 2013.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Key Challenges Related to the FY09 Budget and Five-Year Runout
Key challenges related to the FY09 budget request and five-year
runout for the ISS program include:
<bullet> Low level of program reserves. The ISS program has
depleted reserves through FY 2009 while facing the most
challenging period of ISS assembly.
<bullet> Uncertain status of the two logistics flights. Two of
the remaining Shuttle flights are listed as ``contingency'' and
have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)--although NASA says sufficient funds have been
included in the FY09 budget request. NASA has indicated that
the two flights needed to deliver spares and logistics in
advance of the Shuttle's retirement are necessary and of high
priority.
<bullet> Cuts in research funding. Funding for ISS research
has been cut back significantly over the last several years,
and the research community that was intended to utilize the ISS
has been decimated by reductions in funding. This raises the
issue of reduced opportunity to attract top research scientists
in the future.
<bullet> Export control restrictions. Current International
Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions on NASA ``are a
threat to the safe and successful integration and operations of
the International Space Station,'' according to the ISS
Independent Safety Task Force (IISTF) issued in 2007. The Task
Force also found that workforce interactions must enable direct
interfaces to assure safe and successful operations. These
interactions, including the ability to exchange and discuss
technical data relevant to vehicle operation, are hampered by
the current ITAR restrictions.
ISS Cargo and Crew Transportation Services in the Post-Shuttle Era
The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is NASA's effort to foster
the development of a cost-effective commercial space transportation
capability for the post-Shuttle Era. This capability will initially be
utilized to carry cargo to the ISS; future options could involve
developing a crew transportation capability. The development of the
commercial cargo/crew transportation capability is being funded in
ESMD's Constellation budget. Once the services have been demonstrated
(Phase 1), the operational responsibility for the program will move to
the ISS program within SOMD.
As the Space Shuttle nears retirement, NASA's stated preferred
solution for ISS crew and cargo delivery and return requirements is to
use commercial services provided by space transportation companies.
NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) project is
intended to facilitate U.S. private industry's development of cargo and
crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of demonstrating
reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit. NASA had initially
selected two partners for its COTS project under Space Act Agreements.
One partner failed to meet NASA's milestones, and NASA terminated the
Agreement. The other partner, SpaceX, recently announced that it has
delayed the first demonstration flight for their Falcon 9 rocket for
six to nine months. Following GAO's decision rejecting a challenge by
the terminated partner to NASA's plans to utilize a Space Act Agreement
rather than a government contract, NASA made an award to Orbital
Sciences Corporation in February 2008. Last week, NASA issued a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for Phase 2 of the COTS program, now called
Commercial Resupply Services, with a planned contract award by the end
of the year. Both of the current COTS partners are working only on
cargo carriers.
If NASA's preferred solution of using commercial services is not
attainable by the time the Shuttle is retired, the agency has indicated
that it will rely on prepositioned spares to be sent up to the ISS
before the Shuttle retires. In an interview in Aviation Week last week,
NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Operations said ``We
recognized that there may be a little bit of a delay in the delivery of
those [commercial] services,'' adding that ``Our plan is that if we
have a delay we would live off the spares we flew up on Shuttle and
take some limited degradation in space station capabilities until those
commercial services come on line.'' However, this poses a risk since
the last two Shuttle flights scheduled to bring up those spares have
not been approved by the Administration. As to the use of international
partner cargo capabilities, NASA said last week that it will not ask
Congress for permission to continue buying cargo services from Russia
after 2011. European Automated Transfer Vehicles (ATV) and Japanese H-
II Transfer Vehicles (HTV) are alternatives but would require some time
to procure.
Regarding crew transportation during ``the gap,'' purchases of
Russian capabilities beyond 2011 will require an extension of the
waiver currently granted in the Iran, North Korea and Syria Non-
Proliferation Act (INKSNA). Last week, NASA notified the Congress that
it needs to continue using Russian Soyuz capsules to deliver crew to
the ISS after the Shuttle retires in 2010 and is thus seeking an
extension of INKSNA waiver authority. A copy of NASA's letter to
Chairman Udall transmitting the proposed waiver and the waiver itself
are included as Attachment 1.
Research Objectives of the ISS
Although one NASA objective for the ISS was to create a world-class
laboratory, cost overruns, a decision to focus on a ``core complete''
configuration, the elimination of several planned research facilities,
and a smaller crew size led a National Research Council (NRC) committee
to conclude in a 2003 report, Factors Affecting the Utilization of the
International Space Station, that achieving that goal was ``unlikely.''
<bullet> Following President Bush's announcement of a Vision
for Space Exploration in January 2004, NASA reoriented its
goals for the ISS to focus on exploration.
A 2006 NRC report, NASA's Plans for the International Space
Station, identified several priority areas of research to support
NASA's exploration goals, including ``effects of radiation on
biological systems, loss of bone and muscle mass during space flight,
psychosocial and behavioral risks of long-term space missions,
individual variability in mitigating a medical/biological risk, fire
safety aboard spacecraft, and multi-phase flow and heat transfer issues
in space technology operations.''
In addition, the report recommended that NASA take several other
actions in utilizing the ISS to support exploration missions. For
example, the NRC recommended that:
<bullet> ``NASA should develop an agency-wide, integrated
utilization plan for all ISS activities as soon as possible.''
<bullet> ``NASA should develop and maintain a set of
operations demonstrations that need to be conducted on the ISS
to validate operational protocols and procedures for long-
duration and long-distance missions such as the ones to Mars.''
<bullet> ``NASA should plan options and decision points for
obtaining a post-Shuttle logistics capability for . . .
demonstrating the technology and operations that will enable
exploration missions. NASA should establish priorities and
develop back-up plans to enable the post-2010 deployment of
large ISS structural components and research facilities
required to accomplish exploration mission objectives.''
In 2007, at the House Committee on Science and Technology's hearing
on NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, NASA provided material for
the record noting that NASA's research use of the ISS aligns with the
Agency's needs in the following areas:
<bullet> Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of
Biomedical Protocols for Human Health and Performance on Long-
Duration Space Missions
<bullet> Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of
Systems Readiness for Long-Duration Space Missions
<bullet> Development, Demonstration, and Validation of
Operational Practices and Procedures for Long-Duration Space
Missions.
Congressional Policy Direction on ISS Utilization
Congress directed in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
155) that NASA complete the assembly of the ISS and ensure its
utilization for basic and applied research, as well as commercial
research, and other benefits to the Nation. As part of this policy
direction, NASA is to sustain the necessary scientific expertise to
support research in disciplines that require microgravity environments
(e.g., molecular crystal growth, animal research, basic fluid physics,
combustion research, and cellular research). To ensure that NASA
continues to sustain basic research in life and microgravity sciences,
the Act directs NASA to allocate at least fifteen percent of ISS
research funds to non-exploration research conducted on the ISS, free-
flyers and ground. In addition, the Act designates the ISS as a
National Laboratory to ``increase the utilization of the ISS by other
federal entities and the private sector through partnerships, cost-
sharing agreements, and other arrangements that would supplement NASA
funding of the ISS.''
Status of NASA Plans for ISS Utilization and Ongoing Utilization
Activities
In response to direction in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, NASA
submitted a report, the NASA ISS Research and Utilization Plan. The
nature of that report was high-level, and as a follow-up, NASA
submitted three additional documents detailing NASA plans for ISS
utilization: 1) Human Research Program Utilization Plan for the
International Space Station, 2) ISS Exploration and Non-Exploration
Research Project Plan for the NASA ISS Utilization Plan, 3)
Consolidated Operations and Utilization Plan 2007-2015. The first
report identifies the human health risks to be addressed by the ISS
Human Research Program, for which 25 of 32 risks require research on
the ISS to mitigate the risk. The second report provides a top-level
plan for ISS research to support NASA's exploration objectives
(applied) as well as non-exploration (basis) research. The third report
details the operational plans for utilizing the ISS, including
allocation of resources among partners. An overview summary of these
documents states that ``human biomedical research is of the highest
priority in order to prepare for longer duration human space
exploration missions . . .''
At a hearing of the House Committee on Science and Technology on
NASA's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, the NASA Administrator
testified that ``we are still building the Station, and its full
capability as a research laboratory is mostly in front of us. But we
can't have a research laboratory until we get the power and the water
and the air conditioning fully in place. And that is what we are doing
right now.'' He further stated that ``I believe it [the Station] should
be sustained as long as the costs of its operations and maintenance,
once built . . . seem to be justified by the research, which is being
returned . . .'' The duration of Space Station operations has not yet
been determined.
Upon request of the Committee, NASA provided material for the
record noting that NASA has conducted 17 NASA Human Research Program
investigations (the ISS component of that research was complete) which
supported 44 researchers ``worldwide.'' NASA also reported that there
were 16 investigations of the Human Research Program being conducted on
the ISS in which 49 researchers ``worldwide'' were involved. NASA's
plans were to conduct nine Human Research Program investigations over
the next year, which would involve 25 researchers. NASA also conducts
exploration and non-exploration research on the ISS, although it is not
completely clear how many experiments have been flown or how many will
be flown and when.
ISS as a National Laboratory
As directed in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, NASA submitted a
report to Congress on an International Space Station National
Laboratory Application Development. NASA indicates that approximately
50 percent of planned U.S. utilization resources on ISS could be
available for non-NASA use through the ISS National Laboratory. In
August 2007, NASA solicited proposals for ``Opportunity For The Use Of
The International Space Station By U.S. Non-Government Entities For
Research And Development And Industrial Processing Purposes.''
ISS National Laboratory Partners and Prospective Partners
In September 2007, NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Cooperation on Space-
Related Research. The MOU will foster synergies in research being
sponsored by both agencies that will help ensure astronaut health,
especially on long-duration missions, and yield benefits for medical
science on Earth. For example, research on the loss of bone density and
muscle mass resulting from the effects of microgravity may improve
treatment for bone and muscle diseases. Better understanding of the
effects of gravity on astronauts' balance may increase our knowledge of
conditions such as vertigo, problems of the inner ear, and dizziness.
Research on how microorganisms respond to microgravity may also provide
insights into the immune system's response to infectious diseases.
The MOU outlines NIH's particular interest in the use of the ISS
for research in the following types of areas:
``Basic biological and behavioral mechanisms in the absence
of gravity
Human physiology and metabolism
Spatial orientation and cognition
Cell repair processes and tissue regeneration
Pathogen infectivity and host immunity
Medical countermeasures
Health care delivery and health monitoring technologies''
A copy of the MOU is included as Attachment 2.
In a Fall 2007 issue of NIH Medline Plus, Dr. Stephen Katz,
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases,
said, ``An enormous amount of time will be required to develop the
questions and experimental models for use on the Space Station. . ..''
Members may wish to probe whether or not the Administration's current
plans for operating the ISS until 2016 will be sufficient to
accommodate the time NIH would need to prepare and carry out research
investigations.
NASA is currently working on an MOU with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Potential UDSA-sponsored research on the ISS could help to
advance knowledge in the areas of nutrition and animal and plant
biology. Potential goals of the research include outcomes that could
provide additional benefits in assuring food safety and the quality of
agricultural products.
SPACEHAB, a commercial company that provides space products and
services, is also discussing partnership opportunities with NASA as
part of the ISS National Laboratory. The company announced in 2007
plans ``to develop a new company division that will focus on
manufacturing pharmaceuticals and materials in space for distribution
into the commercial marketplace.'' Following on this path, SPACEHAB's
January 28, 2008 press release announced the company's plans to use the
ISS for ``research, development, and industrial processing purposes.''
SPACEHAB's past relationship with NASA has been in providing
pressurized habitation modules, unpressurized cargo carriers, and
related space flight equipment and services to support research and
other payloads for launch, operation, and return from NASA space flight
and ISS missions. In addition, SPACEHAB has an unfunded Space Act
Agreement with NASA to develop (along with several partner companies) a
commercial transportation system (COTS) to provide logistical support
to the ISS following the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010.
The ISS National Laboratory report refers to ``the availability of
cost-effective transportation services'' as the most significant risk
for the success of the National Laboratory. The report prepared for
Congress did not indicate that NASA planned to provide transportation
services to ISS National Laboratory partners. According to the ISS
National Laboratory report to Congress, NASA plans to begin managing
the operations and utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. NASA is
also considering alternative approaches for managing the ISS national
lab.
Readiness of the Life and Microgravity Sciences Research Community to
Support ISS Research
At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on
``NASA's Space Shuttle and International Space Station Programs: Status
and Issues'' in July 2007, Dr. G. Paul Neitzel, a professor of fluid
mechanics, testified that ``At its zenith, the budget of the then
Office of Biological and Physical Research . . . had grown to
approximately $1B and the FY03 OBPR Task Book . . . shows a broad
research program containing roughly 1000 tasks, supporting over 1,700
PIs and co-investigators and nearly 3,000 students. . ..'' Following
the Columbia accident and the President's announcement of a Vision for
Space Exploration, NASA reduced the size of the life and microgravity
sciences program. ``In December 2005, NASA sent letters to hundreds of
investigators in the program, informing them of significant cuts in
their funding for FY06 and the termination of their grants effective
September 30, 2006.'' Dr. Neitzel further noted that ``The re-
establishment of an external research community will take years, if it
can be accomplished at all.''
Existing and Planned Research Facilities for U.S. Use on the ISS
The U.S. laboratory module, Destiny, houses several research
facilities. These include the:
<bullet> Human Research Facility racks
<bullet> Microgravity Science Glovebox
<bullet> The Minus Eight-Degree Freezer for ISS that can store
and freeze life science and biological samples
<bullet> Expedite the Processing of Experiments to Space
Station (EXPRESS) racks, which can provide power, data, and
fluids and other utilities needed to support research
experiments that can attach to the racks.
The following are NASA facilities planned for inclusion on the ISS,
and most, if not all, have been manifested on upcoming Shuttle flights
to the ISS:
<bullet> Fluids and Combustion Facility (includes the
Combustion Integrated Rack and the Fluids Integrated Rack)
<bullet> Microgravity Science Research Rack
<bullet> Space Dynamically Responding Ultrasound Matrix
Facility
<bullet> Window Observation Research Facility
<bullet> EXPRESS Rack 6
<bullet> Muscle Atrophy Research Exercise System
<bullet> Five External Logistics Carriers (ELCs) each of which
can support two payloads that do not require a pressurized
environment.
<bullet> Several International Standard Payload Racks (ISPR)
<bullet> Other research facilities can be accommodated on
international modules.
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), a collaboration between the
Department of Energy and international participants, had been planned
for flight to the ISS, but is currently not manifested on any of the
remaining Shuttle flights.
Use of ISS to Support Math and Science Education and Competitiveness
In exploring the opportunities for using the ISS National
Laboratory for potential educational activities, a NASA-led task force
produced the International Space Station National Laboratory Education
Concept Development Report. The task force concluded ``that there is
significant interest among other federal agencies in the opportunity to
further develop the ISS as an asset for education.''
In 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, which became
Public Law 110-69. Section 2006 of the law directs NASA to use the
results of the ISS education task force report to ``develop a detailed
plan for implementation of one or more education projects that utilize
the resources offered by the International Space Station.''
In addition, Section 2006 directs NASA to ``develop a detailed plan
for identification and support of research to be conducted aboard the
International Space Station, which offers the potential enhancement of
United States competitiveness in science, technology, and
engineering.'' NASA is to work with agencies and organizations that
have entered into agreements as partners on the ISS National
Laboratory.
Establishing ISS Program Service Life
NASA indicates that while the FY09 budget run out does not
presently allocate funds for operating ISS beyond 2016, it is not
taking any action to preclude it. Likewise, out year projections do not
include costs to retire and de-commission ISS.
Two new issues have bearing on the ISS's life expectancy:
1. Reports of sooner-than-expected wear on components, such as
the beta gimbal assembly (BGA) and the Solar Array Rotary Joint
(SARJ) could be indications that NASA may need to re-analyze
its sparing strategy due to uncertainties about the last two
Shuttle logistics flights and resupply options after the
Shuttle is retired in 2010.
2. It was recently reported that Russia will ask partners in
June to extend the utilization of the ISS until 2020 because a
Russian segment would take longer to complete. Russia still
does not have a research module on the ISS and the Multi-
Purpose Laboratory Module (MLM) would provide the expanded
research capability desired. The MLM will be Russia's primary
research module as part of the ISS. According to news reports,
funding issues had delayed the MLM from an initial 2007 date. A
NASA official has told Subcommittee staff that NASA will
discuss these issues at a meeting of the partner Space agencies
in July of this year.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairman Udall. This hearing will come to order. Good
morning to all of you. I want to welcome today's witnesses to
our hearing. We welcome your participation and look forward
very much to your testimony.
Today's hearing continues the Subcommittee's oversight of
NASA's major programs by focusing on the International Space
Station (ISS) Program. While it is a program that has had a
long and at times controversial and frustrating development
path, I am impressed with the progress that has been made in
assembling and operating this incredibly complex international
space science and technology facility. The NASA witness, Mr.
William Gerstenmaier, will describe some of the recent
accomplishments of the ISS Program in his testimony, and he and
his team and all the international partners, too, can take
justifiable pride in what they are achieving.
An important component of that success is the way the ISS
is truly becoming the International Space Station with
American, Japanese, European, Canadian, and Russian astronauts,
engineers, and program managers working together to overcome
challenges on a continuing basis.
Yet, if we are to justify the significant resources that
have been expended on the ISS Program, we need to be confident
that it is going to be used in as productive a manner as
possible once it is assembled.
To that end, I am encouraged by news of emerging research
and commercial collaborations with NASA, and I am looking
forward to hearing from our witnesses from the research and
commercial sectors about their plans for utilizing the Station.
Equally important, their views on what it will take to make the
ISS a productive venue for research and commercial activities.
I also want to hear NASA tell us what it intends to do to
make the ISS a productive facility, not just for research and
commercial activities but also to carry out the ISS research
and technology activities that NASA has said will be necessary
to prepare for future exploration.
In this hearing instead of dwelling on past problems, I
want to focus on where we go from here.
However, as NASA talks about providing research
opportunities on the Station, we cannot forget that the funding
cuts NASA has made to its microgravity research programs in
recent years, whether willingly or not, have largely decimated
the research community.
Thus, I think the onus has to be on NASA to prove that it
means what it says by taking meaningful steps both to make the
Station a productive venue for research and to start to rebuild
the research community.
Yet, it won't be possible to have a productive Station
unless the facility can be sustained after the Shuttle is
retired.
I am going to want to hear from NASA about how it plans to
ensure the availability and productivity of the ISS after the
Shuttle is retired, what it considers the major risks ahead,
and how it plans to manage those risks.
It is no secret that we are currently living with the
adverse impacts of the Administration's shortsighted decision
four years ago to accept a four-year gap in U.S. crew launch
capabilities after the Shuttle is retired. I hope we learn from
that experience and not let the future of the Station to be
determined by equally shortsighted measures.
If we are to receive a meaningful return on the Nation's
investment in the ISS, we need to ensure that the Station's
post-Shuttle logistics re-supply needs are adequately funded.
It is also clear that it is time for the Administration to
commit to flying the two contingency Shuttle flights that will
deliver critical spares and logistics to the Station before the
Shuttle is retired.
Based on all the information provided to the Committee to
date, it is clear that those flights are not optional if NASA
is to minimize the risks facing the ISS after 2010.
And finally, we need to ensure that any decision on the
service life of this international facility is based on sound
policy, considerations, and thorough consultations with our
international partners and not simply be a date based on the
current Administration's desire to make it conform to their own
under-funded budget plan for NASA.
Well, we have a great number of issues to consider today.
As I have said, we have a very good panel of witnesses to help
us address them.
Again, I want to welcome you, and we will look forward to
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mark Udall
Good morning. I'd like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing.
We welcome your participation and look forward to your testimony.
Today's hearing continues the Subcommittee's oversight of NASA's
major programs by focusing on the International Space Station program.
While it is a program that has had a long, and at times
controversial and frustrating development path, I am impressed with the
progress that has been made in assembling and operating this incredibly
complex international space-based science and technology facility.
The NASA witness, Mr. William Gerstenmaier, will describe some of
the recent accomplishments of the ISS program in his testimony, and he
and his team--and all of the international partners too--can take
justifiable pride in what they are achieving.
An important component of that success is the way that the ISS is
truly becoming the International Space Station, with American,
Japanese, European, Canadian, and Russian astronauts, engineers, and
program managers working together to overcome challenges on a
continuing basis.
Yet, if we are to justify the significant resources that have been
expended on the ISS program, we need to be confident that it is going
to be used in as productive a manner as possible once it is assembled.
To that end, I am encouraged by news of emerging research and
commercial collaborations with NASA, and I am looking forward to
hearing from our witnesses from the research and commercial sectors
about their plans for utilizing the Station. . .
And equally importantly, their views on what it will take to make
the ISS a productive venue for research and commercial activities.
I also want to hear NASA tell us what it intends to do to make the
ISS a productive facility--not just for research and commercial
activities, but also to carry out the ISS research and technology
activities that NASA has said will be needed to prepare for future
exploration.
In this hearing, instead of dwelling on past problems, I want to
focus on where we go from here.
However, as NASA talks about providing research opportunities on
the ISS, we cannot forget that the funding cuts NASA has made to its
microgravity research programs in recent years--whether willingly or
not--have largely decimated that research community.
Thus, I think the onus has to be on NASA to prove that it means
what it says by taking meaningful steps both to make the ISS a
productive venue for research and to start to rebuild that research
community.
Yet, it won't be possible to have a productive ISS unless the
facility can be sustained after the Shuttle is retired.
I am going to want to hear from NASA about how it plans to ensure
the viability and productivity of the ISS after the Shuttle is retired,
what it considers the major risks ahead, and how it plans to manage
those risks.
It is no secret that we are currently living with the adverse
impacts of the Administration's shortsighted decision four years ago to
accept a four-year gap in U.S. crew launch capabilities after the
Shuttle is retired.
I hope we learn from that experience and not let the future of the
ISS be determined by equally shortsighted measures.
If we are to realize a meaningful return on the Nation's investment
in the ISS, we need to ensure that the ISS's post-Shuttle logistics
resupply needs are adequately funded.
It is also clear that it is time for the Administration to commit
to flying the two ``contingency'' Shuttle flights that will deliver
critical spares and logistics to the Station before the Shuttle is
retired.
Based on all of the information provided to the Committee to date,
it is clear those flights are not optional if NASA is to minimize the
risks facing the ISS after 2010.
And finally, we need to ensure that any decision on the service
life of this international facility is based on sound policy
considerations and thorough consultations with our international
partners--and not simply be a date based on the current
Administration's desire to make it conform to their own underfunded
budget plan for NASA.
Well, we have a great number of issues to consider today, and we
have a very good panel of witnesses to help us address them.
I again want to welcome them, and we look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Udall. The Chair now is greatly privileged to
recognize my good friend, Congressman Hall, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, again, for
my first neighbor when I came up here 28 years ago with Mr.
Udall. I learned more from him than I had the past 50 years
politically. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
morning's very timely hearing on the International Space
Station.
I want to begin by thanking the witnesses, because I know
about your busy schedules, and I know a lot of you have
traveled considerable distance, and I want to assure all of you
that your wisdom and expertise are greatly valued by, I value
them greatly, as do other Members of this committee, because
we, you are knowledgeable about what we are discussing, and we
write laws based on the good information that we get from good
folks like you that give us your time.
And I would ask you, Mr. Pickens, are you related to Boone
Pickens? He is one of the finest guys in the whole world. He
just absolutely leads the energy chase and is generous with
universities. Golly, he is going to solicit Nature's Aid in the
greatest way. He is really a great guy, and I am--and how is he
related to you?
Mr. Pickens. He is my father.
Mr. Hall. Your father? Golly, I wish he was my father.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is
well on its way to completion, and if NASA successfully flies
out its remaining schedule of flights over the next two years,
it will be capable of conducting a wide array of world-class
science.
The United States and its international partners have
invested tens of billions of dollars to assemble the most
complex and largest laboratory and living facility ever to fly
in space. The fruits of this investment are only now capable of
really being realized.
But having said that, a number of critical questions and
challenges remain to be answered, both with respect to
completing assembly of Station and once accomplished, using the
Station as a one-of-a-kind laboratory to conduct research in a
microgravity environment.
Issues that bear discussion include the status of the two
contingency flights. Is NASA committed to flying them or not?
Will the United States be able to reliably and safely move crew
and cargo to and from Station during the five-year gap between
retirement of Shuttle and advent of the Orion Ares Launch
System?
Now, and how safe is Soyuz in light of the most recent pair
of re-entries that did not perform as expected? I hope our NASA
witnesses, Mr. Gerstenmaier, will be able to spend a couple of
minutes in his opening testimony talking about Soyuz
performance problems and potential solutions.
I am also concerned about NASA's plans to fully exploit the
Station's research and testing capabilities and how it intends
to maximize its utility as a national research laboratory.
Several of the witnesses will offer helpful insights and
suggestions stemming from their experiences. By raising these
questions I don't mean to appear critical of NASA's management
of ISS. In fact, I would applaud Mr. Gerstenmaier and the men
and women of NASA and their contractor teams for making the
difficult task of building the Station look relatively routine.
I can only imagine the amount of detailed planning, design, and
consultation, as well as negotiating with our international
partners that went into this effort.
It has always been one of NASA's great strengths and
perhaps one of its biggest public relations challenges to make
the highly-dangerous and complex task of space flight look
benign, easy, or of no significance.
I want to again thank our witnesses for joining us this
morning, and I certainly look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this morning's timely hearing
on the status of the International Space Station. I want to begin by
thanking our witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to
be here. Some of you have traveled considerable distance, and I want to
assure all of you that your wisdom and expertise are greatly valued by
me and other Members of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is well on its way to
completion and, if NASA successfully flies out its remaining schedule
of flights over the next two years, it will be capable of conducting a
wide array of world class science. The United States and its
international partners have invested tens of billions of dollars to
assemble the most complex and largest laboratory and living facility
ever to fly in space. The fruits of this investment are only now
capable of being realized.
But having said that, a number of critical questions and challenges
remain to be answered, both with respect to completing assembly of
station, and once accomplished, using the station as a one-of-a-kind
laboratory to conduct research in a microgravity environment. Issues
that bear discussion include the status of the two contingency flights;
is NASA committed to flying them or not? Will the United States be able
to reliably and safely move crew and cargo to and from station during
the five-year gap between retirement of Shuttle and advent of the
Orion/Ares launch system? How safe is Soyuz in light of the most recent
pair of re-entries that did not perform as expected? I hope our NASA
witness, Mr. Gerstenmaier, will be able to spend a couple of minutes in
his opening testimony talking about Soyuz performance problems and
potential solutions.
I am also concerned about NASA's plans to fully exploit the
station's research and testing capabilities, and how it intends to
maximize its utility as a National Research Laboratory. Several of our
witnesses will offer helpful insights and suggestions stemming from
their experiences.
By raising these questions, I don't mean to appear critical of
NASA's management of ISS. In fact, I want to applaud Mr. Gerstenmaier
and the men and women of NASA, and their contractor teams, for making
the difficult task of building the station look relatively routine. I
can only imagine the amount of detailed planning, design, and
consultation, as well as negotiating with our international partners,
that went into this effort. It has always been one of NASA's greatest
strengths, and perhaps one of its biggest public relations challenges,
to make the highly dangerous and complex task of space flight look
benign.
I want to again thank our witnesses for joining us this morning,
and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Hall. If there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
At this time I would like to introduce our first panel of
witnesses. I am going to start from my left, and we will
introduce each one of you, and then we will return and start
with the panel.
Dr. Edward Knipling is the Administrator for the
Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Next to him, Dr. Louis Stodieck, who is a
constituent of mine. He is the Director of the BioServe Space
Technologies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. To his
left, Dr. Cheryl Nickerson is an Associate Professor at the
Biodesign Institute in the Center for Infectious Diseases and
Vaccinology at Arizona State University. I would note I grew up
in Tucson so I tend to be a little bit more of a fan of the
University of Arizona, but we will leave that where it may be,
Dr. Nickerson. And finally we have Mr. Thomas Pickens, III, who
is the President and CEO of SPACEHAB, Incorporated, and who
shares kinship now with Dr. Hall because you both have a father
in common. You have, Dr. Hall is an honorable, he is
everybody's father, including mine.
I would add before we turn back to the witnesses, it is an
honor for me. I don't know that I have had a chance to Chair a
committee hearing in the presence of Judge Hall, but he has
been a mentor to me, and he chaired this committee, and I am
truly honored.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also note
that it is an honor for me to be here with a man who knew Sam
Houston as well.
Chairman Udall. We will discuss later whether that
commentary will be in the record or not based on Judge Hall's
perspective.
And again, the witnesses know that spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes each, after which Members of the
Subcommittee will have five minutes each to ask questions.
Dr. Knipling, the floor is yours.
Panel 1:
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD B. KNIPLING, ADMINISTRATOR,
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. Knipling. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Edward Knipling. I serve as the
Administrator of the Agriculture Research Service, also known
as ARS. ARS is the research arm of USDA, the intramural, in-
house research arm of USDA, and we operate a network of 100
federal agricultural science laboratories across the Nation in
all aspects of agricultural science.
And thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
subcommittee today to present testimony about ARS's
collaboration with NASA on research relevant to agriculture and
the Space Program.
ARS and NASA have a long history of working together. The
ARS Beltsville Agricultural Research Center and the Goddard
Space Flight Center in Maryland, we are next-door neighbors. We
worked together for many years, particularly with respect to
the Earth Observation Program and various aspects of remote
sensing of the environment.
Among our successes in that area are predictions of animal
disease outbreaks in Africa based upon global weather and
vegetation patterns that affect insect vector populations,
detection of drought indicators, remote measurements of crop
yields, detection and risk assessment of plant pests and
invasive species, and development of data for application of
precision farming using GPS technology. The role of ARS
scientists in these collaborations has been to provide the
knowledge and interpretation of plant, animal, and
environmental indicators recorded in the imagery and other data
collected by NASA's satellites and other aerial platform
sensors, and in turn, how to effectively design and use those
systems for meaningful environmental and biological
assessments.
These research activities have been conducted under the
framework of an existing Memorandum of Understanding between
USDA and NASA and various predecessor agreements, and today I
will speak of a planned new Memorandum of Understanding
involving research collaboration in the agricultural life
sciences that will take advantage of the microgravity
environment of the International Space Station.
And Mr. Chairman, I will address four questions about this
new collaboration between ARS and NASA that are of particular
interest to this subcommittee. One of these is what
achievements are expected under this new collaboration? Well,
we anticipate this research will lead to new understandings of
biological cellular mechanisms and creative new ways to improve
American agriculture, protect the environment, and contribute
to human health. These will be based upon principles related to
the early development of cells and how that development is
influenced by zero or reduced gravity compared to the Earth's
gravitational field.
Certainly access to the facilities and the environment of
the International Space Station will provide ARS with new
abilities to test biological processes in microgravity. Topics
of immediate interest are development plant and animal cells
and culture and improved understanding of the capacity of such
cells to express desired traits or to develop in specialized
ways. Selection of cell lines under microgravity may provide
germplasm capable of improving plant resistance to pathogens,
improved growth characteristics, and generation of functional
replacement organs.
Question number two. How will ARS and NASA proceed on these
collaborations? Our ARS program managers and scientists have
met with NASA program managers and scientists to define areas
of mutual interest. They have determined that for work on the
International Space Station, the ARS focus will be on the
science of cells, principally the affects of microgravity on
basic biological mechanisms, genetic regulation in plants and
animal cells, pathogenesis in both plants and animal cells,
development of cells cultured to understand organ function and
development, and selection of plant cells for desirable growth
characteristics.
We expect to apply the findings and results of research in
these areas to improving animal and plant productivity. We
anticipate that our first collaborative research on the Space
Station will be to understand the effect of microgravity on the
differentiation of animal germ cells. Our goal is to develop
and validate the technology to produce and replicate
undifferentiated cells that can be, in turn, used to study gene
expression, cellular differentiation, and to improve genetic
enhancement technologies.
What is the role of agriculture in space research? Well, we
envision the tools of space research provided by NASA
collaboration as a powerful means to better understand and deal
with the responsibilities and challenges we face in agriculture
as well as exploiting new opportunities to help advance to
agricultural life scientists and potential new applications.
And certainly our experiences with the development of remote
sensing applications have proven this to be possible.
The ARS research mission and our own goals themselves will
not change, but we will benefit from the NASA collaboration and
unique approaches to help reach our goals. The new MOU that I
spoke about will specify that each agency, ARS and NASA, will,
shall provide their own resources, including expenditure of
funds, to support their, our respective complementary part of
the collaborative research.
Question four. How will ARS develop a research plan for
work on the International Space Station? Well, planning for
this work has already begun at the national or program level.
Our respective program managers have worked together to assure
that the goals to be met will be relevant to the problems of
agriculture and to establish a formal relationship through the
MOU. And at the investigator level, science level, NASA, ARS,
and cooperating private sector and university scientists have
met and explored the possibilities for specific experiments to
be conducted.
Initially ARS investigators are interested in determining
if fertilized cow eggs do not differentiate under microgravity
but continue to replicate. And additional experiments will be
designed for a particular set of cell lines from swine embryos
that have been shown to give rise to liver cells, and these
cells may have potential use in artificial liver devices.
Many questions about the regulation of their
differentiation and replication in culture remain unanswered.
And the research planning has focused on the design of
experiments to answer such questions.
In addition to the potential value of all of these
experiments for advancing animal and plant agriculture, they
are expected to serve as models for beneficial applications of
cell culture technologies for human health as well.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
completes my testimony. I will be pleased to address any
questions that you have at a later time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Knipling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward B. Knipling
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Edward B.
Knipling, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ARS
is the principal intramural science research agency of the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA). ARS operates a network of more
than 100 federal research laboratories across the Nation on all aspects
of agricultural science.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today to present testimony about ARS' collaboration with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on research relevant to
agriculture and the space program.
ARS and NASA have a long history of working together. The ARS
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center and the Goddard Space Flight
Center are next-door neighbors in Maryland. ARS scientists at
Beltsville and other ARS locations have worked with the NASA scientists
in the Earth Observation program at Goddard and elsewhere to apply a
wide range of remote sensing methods to environmental and agricultural
problems.
Among our successes are predictions of animal disease (Rift Valley
Fever) outbreaks based on global weather patterns, detection of drought
indicators, remote measurement of crop yields, detection and risk
assessment of plant pests and invasive species, and development of data
for application of precision farming. The roles of ARS scientists in
such collaborations have been to provide knowledge and interpretation
of plant, animal, and environmental indicators recorded in the imagery
and data collected by NASA's satellite and other aerial platform
sensors, as well as how to effectively design and use these systems for
meaningful environmental and biological assessments.
These research activities have been conducted under the framework
of an existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and predecessor
agreements between USDA and NASA. Today I will speak of a planned new
Memorandum of Understanding involving research collaborations in the
agricultural life sciences that will take advantage of the microgravity
environment of the International Space Station (ISS). Mr. Chairman, I
will address four issues about this new collaboration between ARS and
NASA that are of particular interest to this subcommittee.
Achievements Expected Under the New Collaboration
We anticipate that this research will lead to new understandings of
biological cellular mechanisms and creative new ways to improve
American agriculture, protect the environment, and contribute to human
health. These will be based on principles related to the early
development of cells and how that development is influenced by zero or
reduced gravity compared to the earth's gravity environment.
Access to the facilities and environment of the ISS will provide
ARS with new abilities to test biological processes in microgravity.
Topics of immediate interest are development of plant and animal cells
in culture and improved understanding of the capacity of such cells to
express desired traits or to develop in specialized ways. Selection of
cell lines under microgravity may provide germplasm capable of
improving plant resistance to pathogens, improved growth
characteristics, and generation of functional replacement organs.
How ARS and NASA Will Proceed on Significant Collaborations
ARS program managers and scientists have met with NASA program
managers and scientists to define the areas of mutual interest. They
have determined that for work on the ISS the ARS focus will be on the
science of cells, principally the effects of microgravity on:
basic biological mechanisms,
genetic regulation in plants and animals cells,
pathogenesis in both plants and animal cells,
development of cells cultured to understand organ function
and development, and
selection of plant cells for desirable growth
characteristics.
We expect to apply the findings and results of research in these
areas to improving animal and plant productivity. We anticipate that
our first collaborative research on the ISS will be to understand the
effect of microgravity on the differentiation of animal germ cells. Our
goal is to be able to produce undifferentiated cells that can be used
to study gene expression, cellular differentiation, and to improve
genetic enhancement technologies.
The Role of Agriculture in Space Research
We envision the tools of space research provided by NASA
collaboration as a powerful means to better understand and deal with
the responsibilities and challenges we face in agriculture as well as
exploiting new opportunities. Our experiences with the development of
remote sensing applications have proven this to be true. We expect that
the microgravity environment on the ISS will provide the same kinds of
benefits to help advance our agricultural life sciences programs and
potential new applications. The ARS research mission and goals will not
change but we will benefit from NASA collaboration and unique
approaches to help reach those goals. The new MOU will specify that
each agency, ARS and NASA, shall provide their own resources, including
expenditure of funding, to support their respective complementary part
of the collaborative research.
How ARS Will Develop a Research Plan for Work on the ISS
Planning for this research on the ISS has begun. ARS has been
involved at two levels: at the national planning level and at the
investigator level. At the national level, ARS program managers have
worked with NASA program managers to assure that the goals to be met
would be relevant to problems of agriculture and to establish a formal
relationship through a MOU. At the investigator level, NASA and ARS
scientists have met and explored the possibilities for specific
experiments to be conducted at the ISS. In particular ARS investigators
are interested the development and differentiation of a particular set
of cell lines that came from swine embryos and have been shown to give
rise to liver cells. These cells may even be able to be used in
artificial liver devices. Many questions about the regulation of their
differentiation in culture remain unanswered. Research planning has
focused on the design of experiment to ask questions about the role of
gravity in cell culture differentiation.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony. I will be pleased to
address any questions you and Subcommittee Members may have.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Knipling.
Dr. Stodieck.
STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS S. STODIECK, DIRECTOR, BIOSERVE SPACE
TECHNOLOGIES; ASSOCIATE RESEARCH PROFESSOR, AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
Dr. Stodieck. Chairman Udall and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today. The International Space Station represents an incredible
human achievement for which our nation and our international
partners can be very proud. It represents the best of what
people can do working together with commitment and resolve. I
for one am very grateful to the engineers and all who have
built this magnificent facility.
With the focus on assembly of the ISS set to end in only
two and one-half years, research utilization, the original
purpose of the ISS, can finally be brought to the forefront of
our discussions and planning. The ISS has tremendous potential
to advance our nation's interests in science, technology, and
commerce. I imagine some of the witnesses here today will
testify to this potential, and you will find other
illustrations of this in my written statement.
These examples are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
The ability to use the lens of microgravity to understand and
exploit gravity as a physical force is unique to the ISS. If
fully utilized, I expect that the ISS is going to greatly
advance scientific knowledge and have important economic
impacts in many fields of study.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, designated the U.S.
segment of the ISS as a national laboratory. This designation
was a result of Congress recognizing that limiting ISS
utilization to only NASA's exploration research needs would do
a disservice to the taxpaying public and the many ISS
stakeholders. This designation clearly opens the door to re-
establishing the ISS as an important, productive R&D facility.
However, this step by itself is insufficient to insure that
the ISS National Lab will be successful. In my view there are
three actions that need to be taken.
The first is Congress or NASA should establish an
independent management organization to provide leadership of
the ISS National Lab R&D activities. This organization should
be chartered to develop and manage a rich portfolio of non-
exploration research on the ISS. The expeditious way to do this
might be for NASA to identify one or more qualified
organizations to provide this leadership and form a partnership
with them through the use of a space act agreement.
Resulting ISS National Lab management organization would
reach out to scientists and commercial users across disciplines
and across institutions, identify the best research ideas to
bring forward. The organization would also serve as the
interface to NASA and assure, and assume the responsibility for
getting the research integrated and operated on the ISS.
The second action that should be taken is Congress should
provide modest funding to encourage and support non-NASA
agencies, U.S. industry, universities, and other organizations
to utilize the ISS. Under the ISS National Lab model, the
research sponsor would be expected to cover the cost of the
science. And it should. However, conducting research on the ISS
requires something like five to ten times the funding than that
needed for comparable ground-based research. This is because
research on the ISS carries additional costs associated with
all the requirements to fly with the procurement of specialized
hardware and with securing transportation to and from low-Earth
orbit.
If ISS National Lab users are required to cover these full
costs, then I fear it will have the unfortunate affect of
precluding a number of excellent ideas from going forward.
Funding provided to the ISS National Lab management
organization to cover these extra costs would encourage
increased demand for ISS utilization and help achieve a high
level of productivity and ultimately success.
The third action is for Congress or NASA to ensure that
research sponsors have regular, reliable, and frequent
transportation access to and from the ISS. The Space Shuttle is
currently the only vehicle with any significant capacity for
bringing research samples and equipment back to Earth.
Retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010, will exactly coincide
with when this capability will be most needed for the ISS
National Lab to become productive.
The best option for both up and down transportation will be
for one or more U.S. commercial providers to be successful at
developing new launch vehicles and ISS docking spacecraft and
for these capabilities to be pressed into service. As NASA
works to procure services for logistics re-supply to the ISS,
planning should also include the needs of the ISS National Lab
users. Productive ISS National Lab will require something like
20 to 25 percent of the transportation capacity both up and
down with shipments spread across multiple flights each year.
The ISS National Lab has enormous potential to advance the
interests of the Nation in commerce, science, medicine,
technology, and education. If the steps I have just outlined
are taken, I believe ISS National Lab will be productive, and
significant breakthroughs can be expected.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stodieck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louis S. Stodieck
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Feeney and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on a subject that I
feel is very important to our nation. As you will see, I believe there
is tremendous potential for the International Space Station (ISS), as a
National Laboratory, to be utilized for high-value research and
development in low-Earth orbit. I also hope to convince you that more
must be done now to position the ISS National Laboratory to succeed.
My name is Louis Stodieck and I am a Research Professor in the
department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of
Colorado at Boulder. In addition to my academic role at CU-Boulder, I
am privileged to serve as the Director of BioServe Space Technologies,
a space life sciences research center. BioServe was founded in November
1987 through a NASA grant to the University. Through its 20-year
history, BioServe's mission has essentially remained unchanged: we work
in partnership with industry, academia and government to conduct space
life sciences research that primarily focuses on commercial
applications that could benefit the public. BioServe has served the
biotechnology, pharmaceutical, agribusiness and biomedical industry
sectors with most Center projects focusing on the effects of
microgravity, often referred to as weightlessness.
Starting with our first flight in 1991 on STS-37, the Center has
flown 40 payloads on 29 missions. Our experiments have launched on the
Space Shuttle, Progress and Soyuz vehicles and were operated in orbit
on the Space Shuttle, the Russian Mir Space Station and, more recently,
the International Space Station. A wide range of experiments have been
carried out across the full spectrum of space life sciences
applications that have evaluated molecular processes, cell and tissue
biology and the development and adaptation of various plants and
organisms. BioServe's commercial partners have included large Fortune
500 companies such as Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Procter and Gamble
and Weyerhaeuser along with numerous start-up and established smaller
life sciences companies.
It is through the above activities that I feel I am qualified to
present to you today the reasons why the Nation should capitalize on
the ISS and utilize its capabilities to the greatest possible extent.
Potential for R&D on the International Space Station
The International Space Station (ISS) represents an incredible
human achievement for which our nation and our International Partners
can be very proud. The launch of the first ISS element took place just
under 10 years ago in 1998. Today, the ISS is a remarkable orbiting
laboratory with unequaled capabilities. It represents the culmination
of the dedication and commitment of thousands of people who have worked
tirelessly on the design, fabrication and on-orbit assembly of this
massive undertaking. The ISS also represents an unparalleled
opportunity in human history: The ability to use the ``lens'' of
microgravity to understand and exploit gravity as a physical force. The
ISS offers a superb vantage point from which to observe the Earth as
well as providing access to the space environment, attributes that can
both be exploited for research. The ISS is rapidly growing in
capability and even now can support a wide array of research and
development activities that simply cannot be done on Earth.
During the last 10 years, the focus for the ISS Program has
necessarily been on assembly. NASA's ISS Payload's Office at the
Johnson Space Center has done an excellent job of supporting research
utilization, but in reality such utilization has had to take a back
seat to ISS assembly and maintenance. The focus on assembly has meant
that comparatively little transportation volume, mass, power and,
probably most important of all--crew time--have been available to
utilize the ISS to any significant extent. As a result, many of the ISS
racks and equipment are currently sitting idle awaiting the day when
ISS utilization can be ramped up. So, when can ISS utilization be
ramped up, and what will it take to do so?
Based on the current schedule, the ISS project is now only two and
one-half years away from completion. At that point, the ISS can be
officially and substantially opened for business. A significant part of
that business, in my mind, ought to be scientific and commercial
research and development. It will indeed be unfortunate if the ISS
remains substantially under-utilized once it is completed in 2010. I
hope instead that with proper planning and strategic investment now,
the ISS will be able to live up to its fullest potential as a unique
laboratory the like of which has never before been available and
possibly never again will be in our lifetime. It is probably not
possible to predict when the ISS will reach the end of its lifetime and
be de-commissioned, and it seems quite premature to discuss this when
the lab is not yet completed and anything close to full utilization
remains unrealized. However, the operational lifetime of the ISS is
currently certified only through 2016. Even if this date is extended,
it should be clear to all of us that the ISS will be available to serve
the interests of the U.S., our International Partners and, more
broadly, humanity for a finite period of time. Once the Space Shuttle
is retired, our ability to service and replace major components of the
ISS will be severely constrained. This ultimately could limit or reduce
the amount of science that is conducted in this laboratory. Compare
this situation with that of the Hubble Space Telescope. Just imagine
how the lifetime of the Hubble Space Telescope would have been
shortened and consider the amount of science lost without Space Shuttle
servicing missions. The period of actual use of the ISS after assembly
complete may be only five to 10 years and may be determined more by an
inability to maintain safe operations than by U.S. policy. Thus, it
will be very important to derive the most benefits possible from this
incredible, one-of-a-kind laboratory as early as possible and for as
long as possible.
Currently, NASA remains the predominant user of the ISS. Research
is being performed to better understand the negative effects of long-
duration space flight on the human body and to develop countermeasures
and technologies to mitigate these effects. Non-exploration utilization
research on the ISS has been conducted but only on a limited basis due
to resource constraints and NASA's focus on the Exploration Vision. If
the ISS is going to live up to its full potential, then clearly the
productivity of the station must significantly increase, especially for
non-exploration research.
Before discussing the future of ISS utilization, I believe it is
important to revisit the potential that ISS represents and why planning
and further investment should be considered to jump start the great
body of work to be done there.
Value of ISS as a National Lab
It is easiest for me to speak from the experience and flight
research projects that my Center has directly sponsored or supported.
Of course there are numerous articles and studies that have identified
and vetted the best R&D applications for the ISS across a host of
scientific disciplines. The examples below are based in the life
sciences, which is the focus of our Center and my area of expertise.
Despite significant funding challenges over the last few years
following the termination of NASA's Space Product Development program,
the program within NASA under which BioServe was funded, BioServe has
strived to remain productive in space flight research endeavors. We
have done so for the simple reason that we believe strongly in the
potential of the ISS to benefit the general public, commerce,
scientific knowledge, technology development and education. Since
December of 2006, space flight hardware designed and developed by
BioServe has supported 17 different commercial, international, NASA and
K-12 research projects. These research experiments have flown on five
different Shuttle missions, launched and landed on the Russian Soyuz
spacecraft, and spanned three ISS increments. In addition, BioServe has
had operating research hardware on-board the ISS since December of
2002.
Over the years BioServe has worked with several different
commercial companies in support of collaborative research with
commercial applications. Some of these companies are mentioned above
but the most recent support of commercial research involved experiments
conducted in collaboration with Amgen and SPACEHAB.
Amgen, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies, has
collaborated with BioServe in the area of disuse bone and muscle loss
since 1995. During this time BioServe conducted ground- and space-based
studies both to verify the models utilized in these studies as well as
to determine the effectiveness of two Amgen developed investigational
compounds designed to reduce or prevent significant bone and muscle
loss associated with certain types of disease and disuse conditions.
This work culminated in two successful space flight experiments, one
conducted on-board STS-108 and the other on-board STS-118. For each
experiment, in addition to the primary research that was conducted,
Amgen agreed BioServe could arrange a tissue-sharing program in which
unused tissues from the space experiments were given to over 20
separate investigators each researching the effects of space flight and
microgravity exposure on different physiological systems. In essence
with careful planning productivity was greatly enhanced despite limited
resources. Although these two space flight experiments were Shuttle
missions, it is believed that significant additional information could
be learned through longer duration studies on-board ISS.
The research projects with Amgen show the potential for alignment
between industry and NASA goals and needs in the broader context of the
ISS National Lab. For example, the research investigation of a bone
therapeutic on STS-108 was part of a much larger traditional
development program being conducted by Amgen. Today, that development
program has led to a therapeutic called Denosumab which is in Phase III
clinical trials. In addition to helping patients with osteoporosis,
bone metastasis, and other serious bone loss conditions, this drug
could become a highly effective countermeasure for future flight crews
exposed to long-duration skeletal unloading. In the context of the ISS
National Lab, this project shows the potential for industry-sponsored
research to benefit the company, NASA's exploration vision and the
general public.
As part of a Space Act Agreement that is being completed between
NASA and BioServe to support ISS National Lab commercial path-finder
research, BioServe recently collaborated with SPACEHAB, Inc. to launch
a series of commercially applicable experiments in the area of vaccine
development for certain infectious diseases. The first of these
payloads launched in March on-board STS-123 and the second is scheduled
to launch in May on-board STS-124. The results, while still
preliminary, are very encouraging. SPACEHAB, which is represented here
today, can speak more to this promising work.
Additionally, BioServe supported four NASA peer-reviewed life
science researchers on-board STS-123. The Microbial Drug Resistance and
Virulence or MDRV payload was sponsored by NASA's Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate under the non-exploration research program. As the
payload name implies, the research conducted by these investigators
focused on the effects of space flight on virulence in pathogenic
microbes, specifically bacteria, and antifungal resistance in a yeast
model organism. This research has tremendous space- and Earth-based
applications. Again, one of the investigators from this mission is here
today and can speak to the value of this important work.
BioServe has a long history of providing training and educational
opportunities to graduate, undergraduate and K-12 students. The Center
has trained and educated over 115 graduate students since its
inception. BioServe students are highly sought by NASA and industry
once they graduate due to the unique education in bioastronautics and
hands-on training received within the Aerospace Engineering Sciences
department and at the Center. This important benefit of the ISS
National Lab simply cannot be overstated. With the sharp cuts by NASA
in the physical and life sciences, universities and colleges have lost
critical support for students to keep them engaged in these important
fields. More importantly, academic institutions have lost the single
largest set of opportunities for students to be involved with the human
space program. Without this connection, I fear that fewer and fewer
students will pursue lines of study and choose careers associated with
NASA's ambitious Vision for Exploration. The ISS National Lab has the
potential to restore some of these lost opportunities.
In late 2006 BioServe started a formal K-12 education program
called CSI. CSI brings actual space flight experiments into the K-12
classroom. Through its education partners, curriculum supplements are
developed for each CSI experiment. These materials are delivered to
participating classroom teachers via the Internet. Once the experiment
is activated on-orbit, images and data of the experiment are down-
linked to BioServe and then up-linked to the educational web site.
Students are able to conduct their own ``ground controls'' in the
classroom and compare their results on a near-real time basis to the
space experiment. These experiments have examined seed germination,
growth of metallic salts in silicate solutions, multi-generational
organism growth in space and plant development. The CSI-01 and CSI-02
projects have reached over 10,000 students. This program is an
excellent example of utilizing a national asset, the ISS, to inspire K-
12 students in science, technology, engineering and math. It utilizes a
unique element, the ISS, to promote inquiry of gravity's effects and
influence on our every day lives. In turn, this type of activity
creates a very real connection between students and parents and the
tremendous accomplishments of NASA and the ISS.
This brief description of work we have recently been conducting
provides what I believe is only a very small glimpse into what could be
possible on the ISS National Lab if research utilization were
significantly stepped up. There is great potential to use ISS to
advance applications in biotechnology, life sciences, fluid physics,
fundamental physics, combustion, energy, Earth sciences, materials and
biomedicine. Of course, there are critics of the ISS who disagree with
this statement as would be expected when competing interests come into
play. I would argue, however, that the work done to date on the Shuttle
and on the ISS has shown the potential of the ISS National Laboratory
to produce a rich return for taxpayers and that far greater benefits
and discoveries await us. In any event, strict scientific return on
investment should not be the sole measure of the worth of taking the
ISS National Lab to the next level. Like it or not, the investment to
build and assemble ISS in orbit has been made. We should now recognize
the historically unique capability of this tremendous facility and
exploit that capability to the maximum extent possible while we can.
Status of ISS National Lab Utilization
It is difficult to assess the current status of ISS utilization
without first considering how we arrived where we are today. It is well
known that NASA policy concerning utilization of the ISS changed
dramatically in January 2004 with the release of the new Vision for
U.S. Space Exploration. The new vision for NASA clearly enumerated that
the NASA Administrator should:
<bullet> ``Complete assembly of the International Space
Station, including the U.S. components that support the U.S.
space exploration goals and those provided by foreign partners,
planned for the end of this decade;''
<bullet> ``Focus U.S. research and use of the International
Space Station on supporting space exploration goals, with
emphasis on understanding how the space environment affects
astronaut health and capabilities and developing
countermeasures.''
Two significant decisions by NASA leadership pertinent to the
future of the ISS followed from the new Vision for Exploration policy:
1. NASA's life and physical science programs were drastically
cut with many lines of research being eliminated altogether.
Even life sciences research that was seen as supportive of the
Vision for Space Exploration but was more fundamental in nature
or involved pre-clinical animal models, was effectively
canceled. For many scientists within NASA and at universities
across the country, these decisions translated to the
termination of grants and forced the redirection of research
programs, even whole careers. Hundreds of college undergraduate
and graduate students were discouraged from engaging in
physical and space life sciences research. The development of
much of the life and physical sciences equipment that was being
built to support robust research programs on the ISS was
canceled.
2. As part of the realignment of NASA programs to the Vision
for Exploration, in 2006, NASA terminated the Space Product
Development program, which at the time supported 11 Research
Partnership Centers around the country, including ours. Many of
these centers were engaged in commercial research and
development activities that planned to utilize the ISS.
These changes, along with others, certainly had the desired effect
to reprogram significant funding and define budgets to carry out the
Vision for Space Exploration and help focus NASA squarely on the
development of replacement vehicles to the Space Shuttle and the
development of plans and hardware systems to return to the Moon.
Of course these decisions also placed in serious doubt the future
of the ISS as a world-class, productive research laboratory in space,
as had been originally envisioned. The momentum that had been built up
by the collective efforts of thousands of people was depleted by these
decisions in what seemed a very short period of time. There are in fact
few organizations remaining today with the knowledge and expertise to
conduct ISS utilization. Even now, these organizations are at risk of
disappearing altogether and would take years to recreate.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 designated the U.S. segment of
the International Space Station as a National Laboratory. This
designation was made as a result of strong leadership within Congress
who recognized that limiting ISS utilization to only exploration
research would do a disservice to the taxpaying public and the myriad
of ISS stakeholders who should expect a reasonable return from the ISS
in the form of scientific advances, new technologies, economic
development, inspiration of education in technical fields and overall
societal enrichment. This designation clearly opened the door to re-
establishing the ISS as an important and productive R&D facility.
The designation of the ISS as a National Lab represents an
important step in the right direction. However, this step by itself is
insufficient to ensure that ISS will be productive in supporting high-
value R&D activities. In my view, there are three actions that need to
be taken for the ISS National Lab to become successful.
1. Establish an independent management organization to provide
leadership and oversight of the ISS National Lab R&D
activities.
2. Provide modest funding to encourage and support non-NASA
agencies, U.S. industry, universities, colleges and other
organizations to utilize the ISS.
3. Ensure regular, reliable and frequent transportation access
to and from the ISS.
Please allow me to expand on each of these steps.
ISS National Lab Management Organization
The ISS National Lab designation from the 2005 Authorization Act
establishes the potential for the ISS to be used for non-exploration
research but does not establish a path by which this is to happen. In
essence, this designation establishes the national lab facility without
specifically identifying the people who would manage it. Imagine if
Brookhaven National Lab, with its incredible facilities, were operated
and maintained but no organization existed to serve the extramural
research scientists and communities who might want to use the
facilities. The productivity of Brookhaven's facilities would drop off
precipitously.
The NASA Report to Congress regarding a Plan for the ISS National
Laboratory in 2007 partially addressed the question of management. In
the report, NASA acknowledged the issue and indicated that various
management structures had been considered to create a possible future
ISS National Lab management organization. The report went on to
recommend a two-phase approach to implementation. Phase I, which is
currently being followed, utilizes the expertise of a small project
office at NASA headquarters under the direction of the Associate
Administrator for Space Operations. In this phase, NASA is focused on
identifying end-users of the ISS National Lab and securing agreements
intended to provide access to NASA expertise and eventual access to ISS
for R&D activities. Phase II would occur depending on whether demand
for access to the ISS National Lab evolved to a scale that would
warrant such an organization. In this event, ``NASA could establish an
institute, or other cost-effective entity, to manage opportunities for
non-government organizations that are pursing applications unrelated to
the NASA mission.''
I am very encouraged by the steps that NASA has so far taken in
creating a small project office at headquarters and by the
accomplishments of this office. Clearly, our Center is a beneficiary of
the work of this office through the Space Act Agreement about to be
completed. However, demand for the use of the ISS is already high and
continuing to grow. This can be evidenced, in part, by the increasing
number of agreements being formed with NASA by various organizations
including, commercial, academic and government, all of which are
interested in utilizing the ISS. Many of the witnesses here today are
testifying about these interests. I would argue that now is the time to
move into the second phase of the ISS National Lab management strategy
identified in NASA's report. An effective management organization put
into place now should have a strong initial focus on expanding the user
base by providing outreach to scientists, engineers and leaders of R&D
organizations. This would continue to build demand for ISS utilization,
which would lay the foundation for a high level of productivity of the
ISS National Lab soon after completion of the ISS facility in 2010.
How can an organization capable of leading ISS National Lab
utilization be created in a short time frame? One approach could be
pursued by the ISS National Lab office at NASA headquarters.
Specifically, this office could seek interested parties, identify one
or more qualified organizations and then proceed to execute a Space Act
Agreement that would establish a public-private partnership to oversee
ISS National Lab utilization on behalf of multiple users. I have
recently become aware of one such organization that allows me to
believe that this approach would be possible. The Biotechnology Space
Research Alliance (BSRA) is a self-organized partnership between
university, industry, foundation and economic development
organizations. The purpose of BSRA is to facilitate access to the ISS
National Lab and create benefits for the biotechnology industry sector
in Southern California. This represents a possible model of how an ISS
National Lab management organization might be structured. It should
also be pointed out that BSRA could grow to support other industry
sectors and expand to meet the needs of other regions across the
Nation.
The ISS National Lab management organization should be chartered to
develop and manage a rich portfolio of non-exploration research
activities on the ISS. To be clear, this organization would not be
intended to replace the office at NASA headquarters but rather to
greatly augment its efforts. This organization also would not replace
any of the responsibilities of NASA's Payloads Office, which serves to
integrate requirements for flight research across all users of the ISS
including exploration and non-exploration research, but rather work
hand-in-hand with this group.
An effective ISS research management organization would have a
number of key responsibilities in supporting the ISS National Lab:
1. Perform outreach to scientists across multiple disciplines
such as physics, materials science, life science, biomedicine,
chemistry, Earth science, etc. The organization would educate
scientists and others on the known effects of gravity, the
space environment and other space attributes and how conducting
studies on the ISS might benefit their research. The ISS would
essentially be marketed to prospective university, government
and commercial users. The goal would be to identify researchers
whose work could benefit the most from utilizing the ISS and
develop a substantial portfolio of prospective R&D projects.
2. Develop a selection process to prioritize and support the
best research from a regularly updated list of candidates. The
goal would be to serve as a fair broker in selecting research,
particularly when flight resources are constrained, based on
criteria that would be established by the organization when it
is formed.
3. Work to seamlessly integrate and fly research as a turn-key
operation. The goal would be to take responsibility for the
onerous process of flying research so that the scientists can
focus solely on their science.
4. Work closely with the ISS Payloads Office to streamline the
process of integrating and certifying research for flight. The
goal would be to shorten the payload processing timeline as
much as possible so as to maximize the productivity of the ISS
National Lab.
5. Maintain a database with key specifications for all space
flight research hardware that might be used on the ISS. In some
cases, the organization might maintain an inventory of flight
hardware and make this hardware available, as needed. The goal
would be to match the best available hardware with a particular
research project to avoid duplicate hardware development.
6. Assist NASA to archive results from work performed on the
ISS and effectively communicate these results to the public.
ISS National Lab Utilization Costs
Performing research in orbit is more expensive than comparable
ground-based research. Conducting a research investigation on the ISS
could include 1) the cost of the science itself (research team,
materials, analyses, etc.), 2) the cost for development of new hardware
necessary to meet the science objectives, 3) the costs for payload
integration, operations, preparation and flight certification, 4) the
costs of transportation to and from the Space Station and, 5) use of
the ISS and associated resources (power, crew time, volume, etc.).
Within the concept of ISS as a National Lab, it is appropriate that
the research sponsor or beneficiary would cover the cost of the
research itself. This expectation would apply whether the work was
being sponsored by a commercial, academic or government organization.
In short, whoever brings research ideas forward and expects to benefit
from those ideas should cover the full costs for executing the
research.
On the other end of the spectrum, it is currently NASA's policy to
cover the costs associated with Space Shuttle transportation and the
use of the ISS utilization resources. Compared with the costs being
borne by NASA to launch the Shuttle, and assemble and operate the ISS,
costs for transporting research and use of ISS resources for
utilization are certainly marginal. Assuming that the costs for use of
ISS resources continue to be covered by NASA for the foreseeable
future, the obvious question is what happens to the transportation
costs after the ISS is complete and the Space Shuttle is retired in
2010? Without doubt, this question poses a significant risk to ISS R&D
productivity post-assembly complete. Transportation costs for ISS
National Lab research communities after 2010 need to be understood as
soon as possible so they can be taken into account in laying a plan for
productive ISS utilization. I'll address more on the subject of
transportation shortly.
Cost categories 2 and 3 present a different type of challenge. The
costs of developing new hardware and meeting all of the NASA
requirements associated with safety, integration, operations and flight
certification can be significant. These costs are not ones that are
normally associated with terrestrial research and, as such, even with
the transportation cost excepted, the cost for conducting a research
investigation on the ISS may be anywhere from two- to tenfold higher
than a comparable ground investigation. These costs could impose a high
barrier to research utilization of the ISS. Passing these costs to the
end user will discourage high-risk, high-payoff research on the ISS.
One obvious solution might be to provide modest funding to the ISS
National Lab management organization so the organization can assume the
responsibility for performing and meeting all NASA payload integration,
operations and flight requirements. If research is selected for flight
through an appropriate prioritization and vetting process, then the ISS
National Lab organization could assume the responsibility and costs for
its execution in orbit. This approach would have the important
advantage that neither the research sponsor nor the science team will
need to learn the daunting process for integrating and certifying an
investigation for flight. At the same time, more high-risk, high-payoff
experiments will be possible.
ISS National Lab Utilization Transportation
After the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010, the options for
transporting research between Earth and the ISS become limited. At this
point, the U.S. Space Shuttle, the Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles
and now the European Space Agency's Autonomous Transfer Vehicle are the
only means for transporting research equipment, supplies and samples.
By 2009-2010, the H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) being developed by JAXA
should have a similar capability to transport cargo to the ISS. Of
these, only the Space Shuttle has significant capacity for transport
back to Earth and yet it will be retired exactly at the time that
research on the ISS should be significantly stepped up. Without a
solution to this dilemma, ISS National Lab utilization will be
crippled. The only research that will be practically possible, other
than exploration research involving the station crews as test subjects,
will be research where data are generated on-orbit and samples and
payload equipment are considered disposable and incinerated in the
atmosphere after use. While this approach might work for some
investigations, the technology necessary to do this on a large scale on
the ISS has not been developed nor are there any plans to do so.
NASA should be credited for pursuing commercial options for ISS
resupply. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services or COTS
providers may help to solve the transportation problem for the ISS
National Lab. The release by NASA only recently of the request for
proposals for Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) represents a critical step
forward and suggests a certain level of confidence that one or more
COTS providers will step up and be able to meet the cargo resupply and
sample return needs of NASA and the ISS. To be clear, the solicitation
appears to only cover NASA's needs for logistics and science materials
and equipment. The solicitation does not cover ISS National Lab
research users. Instead, NASA's expectation is that prospective ISS
National Lab users will independently negotiate transportation to meet
their needs.
There are two concerns with NASA's approach to the CRS procurement
from the perspective of ISS National Lab users.
First, in planning for success with the ISS National Lab, there
will be many different users needing to make transportation
arrangements. Clearly, having multiple organizations, such as
individual companies, agencies, government labs, even individual
scientists, all approaching the successful COTS provider for a ride
will create some degree of chaos. More importantly, it is not clear how
coordination between ISS National Lab users and NASA (logistics
resupply and exploration science) will be done. It is my opinion that
the ISS National Lab will be most productive if research material can
be transported both up and down on a schedule of 4-5 times per year or
more. This schedule will provide the greatest flexibility to meet the
requirements of multiple end users. ISS National Lab users should be
included on every NASA procured shipment. This will require careful
coordination between the ISS National Lab management organization and
NASA. For now while the Cargo Resupply Services are being procured,
NASA needs to plan to include perhaps 20-25 percent of the volume on
each supply mission for the ISS National Lab work.
Second, the cost of this component of the research, as mentioned
above, could be the most severe challenge of all. Without knowing the
charges for transportation that the selected Cargo Resupply Services
providers will decide is needed to allow them to recoup their
investment, it is difficult to know how to predict this critical cost
component. However, as a point of reference, a reasonable approximation
that has been previously used is $20,000 to launch and return a
kilogram of mass. Of course the actual charge could be different,
either higher or lower. Based on this value, one modest sized
experiment, comparable to what is currently flown in the Shuttle mid-
deck, would cost over $600,000 to transport to and from the ISS. Add
the cost of integration, operations and safety certification (category
3 discussed above) and an experiment may cost $1,000,000. Add the cost
of any modest new hardware development, if suitable existing hardware
cannot be found, and the cost for a single experiment may reach as high
as $2,000,000, a cost prohibitive to most research sponsors.
Conducting research on the ISS National Lab is going to require 5-
10 times the investment for comparable research on the ground. The
transportation element is a significant portion of this cost. As
previously stated, if this cost must be fully borne by the ISS National
Lab users, then there will be a very high barrier that many end users
may choose not to cross. This will have the unfortunate effect of
precluding a number of excellent ideas and projects from going forward
under the ISS National Lab. Keep in mind that some of the best and most
successful ideas originate with entrepreneurial individuals or start-up
companies, which may have little investment capital on hand.
The issue of transportation and cost go hand in hand. One solution
might be for the ISS National Lab management organization, if it were
to be established, to be given sufficient funding outside of NASA to
negotiate transportation contracts with the COTS providers on behalf of
all ISS National Lab users. This would need to be done working with
NASA to ensure sufficient capacity could be made available on each
delivery mission to the ISS for ISS National Lab users.
The greatest risk to the ISS National Lab failing to deliver on its
research potential, in my opinion, is that the COTS providers may not
succeed in developing an ISS re-supply capability soon enough or
perhaps at all. Even though NASA is investing $500M into this program,
considerably more investment capital is required from each of the COTS
companies for these new rocket and spacecraft systems to be developed
and tested and to meet NASA's safety requirements to dock with the ISS.
Having a successful commercial transportation provider is strategically
and technically important to the U.S. Without a U.S. provider, we will
be purchasing extensive services from the Russians (Progress and Soyuz
vehicles) and there will still be insufficient return mass capability
to meet anyone's needs. All ISS research, including that of NASA and
the ISS National Lab, will be crippled. While there is no simple
solution to this issue, it is one that NASA should carefully consider,
perhaps with the development of a contingency plan to assist any
selected Commercial Resupply Services providers, if they encounter
major technical difficulties.
Summary of Key Points and Recommendations
<bullet> The ISS National Lab has tremendous potential to
advance the interests of the Nation in commerce, science,
medicine, technology and education.
<bullet> Not enough is being done to ensure that the ISS
National Lab will succeed in what should be the most productive
time for the highly capable ISS facility after assembly is
complete. Given the finite period of time that it can be safely
assumed to be operational, perhaps only 5-10 years, it will be
very important to accommodate as many of the best research and
development ideas as possible.
<bullet> Transportation of research utilization equipment and
materials to and from the ISS with a frequency of at least 4-5
times per year is critical. With the Shuttle retiring in 2010,
the only other viable option will be for one or more COTS
providers to be successful at developing new launch vehicles
and docking-capable spacecraft. NASA is pursuing this solution
with the recently released solicitation for Cargo Resupply
Services.
<bullet> Recommendations
a. NASA should proceed to identify and select an ISS
National Lab management organization as soon as
possible. (Described in NASA's Plan for the ISS
National Laboratory.) Time is of the essence when
considering what must be done to set the stage for full
ISS National Lab utilization after 2010. Use of a Space
Act Agreement to form a public-private partnership
could allow this to be done relatively quickly.
b. Once it is formed, the ISS National Lab management
organization should be given adequate resources to
identify, manage and support a rich portfolio of
utilization projects. The organization should not cover
science costs, as those will be the responsibility of
the research sponsor, but should be structured to cover
some or all of the additional costs (hardware,
integration, operations, transportation, etc.) not
normally associated with terrestrial research. This
approach could change over time as demand for the ISS
increases where more and more of the full costs are
covered by the end users.
c. NASA should plan to fully accommodate ISS National
Lab transportation needs in their effort to secure
Cargo Resupply Services. At the least, this should
include setting aside 20-25 percent of the up and down
volume and mass on any given ISS resupply vehicle, even
if that means that the number of total commercial
launches per year must be increased.
Biography for Louis S. Stodieck
Louis S. Stodieck, Ph.D. is the Director of BioServe Space
Technologies and Associate Research Professor in Aerospace Engineering
Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Dr. Stodieck earned
his doctorate in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Colorado,
Boulder in 1985. His research focus was biomedical engineering. He
trained for two years as a postdoctoral Medical Research Council Fellow
in the Department of Physiology at the University of British Columbia.
He returned to the University of Colorado in 1987 to take a position as
Associate Director for Technical Affairs for BioServe Space
Technologies, a newly-formed NASA-sponsored Commercial Space Center.
The Center's mission was to engage the private sector in conducting
space life sciences research and development. Dr. Stodieck became
Director of BioServe in 1999 where he currently leads an organization
of approximately 25 faculty, staff and students. During his tenure at
BioServe, Dr. Stodieck has overseen extensive ground-based research and
over 40 space-based research payloads flown on the Space Shuttle, Mir
Space Station and International Space Station. As a result of Dr.
Stodieck's strong leadership BioServe is widely recognized for its
successful partnerships with large and small biotechnology,
pharmaceutical, biomedical and agricultural companies and for its
highly successful, cost effective and innovative commercial space
flight research program. Based in the College of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, BioServe is also well regarded for providing high
quality and unique hands-on educational opportunities for the next
generation of scientists and engineers involved in space exploration.
Dr. Stodieck's current research focuses on the development of
countermeasures to the deleterious effects of space flight on human
health especially in regard to space flight-induced bone and muscle
loss. He has authored or co-authored 24 peer reviewed journal
publications and over 40 conference papers in the fields of biomedical
engineering and space life sciences research and hardware development.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Stodieck.
Dr. Nickerson.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHERYL A. NICKERSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
LIFE SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS
DISEASES AND VACCINOLOGY, THE BIODESIGN INSTITUTE, ARIZONA
STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Nickerson. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to appear today before you to
testify. My name is Cheryl Nickerson. I am an Associate
Professor in the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology
at the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. I have
been the principal investigator on multiple NASA-funded life
science experiments. I serve as a consultant to the NASA Life
Sciences Program at the Johnson Space Center, and I was honored
to have been selected as a NASA astronaut candidate finalist in
2003.
In your invitation letter today you posed a series of
questions to me regarding the utilization prospects by ISS
research that I would like to now address in sequence.
First, what had been the nature of my space-based research,
and what had been my findings to date? My research focuses on
understanding the molecular mechanisms of infectious disease
and specifically on the affect of space flight on the molecular
mechanisms of infectious disease, with an important emphasis on
the microbial pathogen response.
Infectious disease is responsible for 35 percent of all
deaths globally, and it is the world's largest killer of
children and young adults. The economic impact on the U.S.
alone from infectious disease exceeds $120 billion annually,
and of course, future threats loom on the horizon for us
globally as well, including new and re-emerging infectious
diseases for which we do not have sufficient treatments,
antibiotic resistance strains, and always the potential for the
intentional misuse of microbial pathogens as agents of
bioterrorism. Clearly then new treatment and prevention
paradigms are desperately needed.
My space flight research is focused on the bacterial
pathogen Salmonella, which is a global threat to public health
and it counts for approximately 30 percent of all deaths from
food-borne illness in the United States. From NASA's
perspective Salmonella is considered a potential source of
infection during space flight that could incapacitate crew
members during a mission. However, there are currently no human
vaccines to prevent Salmonella food-borne illness.
I applaud NASA's foresight in funding our space flight
research in the field of infectious diseases, as well as the
awesome engineers for building this wonderful ISS craft. The
connection between space flight and infectious diseases was not
immediately clear 10 years ago when NASA originally funded our
research. Based on our early findings using ground base space
flight analogs, NASA awarded us a grant to investigate the
effect of true space flight on Salmonella disease-causing
ability, which we call virulence, and gene expression results.
This experiment flew on STS-115 in September of '06, and the
results were remarkable. They showed that space flight
increased the virulence of this important pathogen and globally
altered its gene expression profiles by changing 167 genes.
Now, the interesting part about that is it not only
increased its disease-causing potential and changed all these
expression of genes, but it did so in unique ways that are not
observed using traditional experimental approaches in the
laboratory. So what we have done is we have been able to
discover new ways that this important human pathogen causes
disease in the host.
We also discovered a key master regulatory mechanism that
controls the vast majority of the Salmonella's responses to the
space flight environment. This molecular target, along with
others that we identified in my laboratory, holds real
potential to be translated into new therapeutics and new
vaccines to treat and prevent human enteric food-borne illness
caused by Salmonella.
Our findings were published in the proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. The success of our flight
experiment on STS-115 inspired a follow-up experiment on STS-
123, which just flew in March, 2008, and the results from that
are equally exciting, and we are looking forward to publishing
those within the next one to two months.
An important part of our space flight work is helping us to
understand, therefore, how microbial pathogens cause infectious
disease here on Earth, and likewise, then using space flight as
a novel, enabling research platform to translate those
innovations into infectious disease control here for the
general public on Earth. Shortly we expect NASA and the public
to receive a direct benefit from their investment in our work.
Second, what is my perspective on the future potential for
the use of microgravity environment as a research tool? It is
simple. The microgravity of space flight offers a unique
environment for ground-breaking biotechnology and biomedical
advances and discoveries to globally advance human health. Not
just in infectious diseases but in some of the major health
illnesses here that we worry about globally. Cancer, aging,
bone and muscle wasting diseases, and tissue engineering. And
it will have a long-lasting impact on our nation's scientific
capability, economy, and the quality of our lives.
Many breakthroughs in life sciences research have come from
studying living systems in extreme environments. The
environment of space flight offers insight into fundamental
cellular and molecular response mechanisms that are directly
relevant to human health and disease and which cannot be
observed using traditional experimental approaches in the lab.
Third, and my final question. What are any potential
applications of the basic research I have conducted to date or
intend to pursue? The investment that NASA has made in our
research for innovations in infectious disease treatment and
control will provide long-lasting return in the protection of
humans as they explore space and for the general public here on
Earth.
An example of the potential boom from space flight
experiments is my laboratory's discovery that gene regulatory
proteins participate in the space flight response of microbial
pathogens. Gene regulatory proteins affect every property of a
cell, including its ability to cause disease. My lab is
currently studying how this regulatory and these regulatory
pathways work in Salmonella and other important human pathogens
and how they can be manipulated to control microbial virulence
and subsequently, how those findings can be translated to the
design of new drugs and new vaccines with clinical
applications.
One key to our nation's economic success has been its
ability to consistently provide unique answers to the world's
problems. We have the opportunity here and now to advance in a
field where the U.S. is a world leader. I firmly believe that
space exploration and development will be one of the defining
activities of our nation that will lead the world in this new
millennium.
And I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Nickerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl A. Nickerson
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
to appear before you today to testify. My name is Cheryl Nickerson, and
I am an Associate Professor in the Center for Infectious Diseases and
Vaccinology at the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. My
research focuses on understanding the molecular mechanisms and
processes of infectious disease, with an important emphasis on
investigating the unique effect of space flight on microbial pathogen
responses. NASA's support of my research has resulted in multiple space
flight experiments, which have provided novel insight into how
microbial pathogens cause infection both during flight and on Earth,
and hold promise for new drug and vaccine development to combat
infectious disease.
Through awards such as the Presidential Early Career Award for
Scientists and Engineers, and independent research funding from grants
totaling over three million dollars, NASA has consistently recognized
my laboratory's contributions to the United States Space Program into
infectious disease risks for the crew during space flight and the
general public here on Earth. I also serve as a scientific consultant
for NASA at the Johnson Space Center in support of their efforts to
determine and mitigate microbial risks to the crew during flight, and
was honored to be selected as a NASA Astronaut candidate finalist for
the Astronaut class of 2004. That being said, the views expressed in
today's testimony are my own, but I believe they reflect community
concerns.
In your invitation letter asking me to testify before you today you
asked a series of questions regarding the utilization prospects of ISS
research that I would like to address now in sequence.
1. What has been the nature of your space-based research, and what
have been your findings to date?
I would like to begin by applauding NASA's foresight in funding our
space flight research in the field of infectious disease. We were
initially funded by NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research
and are currently funded by both the Advanced Capabilities Division and
the Human Research Program in the Explorations Systems Mission
Directorate. The connection between space flight and its influence on
infectious disease was not immediately clear 10 years ago when NASA
initially funded our research. As a result, NASA's support of my
research through multiple space flight experiments has allowed us to
provide novel insight into the molecular mechanisms that microbial
pathogens use to cause infectious disease both during flight and on
Earth, and has exciting implications for translation into human health
benefits, including the development of new drugs and vaccines for
treatment and prevention.
While the eradication or control of many microbial diseases has
dramatically improved the health outlook of our society, infectious
diseases are still a leading cause of human death and illness
worldwide. Infectious disease causes 35 percent of deaths worldwide,
and is the world's biggest killer of children and young adults. Within
the United States, infectious disease has a tremendous social,
economic, and security impact. Total cost for infectious disease in the
U.S. exceeds $120 billion annually due to direct medical and lost
productivity costs. Moreover, the future is threatened by new and re-
emerging infectious diseases, an alarming increase in antibiotic
resistance, and the use of microbial agents as a bioterrorist threat.
Thus, research platforms that offer new insight into how pathogens
cause infection and disease are desperately needed and will lead to
novel strategies for treatment and prevention.
To enhance our understanding of how pathogens cause disease in the
infected host, my laboratory uses innovative approaches to investigate
the molecular mechanisms of infectious disease. It was this search for
novel approaches that drove our initial investigations with NASA
technology. As flight experiments are a rare opportunity, our early
experimental efforts concentrated on the use of a unique bioreactor,
called the Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV), designed at the NASA Johnson
Space Center in Houston as a ground-based space flight analogue. The
RWV bioreactor allows scientists to culture cells (microbial or
mammalian) in the laboratory under conditions that mimic several
aspects of space flight and can be used to induce many of the
biological changes that occur during space flight. In addition, by
using mathematical modeling, we found that this analogue, and true
space flight, produce an environment that is relevant to conditions
encountered by the pathogen during infection in the human host--thus
enhancing the relevance of our findings for the development of new
strategies to combat infectious disease on Earth.
We chose the model bacterial pathogen Salmonella typhimurium for
both our space flight analogue and space flight studies, as it is the
best characterized pathogen and poses a risk to both the crew during
flight and the general public on Earth. Salmonella is the most readily
and fully understood pathogen and belongs to a large group of bacteria
whose natural habitat is the intestinal tract of humans and animals.
This group includes most of the bacteria that cause intestinal and
diarrheal disease, considered to be one of the greatest health problems
globally. Indeed, Salmonella infection is one of the most common food-
borne infections worldwide. In the United States an estimated 1.41
million cases occur, resulting in 168,000 visits to physicians, 15,000
hospitalizations and 580 deaths annually. Salmonella accounts for
approximately 30 percent of deaths caused by food-borne infections in
the United States, and is even more detrimental in the developing
world. The total cost associated with Salmonella infections in the U.S.
is estimated at three billion dollars annually. Moreover, in 1984,
Salmonella was used in a bioterrorism attack by a religious cult in
Oregon to cause a community-wide outbreak of food-borne illness in an
attempt to influence the outcome of a local election. The organism is
also an excellent choice for NASA as it is considered a potential
threat to crew health as a food contaminant. There are currently no
human vaccines to prevent Salmonella food-borne illness.
Using the RWV ground-based technology, we conducted preliminary
studies showing that Salmonella responded to this environment by
globally altering its gene expression, stress resistance, and disease
causing (virulence) profiles, thereby improving our chance of success
and need for a space flight experiment. Subsequent analysis of the
genes that were expressed after growth in this analogue suggested that
the environment induced unique molecular mechanisms in the microbe to
cause disease. Our information from these early experiments provided
NASA with new insight toward understanding the risk of infection during
flight. In addition, the unique molecular mechanisms that were
identified held the potential to be used to develop new therapeutics
and vaccines for the general public on Earth.
NASA and the scientific community continued their support of our
ground-based findings by awarding us a grant to investigate the effect
of true space flight on Salmonella virulence and gene expression
responses. This was an exciting opportunity for us, as while the RWV
bioreactor can simulate some aspects of the space flight environment,
it cannot duplicate all of the physical parameters that organisms
encounter during space flight or their biological responses. In
September 2006, our first space flight experiment flew aboard STS-115,
and we investigated the comprehensive changes in Salmonella when
exposed to the truly unique environment of microgravity. The results
from this experiment were remarkable and showed that during space
flight, Salmonella altered its virulence and gene expression responses
in unique ways that are not observed using traditional experimental
approaches. These findings immediately advanced our knowledge of
microbial responses to space flight and disease causing mechanisms used
by this important human pathogen. Our first technical report from this
space flight experiment was recently published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, and our results demonstrated changes
in Salmonella disease causing potential (virulence) during flight as
compared to identical samples that were grown on the ground.
Specifically, our findings demonstrated that space flight increased the
virulence of Salmonella, and the pathogen was able to cause disease at
lower doses. In addition, we identified 167 genes in Salmonella that
changed expression in response to space flight. The identity of these
genes allowed us to discover a key ``master switch'' regulatory
mechanism that controls Salmonella responses to space flight
environments. This molecular target, and others that we identified,
hold potential to be translated into new therapeutic and vaccine
approaches to treat and prevent human enteric salmonellosis.
This experiment was a ``first of its kind'' in space flight
biological study. It was the first study ever to investigate the effect
of space flight on the disease-causing potential (virulence) of a
pathogen, and the first ever to obtain the entire gene expression
response profiles of a bacterium to space flight. In fact, very few
studies contain data that document gene expression changes during space
flight. It is also critical to mention that an important part of our
space flight work is directly related to helping us understand how
microbial pathogens cause infectious disease here on Earth. This is
possible because the unique environment of space flight encountered by
microorganisms (including pathogens) are also relevant to conditions
that these cells encounter here on Earth during the normal course of
their life cycles, including certain niches within the infected host,
such as parts of the human intestine. Thus, an exciting part of this
work is the opportunity to use space flight and the ISS as a novel
enabling research platform for innovations in infectious disease
control here on Earth--including novel insight into how pathogens cause
disease and for the development of new therapeutics and vaccines for
treatment and prevention.
The success of our flight experiment aboard STS-115 inspired a
follow-up experiment aboard STS-123, which just flew in March 2008.
While the data is still being analyzed, our preliminary findings are
leading toward translational applications of our original data for the
development of novel strategies to treat and prevent infection and
disease during flight and here on Earth. Shortly, we expect NASA and
the public to receive a direct benefit from their investment.
The ISS holds tremendous potential to provide novel insight into
human health and disease mechanisms that can lead to ground-breaking
new treatments to combat infectious disease and improve the quality of
life.
2. What is your perspective on the future potential for use of the
microgravity environment as a research tool?
The microgravity of space flight offers a unique environment for
ground-breaking biotechnology and biomedical innovations and
discoveries to globally advance human health in the following areas:
- Infectious disease
- Immunology
- Cancer
- Aging
- Bone and muscle wasting diseases
- Development of biopharmaceuticals
- Tissue engineering
It is not surprising that biological systems respond in novel ways
to the space flight environment. Many breakthroughs in life sciences
research have come from studying living systems in unique and extreme
environments. It is from studying the response of biological systems
under these environments that we have not only gained new fundamental
insight into how they function and adapt to extreme conditions, but
have also translated these findings into beneficial biotechnology and
biomedical advances to improve our quality of life. Space flight is
simply the next logical progression and extreme environment to study
that holds tremendous potential to provide the next ground-breaking
advances in public health.
The ISS provides a unique environment where researchers can explore
fundamental questions about human health--like how the body heals
itself and develops disease. Specifically, the ISS offers an orbiting
laboratory to use microgravity as a tool to bring a new technological
approach to understanding living systems and discover basic mechanisms
we haven't seen before. That is because organisms and cells respond in
unique ways to space flight and exhibit characteristics relevant to
human health and disease that they do not when cultured using
traditional conditions on Earth. Accordingly, cellular and molecular
mechanisms that underlie disease can be studied, offering new
opportunities to see how cells operate in these conditions, and giving
new fundamental insight into the disease process. Many of these
findings may translate directly to the clinical setting for novel ways
to diagnose, treat and prevent disease here on Earth. This type of
research creates exciting new opportunities for the utilization of ISS
to advance the frontiers of knowledge and act as a commercial platform
for breakthrough biomedical and biotechnological discoveries. I believe
it is important to take advantage of this unique research facility to
develop new advances in biotech and biomedicine that will globally
advance human health and benefit the United States in the international
economy.
Thus, it is anticipated that ISS life sciences research will lead
to ground-breaking discoveries and innovations in human health, biotech
and biomedical innovations, and will have a lasting impact on our
nation's scientific capability, economy, and quality of our lives.
3. What are any potential applications of the basic research you have
conducted to date or intend to pursue?
The investment that NASA has made in our research for innovations
in infectious disease treatment and control will provide long lasting
return in the protection of humans as they explore space and for the
general public here on Earth. Regarding protection of the crew, the
negative impacts of infectious disease range from impeded crew
performance to potentially life threatening scenarios. As humans travel
further away from our home planet, the risk to crew health and mission
success becomes even greater. As we gain greater knowledge of the risks
of microbial infection, prudent preventative operational activities,
therapeutics, and other countermeasures can be implemented to mitigate
the risk to the crew and mission success.
Perhaps the greatest application from this research will not apply
directly to space flight, but rather to improving the quality of life
on Earth through the development of novel strategies to combat
infection and disease. Internationally, we face many challenges to our
health by microbial threats. Antibiotic resistant strains are on the
rise, regional diseases are expanding to new locations, the threat of
bioterrorism looms, and a multitude of diseases have insufficient
treatments. New treatment paradigms and testing methods are desperately
needed. The knowledge from space flight experiments is providing novel
insight into how microbes cause disease in the human body and is
providing new targets for therapeutic and vaccine development. The goal
is to identify target mechanisms in space and then investigate these
mechanisms on Earth. By understanding more fully how these organisms
function and react to novel stimuli, we can develop new methods to
treat and prevent the spread of infectious agents.
In addition, the knowledge gained from space flight research can
advance and accelerate therapeutic development and implementation of
new strategies for translation of this research into health benefits
for the developing world. The costs of therapeutics and vaccine
development can be prohibitively high. Bringing a new drug to market
can cost in excess of one billion dollars over a decade before it
reaches the patient. If the knowledge gained from space flight studies
provides even an incremental decrease in these costs and timelines
(which studies strongly suggest is the case), then this research is of
tremendous importance.
An example of a potential boon from space flight experiments is our
laboratory's discovery that gene regulatory proteins participate in the
space flight mechanistic response of microbial pathogens. Gene
regulatory proteins affect every property of a cell including its
ability to cause disease. Our laboratory is currently focusing on how
this regulatory pathway works in Salmonella and how it can be
manipulated to control that organism's virulence in flight and here on
Earth. Once understood, we will use that knowledge to see which other
microorganisms can be controlled in a similar fashion. A detailed
understanding of how these gene regulatory proteins are controlled may
offer new opportunities to design efficacious drugs and vaccines that
would target this class of protein.
It is also relevant to note that there are exciting efforts
underway to develop a nationwide Biotechnology Space Research Alliance
(BSRA) Consortium that partners a world-class team of industry,
university, and economic development organizations across the country
to partner with NASA to utilize the ISS for breakthrough biomedical and
biotechnology discoveries. It is anticipated that the discoveries made
on ISS will engender scientific knowledge, technological capability,
and commerce on Earth as a gateway to 21st Century exploration and
development of space.
One key to our nation's economic success has been its ability to
provide unique answers to the world's problems. We have the opportunity
to advance in a field where the United States is a world leader. I
believe space exploration and development will be one of the defining
activities for our nation that will lead the world in this new
millennium.
Biography for Cheryl A. Nickerson
Dr. Nickerson is an Associate Professor at The Biodesign Institute
in the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology at Arizona State
University. She obtained a B.S. in Biology at Tulane University/Newcomb
College (1983), a M.S. degree in Genetics from the University of
Missouri (1988), and a Ph.D. in Microbiology from Louisiana State
University (1994). Her postdoctoral internship in microbial
pathogenesis and infectious disease research was done at Washington
University in St. Louis, MO, in the laboratory of Dr. Roy Curtiss III.
In 1998, Dr. Nickerson joined the Tulane University School of Medicine
as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology and
Immunology, where in 2003 she received tenure and appointment to
Associate Professor. While at Tulane, she also served as the Director
for the Tulane Center of Excellence in Bioengineering, and as Co-
Director of the Tulane Environmental Astrobiology Center. In January
2006, Dr. Nickerson joined the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State
University as an Associate Professor in the Center for Infectious
Diseases and Vaccinology.
Dr. Nickerson's research interests are focused on understanding how
microbial pathogens cause infection and disease in humans, both on
Earth and in space flight. By combining cell biology and microbiology
with engineering and mathematics, she has been at the forefront of
space biosciences and the emerging field called cellular biomechanics,
making several fundamental discoveries in these fields. Her research
has contributed important new insight into how mechanical forces like
microgravity and fluid shear affect the function and behavior of living
cells, and ultimately, play an important role in infectious disease.
The results of Dr. Nickerson's NASA-funded work have been published in
high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, including Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Infection and Immunity, and Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. She is recognized internationally for her
work and has won several prestigious awards including the Presidential
Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers from NASA--presented by
President George W. Bush at the White House (2001); the Charles C.
Randall Award for Outstanding Young Faculty Member from the American
Society for Microbiology (2000); Woman of the Year, New Orleans, LA,
presented by New Orleans City Business (2002); Outstanding Newcomb
College Alumnae (2004), and selection by NASA as an Astronaut Candidate
Finalist (2003). She also serves as a Scientific Consultant for the
NASA Life Sciences Division at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX.
Experimental payloads from Dr. Nickerson's laboratory have flown on-
board NASA Space Shuttle missions STS-112, STS-115, STS-123, and the
International Space Station.
A landmark experiment from Dr. Nickerson's lab recently flew on
Shuttle mission STS-115, and was the first study to examine the effect
of space flight on the virulence (disease-causing potential) of a
microbial pathogen, and the first to obtain the entire gene expression
response of a bacterium to space flight. The results from this
experiment were remarkable and showed that during space flight, the
bacterial pathogen Salmonella increased its virulence and altered its
gene expression responses in unique ways that are not observed using
traditional experimental approaches. The results from this work have
provided novel insight into the molecular mechanisms that microbial
pathogens use to cause infectious disease both during flight and on
Earth, and has exciting implications for translation into human health
benefits, including the development of new drugs and vaccines for
treatment and prevention.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Nickerson.
Mr. Pickens.
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS BOONE PICKENS, III, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPACEHAB, INC.
Mr. Pickens. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to make my first appearance
before you today as the Chairman and CEO of SPACEHAB to discuss
the significance of NASA's International Space Station Program,
not just as it applies to commercial aerospace company, but
also for its tremendous potential to benefit mankind. I
represent the commercial perspective of microgravity and its
value.
First question was how does your company arrive at the
decision to pursue vaccine development under microgravity
conditions and other opportunities? SPACEHAB has long known the
value of the microgravity as our commercial modules and
carriers have been the primary payload on 23 Space Shuttle
missions in both the Space Station here and International Space
Station. We have flown over 1,500 experiments to space, and
much knowledge was discovered.
However, after reviewing these experiments I found that we
have only begun the discovery processes. While experiments were
sent to space, the ISS was under construction, and the
environment was not ideal for these sometimes very sensitive
samples.
But today the International Space Station is nearly
complete, and the ISS has been designated a national laboratory
available for commercial endeavors, setting the stage for a new
age in microgravity experimentation that shows strong
indications of great value both in commercial investment
returns and in saving and enhancing our lives here on Earth.
To take advantage of these unparalleled space-based
resources, SPACEHAB has initiated a new division. SPACEHAB's
Microgravity Processing division is uniquely qualified to
identify commercial microgravity processing opportunities
through our history of supporting microgravity research
activities and our wide range of partnerships with agencies and
industry leaders.
This division focuses on commercial R&D initiatives that
are aligned with the national lab capabilities, transportation
opportunities, and market demand.
To assist SPACEHAB in identifying these high-value
opportunities for commercialization, we formed a team of our
nation's leading microgravity researchers. SPACEHAB Science
Advisory Council is comprised of experts in microgravity life
sciences, biotechnology, and material sciences, and most of
these distinguished individuals have extensive experience with
microgravity.
The first step in this process is to gain access to the ISS
through a Space Act Agreement, and the next step is to
establish the appropriate public and private partnerships
required to execute an ISS National Lab project.
As an example, SPACEHAB has established a public
partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will
allow joint efforts in various biotechnology research and
product development in the national lab, leading to commercial
healthcare solutions.
Second question. Are there other applications of the
microgravity environment that you intend to pursue? And I will
go through those. The space environment has been, has shown to
induce key changes in microbial cells to, and are directly
relevant to infectious disease. The targets identified from
each of these microgravity-induced alterations represents an
opportunity to develop new and improved therapeutics, including
vaccines, as well as biological and pharmaceutical agents aimed
specifically at eradicating the pathogen. Furthermore, these
different targeted approaches each represent potential product
lines of development within the microgravity environment.
SPACEHAB has determined that one of the most valuable
short-term microgravity opportunities is in the development of
advanced vaccines that have the potential to be worth billions
of dollars while saving thousands and perhaps millions of
lives.
No single medical advance has had a greater historical
impact on human health than vaccines. Today vaccines continue
to be developed, providing hope to eradicate many diseases that
continue to kill millions every year as pandemic influenza,
AIDS, cancer, and instruments of bioterror.
An experiment that flew in the ISS in 2006, concluded that
bacteria grown in microgravity are much stronger than those
grown on Earth. This is a very important discovery as it
signaled to scientists that microgravity properly controlled
could be used to design vaccines much quicker and with much
greater precision than before possible.
As a result of these and other conclusions, SPACEHAB has
taken these composite findings to the next level in sponsoring
a microgravity vaccine development model that was sent to space
on the Space Shuttle during mission STS-123. The vaccine model
is scheduled to return on the STS-124 mission in May to confirm
the initial results. Once complete, this new space-based model
has the potential to significantly increase our ability to
develop vaccines for various types of infectious diseases.
Protein crystal growths, we call those PCGs, the cells of
the human body are the mini factories that enable life. What
divide all those factories to perform their specific functions
are the proteins that are synthesized within these cells. The
body utilizes approximately 400,000 of these proteins, and when
certain protein/cell functions become abnormal, a wide variety
of diseases and conditions may present themselves. Drugs can be
developed to alter the effects of these problem proteins, but
drug development is very difficult to accomplish on Earth and
for some of those more serious diseases, microgravity is
thought to hold the only solution for saving millions of lives
on Earth.
Diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Cystic Fibrosis are
only just a few of the diseases the microgravity is thought to
hold the potential to provide significant advancements in
developing a drug treatment.
A technique has been developed on Earth to discover drug
therapies that involves growing a very pure crystal that is
used to obtain an image of the atomic structure of a protein.
Once the crystal is obtained, a very high powered X-ray or X-
ray crystallography, reads the structure of the protein and
from this, a drug can be developed. It was discovered that when
crystals were grown in microgravity, the results are often
times a larger and better quality crystal that can be more
easily and accurately characterized, making it more possible to
develop a drug treatment that can treat these diseases.
The PCGs have flown more than any other experiment with an
estimated investment of over $400 million by NASA. SPACEHAB has
identified 1,250 Membrane Proteins and 425 Aqueous Proteins
that are ready for microgravity crystallization. The company
expect to send the first samples to the ISS for processing in
the third quarter of 2008. Upon return from space, these
crystals will be X-rayed and the data sold to drug development
companies. Alternatively, the company may choose to add more
value to the discovery by pursuing its own drug development
program.
Since the inception of the ISS, hundreds of experiments
have been conducted giving rise to additional opportunities to
provide Earth-based benefit. As NASA's mission priorities focus
on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, the designation of the
ISS as a national lab enables non-government entities to
partner with NASA to further the benefit of space-based
research and development. SPACEHAB intends to conduct its
national lab activities to move technology forward, provide
economic growth, stimulate the minds of our future engineers
and scientists, and to ultimately improve the quality of life
here on Earth.
The third question that I had was are the current, what are
the current perspectives in the financial community with
respect to underwriting R&D efforts that require the
microgravity environment of space? We are currently funding our
micro-G efforts with internal cash and financial assistance
from the State of Florida and its Space Florida Authority. The
fact that the ISS was designated as a national laboratory last
year went a long, long way to produce a--to putting an
environment together to attract capital.
Ultimately, the investment community needs to see
commercial product come back from micro-G in products sold, in
profits made. We feel confident that we can attract capital
from corporate and institutional investors as needed to provide
an acceptable return.
In closing, I would like to add the International Space
Station is unarguably the greatest achievement man has ever
accomplished. The ISS is the pyramids of our generations in the
aqueducts of our nation. The taxpayers of this country have
spent over $100 billion in its design and construction, and it
is a magnificent achievement that has included 19 countries in
this effort.
I want to take this moment to recognize the engineers, the
technicians, and politicians that have accomplished this great
feat, and I want to close by reminding you that this is the
time to take advantage of what we have built.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to
extend my sincere appreciation for having me here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Boone Pickens, III
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to make my first appearance before you today as the
Chairman and CEO of SPACEHAB, Inc. to discuss the significance of
NASA's International Space Station Program--not just as it applies to a
commercial aerospace company--but also for its tremendous potential to
benefit mankind.
SPACEHAB, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPAB), was incorporated in 1984 and made
its initial public offering in 1995. The Company flew its first module
on a Space Shuttle mission in 1993. To date, SPACEHAB modules and
carriers, which fly in NASA's Space Shuttle cargo bay, have been the
primary payload on 23 Space Shuttle missions, including research
missions on-board the fleet of orbiters, resupply missions to both the
Russian space station Mir, and the International Space Station (ISS).
The modules doubled the amount of working and living space available to
the astronaut crews. Over the course of our pressurized module program,
SPACEHAB has been involved in the analytical and physical integration
and operation of hundreds of microgravity research and science
payloads.
SPACEHAB has long known the value of microgravity; however there
has never been the environment to commercially exploit these
opportunities as the priorities of the international space partners
have been the construction of the ISS while performing rudimentary
experiments in microgravity. Additionally, until this year, the ISS has
simply not been in the state of completion that would have been able to
sustain repeated processing of microgravity products. And, until the
NASA Authorization Act of 2005, NASA has never considered commercial
ventures to profit from ISS produced products. Now that the
International Space Station is nearly complete, and the ISS has been
designated as a National Laboratory available for commercial endeavors,
the next obvious direction for SPACEHAB is to utilize its experience in
microgravity and commercial practices in forming a partnership with
NASA to demonstrate the efficacy of the commercial space industry. This
goal is achieved by the enhancement of life on Earth through the
advancement of a wide range of microgravity technologies from a
``demonstrated'' state to a production state.
To take advantage of these unparalleled space based resources
SPACEHAB has initiated a new division. SPACEHAB's Microgravity
Processing division is uniquely qualified to identify commercial
microgravity processing opportunities through our history of supporting
microgravity research activities and our wide range of partnerships
with agency and industry leaders. Additionally, SPACEHAB's Microgravity
Processing division is ideally positioned to implement these commercial
microgravity opportunities through the company's core capability of
planning, integrating, operating payloads and its proven experience in
commercial business practices. This division focuses on commercial R&D
activities that are aligned with the National Lab capabilities,
transportation opportunities and market demand.
SPACEHAB's Microgravity Processing division serves to advance both
the business and technical state-of-the-art. With the designation of
the ISS as a National Lab, SPACEHAB is establishing a broad portfolio
of commercialization initiatives that will advance the state of the
commercial space business sector to a level only previously theorized
by commercial space advocates. By migrating microgravity processing
initiatives from demonstration and validation to commercial production
initiatives, substantial progress is made in sample throughput by
adding to existing microgravity processing hardware the advanced
automation systems necessary for higher volumes.
To assist SPACEHAB in identifying those high-value opportunities
for commercialization, a team of our nation's leading microgravity
researchers has been formed. This Science Advisory Council, chaired by
SPACEHAB's MGP Program Manager, is comprised of experts in microgravity
life sciences, biotechnology and material sciences. The majority of the
council members are affiliated with educational institutions and will
also provide significant guidance and contribution to SPACEHAB-
developed educational programs used to motivate the next generation of
science and engineering professionals. Members of this council include:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Once a commercial opportunity has been identified, SPACEHAB will
develop a unique business plan to ensure the viability of the proposed
opportunity. Each business will utilize a systematic process to assure
all technical and financial aspects of each opportunity are aligned
with the goals and objectives of the National Lab and have a high
probability of success.
The first step in this process is to establish the appropriate
public and private partnerships required to execute an ISS National Lab
project. As an example, SPACEHAB has established a public partnership
with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will allow joint efforts
in various biotechnology research and product development on the
National Lab leading to commercial health care solutions. Additionally,
SPACEHAB is establishing partnerships with private commercial companies
to better ensure its success for the development of commercial products
utilizing the National Lab. SPACEHAB has established a commercial
partnership with Dynamac, the operator of the Space Life Sciences
Laboratory (SLSL) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). For 37 years,
Dynamac has been providing advanced science research and technology
services related to physical, chemical, and life science research
initiatives. Beginning in 1995, as the prime Life Sciences Services
Contractor (LSSC) for NASA-KSC, Dynamac scientists have helped process
more than 180 Shuttle and ISS flight experiments. In addition to
supporting Principle Investigators (PIs) world wide, Dynamac scientists
have designed, constructed, and processed over 10 flight experiments as
the primary PIs. This partnership arrangement utilizes their commercial
``work-for-others'' allocation in their SLSL contract allowing them to
support industry initiatives in microgravity research. Utilization of
their skills and this state of the art facility accommodates payload
preparation, in-flight data collection, payload control, and supports
post flight sample recovery and evaluation. The data network system
installed in the SLSL, and managed by Dynamac, allows payload
monitoring and control capability to both on-site and at off-site
SPACEHAB facilities.
SPACEHAB has developed a broad portfolio of opportunities in the
biotech and material science markets. We are working diligently to
match these opportunities with flight opportunities and funding
profiles. The overall objective is to have a dynamic matrix that can
quickly match opportunities with flight availability, market demand and
available resources. Some near-term targets include:
Infectious Disease
The space environment has been shown to induce key changes in
microbial cells that are directly relevant to infectious disease,
including alterations of microbial growth rates, antibiotic resistance,
microbial pathogenicity (that is, the ability of the organism to invade
human tissue and cause disease), organism virulence, and genetic
changes within the organism. The targets identified from each of these
microgravity-induced alterations represent an opportunity to develop
new and improved therapeutics, including vaccines, as well as
biological and pharmaceutical agents aimed specifically at eradicating
the pathogen. Furthermore, these different targeted approaches each
represent potential product lines of development within the
microgravity environment.
Understanding virulence factors is key to developing a vaccine.
Virulence refers to the degree of pathogenicity of a microbe, or in
other words, the relative ability of a microbe to cause disease.
Virulence factors must be identified, and either purified for use as a
vaccine, or the virulence factor can be deleted from the bacterium,
yielding an attenuated strain to use as a vaccine. Hence, vaccines may
consist of dead or inactivated organisms, or purified products derived
from them. As the development of antibiotic resistance continues to
erode one of the greatest advances in modern health care, it is crucial
to identify bacterial targets that can form the basis of novel anti-
infective therapies, including vaccines.
SPACEHAB has determined that one of the most valuable short-term
microgravity opportunities is the development of advanced vaccines that
have the potential to be worth billions of dollars and also represents
one of the quickest paths to success.
No single medical advance has had a greater impact on human health
than vaccines. Before vaccines, Americans could expect that every year
measles would infect four million children and kill 3,000; diphtheria
would kill 15,000 people, mostly teenagers; rubella (German measles)
would cause 20,000 babies to be born blind, deaf, or mentally retarded;
pertussis would kill 8,000 children, most of whom were less than one
year old; and polio would paralyze 15,000 children and kill 1,000.
Smallpox, a disease estimated to have killed 500 million people, was
eradicated by vaccines. Today, vaccines continue to be developed
providing hope to eradicate many diseases that continue to kill
millions every year such as pandemic influenza, staphylococcus, AIDS,
instruments of bioterror, and various types of cancers.
The frustration encountered by the biotech vaccine industry lays in
the cost of the discovering the exact strain of bacteria needed to
invigorate the immune system while causing no harm to the animal--
including humans. On Earth this is a very arduous process typically
taking many years with a low probability of success. However, an
experiment that flew to the ISS in 2006 concluded that bacteria grown
in microgravity are much stronger than those grown on Earth. This was a
very important discovery as it signaled to scientists that
microgravity, properly controlled, could be used to design vaccines
much quicker and with much greater precision than ever before possible.
Many other vaccine experiments have since been sent with similar
findings. As a result, SPACEHAB is taking these composite findings to
the next level and sponsoring a microgravity vaccine development model
that was sent to space on the Space Shuttle during mission STS-123. The
vaccine model is scheduled to return on the STS-124 mission in May to
confirm the initial results. The selected vaccine that SPACEHAB has
chosen is to combat the complex Salmonella bacteria that makes millions
sick every year, kills thousands, and costs many millions of dollars in
financial damages. SPACEHAB has teamed with the Department of Veterans
Affairs in collaboration with investigators from the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine, Duke
University Medical Center, University of Colorado at Boulder, and the
Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology. Results of this infectious
disease model will be made public in the coming months. Once complete
this new space based model has the potential to significantly increase
our ability to develop vaccines for various types of infectious
disease.
Proteins
The cells of the human body are the mini ``factories'' that enable
life. What drive all of those factories to perform their specific
functions are the proteins that are synthesized within those cells. The
body utilizes approximately 400,000 of these proteins and when certain
protein/cell functions become abnormal, a wide variety of diseases and
conditions may present themselves. Drugs can be developed to alter the
effects of these problem proteins, but drug development is very
difficult to accomplish on Earth and for some of the more serious
diseases, microgravity is thought to hold the only solution for saving
millions of lives on Earth. The following is a list of those diseases
that microgravity is thought to hold the potential to provide
significant advancements in developing a drug treatment:
<bullet> Diabetes
<bullet> Parkinson's
<bullet> Alzheimer's
<bullet> Lou Gehrig's disease
<bullet> Pancreas Cancer
<bullet> Cystic Fibrosis
<bullet> Hemophilia
Protein Crystal Growth (PCG)
A technique has been developed on Earth to discover drug therapies
that involves growing a very pure crystal that is used to obtain an
image of the atomic structure of a protein. Once the crystal is
obtained, a very high powered x-ray (x-ray crystallography) reads the
structure of the protein and from this, a drug can be developed. This
crystallography technique is routinely performed on Earth however it
has been found that gravity has a limiting effect on the growth and
quality of the crystals. It was discovered that when crystals are grown
in microgravity, the result is often times a larger and better quality
crystal that can be more easily and accurately characterized making it
more possible to develop a drug treatment that can treat these
diseases.
The PCG's have flown more than any other experiment with an
estimated investment of over $400 million to date. SPACEHAB has
identified 1,250 Membrane Proteins and 425 Aqueous Proteins that are
ready for microgravity crystallization. The Company expects to send the
first samples to the ISS for processing in the third quarter of 2008.
Upon return from space, these crystals will be x-rayed and the data
sold to drug development companies. Alternatively, the Company may
choose to add more value to the discovery by pursuing its own drug
development program.
Of the human body's approximately 400,000 proteins, nearly 30% are
considered membrane proteins and are, in fact, the types of proteins
involved in some of the higher mortality diseases thereby commanding
significant governmental and corporate research funding. While 30
percent represents well over 100,000 proteins, unfortunately only about
100 membrane protein structures have been identified due to the extreme
difficulty of growing membrane protein crystals of sufficient quality
for crystallography. To show the importance of membrane proteins and
despite low number identified, nearly 50 percent of the commercially
available drugs target membrane proteins. Given the improvements in
crystallography and drug design over the past 10 years, Vergara, notes
that the ``production of well diffracting crystals of biological
macromolecules remains a major impediment.''
Previous space flight activities indicated that growing protein
crystals in the microgravity environment experienced in spacecraft
offers significantly increased quality of protein crystals. These
better diffracting crystals create the opportunity to increase the
number of protein structures identified that can be used for new drug
development efforts.
As SPACEHAB's microgravity processing initiative gains momentum,
our business model is to reinvest in our own future. SPACEHAB will
continuously evaluate past microgravity research and emerging discovery
opportunities to drive our next generation microgravity processing
programs. This exploratory activity will be self-funded and will set as
a goal the continued demonstration to the American public the value of
the International Space Station.
From improved firefighting equipment derived from NASA's advances
in extra-vehicular mobility units (EMUs) to satellite tracking of
forest fires by NASA's Earth Observing System, the value of NASA's
research and development activities has been manifested countless times
here on Earth. Since the inception of the ISS, hundreds of experiments
have been conducted giving rise to additional opportunities to provide
Earth based benefit. As NASA's mission priorities focus on exploration
beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO), the designation of the ISS as a National
Lab enables non-government entities to partner with NASA to further the
benefit of space based research and development. SPACEHAB intends to
conduct National Lab activities on a broad portfolio of technologies in
the life sciences, biotechnology and material sciences arenas to move
technology forward, provide economic growth, stimulate the minds of our
future engineers and scientists, and to ultimately improve the quality
to life here on Earth. The SPACEHAB microgravity processing effort
directly benefits the public in multiple ways.
Through the establishment of our microgravity processing division
and initial on-orbit processing opportunities, SPACEHAB will raise
significant capital and re-invest this capital in established biotech
companies, universities, research centers, as well as our own MGP
division resulting in direct growth to local economies at our sites in
Texas and Florida. Furthermore, as we incrementally increase the scale
of our microgravity processing capabilities, we create job
opportunities within the aerospace industry in support of the on-orbit
facilities (i.e., rack facilities, etc.) development and operations,
the necessary ground infrastructure to support microgravity processing
preparation and flight operations, and non-traditional jobs in support
of product post processing and distribution. We are actively planning
the creation of new companies that are established as a result of the
products developed from our space based processing; these new companies
contribute positively to economic growth through additional job
creation and capital investment.
An integral component of the planned activities for utilization of
ISS as a National Laboratory is the development of education and
outreach initiatives for the advancement of 6-12 science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM). An education task force convened by
NASA has defined a role for private sector participation in this
important goal, and has extended this objective to also include
activities ranging to university, graduate and post-doctoral studies.
R&D activities in microgravity provide much opportunity in support of
educational initiatives. SPACEHAB has a rich history in this area,
specifically in the successful Space Technology and Research Students
(STARS) program, which provided hands-on, interactive scientific
learning for students from grammar through high school aboard the Space
Shuttle missions, including STS-107. Students from six countries
participated in the STS-107 mission and were directly involved in the
experimental concept, design, management, set-up and data assessment of
research conducted in microgravity. More than 40 countries expressed
interest in participating during the development of the STARS program.
This activity partnered with BioServe Space Technologies, and utilized
the Isothermal Containment Module (ICM) for the experimental studies.
BioServe has continued educational payload design--the Commercial
Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus Insert-02 (CGB-02) was successfully
deployed on STS-116 and provided data and imagery, via cameras
installed within the hardware, which were down-linked directly into
classrooms across the world via the World Wide Web. The CSI-02 is an
educational payload designed specifically to heighten the enthusiasm of
students in STEM and to provide opportunities for these students to
participate in near-real time research on ISS. Moreover, these
activities also raise national and international awareness of cutting
edge science and technology, and opportunities for product development
in microgravity. Partnerships to utilize ISS for educational endeavors
can be modeled after the STARS program for 6-12, with additional
outreach to the broader educator community to include teachers and
scientists in both academia and industry, and can be further extended
to educational program administrators for design of next-generation
programs in STEM disciplines. The development of training, internship
and shadowing programs designed to raise awareness of the commercial
sector as it pertains to microgravity R&D would also be an important
outcome of these educational initiatives.
In conjunction with the establishment of our MGP business unit,
SPACEHAB has undertaken the development of our microgravity processing
technology roadmap. With 23 successful SPACEHAB missions containing
numerous microgravity payloads, our engineers are experienced in end-
to-end microgravity payload processing including analytical
integration, comprehensive payload functional and interface testing,
physical integration, and payload flight operations. Leveraging this
unique experience in the development of our technology roadmap, our
efforts are focused on innovative concepts that move the state-of-the-
art in microgravity from small scale locker processing to large scale
rack processing on-orbit, on automation techniques that reduce the
required on-orbit crew time requirements, and to develop new techniques
for on-orbit data processing where results can be down-linked thereby
reducing the down-mass requirements.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to extend my
sincere appreciation for allowing me this forum to discuss a topic as
critical to our future as the International Space Station Program--as
well as your continued support which is vital for its success going
forward. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Biography for Thomas Boone Pickens, III
Mr. Tom B. Pickens, III is presently the Chief Executive Officer of
SPACEHAB, Incorporated, a Texas-based aerospace company, which has been
pioneering in providing commercial space services for nearly 25 years.
Mr. Pickens is also the Managing Partner of Texas Nanotech Ventures,
Inc., a leader in the global nanotechnology industry; and, the Managing
Partner and Founder of Tactic Advisors, Inc., a company specializing in
corporate turnarounds that have aggregated to more than $20 billion in
value. Concurrently, Mr. Pickens is President of T.B. Pickens & Co.,
which has acted as both advisor and principal of corporate acquisitions
now totaling more than $10 billion.
Mr. Pickens' financial and corporate streamlining experience began
in the Wall Street arena where he worked extensively in hedge fund
management and due diligence implementation. His unprecedented
experience with all facets of corporate turnaround and restructuring
including startup, growth, and value creation has gained him the
esteemed reputation of being one of the leading authorities in
corporate transactional matters. Mr. Pickens has been a member of
SPACEHAB's Board of Directors since 2003 and became the President and
Chief Executive Officer in January 2007.
Other notable contributions include acting as Founder and President
of Beta Computer Systems; Managing Partner, Grace Pickens Acquisition
Partners, LT; Managing Partner, Sumter Partners L.P.; Chairman and CEO
of Catalyst Energy Corporation (NYSE); Chairman, United Thermal
Corporation (NYSE); President, Golden Bear Corporation; President,
Slate Creek Corporation; President, Eury Dam Corporation; Chairman,
Century Power Corporation; President, Vidalia Hydroelectric
Corporation; Managing Partner, Pickens Capital Income Fund, L.P.;
Chairman, The Code Corporation; and President, U.S. Utilities, Inc. Mr.
Pickens has also served in the capacity representing the Office of the
Chairman, Mirant Equity Committee (NYSE) and Director, Optifab, Inc.
(NASDAQ). He is currently Director, Trenwick America Corporation, and
Director of Advocate MD.
Mr. Pickens graduated from Southern Methodist University with a
Bachelor of Arts in Economics.
Discussion
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Pickens.
At this point let us jump right into our first round of
questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
I would like to direct a question to every member of the
panel, and I would give each one of you about a minute or so to
respond.
ISS Productivity and Utilization
In your opinion what needs to be done to ensure that the
ISS will be a productive research facility, and Dr. Stodieck, I
might also ask you if you would speak to when you mentioned
modest funding, what that might entail. But we will start with
Dr. Knipling.
Dr. Knipling. Well, my sense it is already very successful
as one witness, Mr. Pickens, indicated. It is a tremendous
success. Certainly, yes, we garner the results of some of these
initial experiments. I think that is really going to provide
testimony for the opportunity, and that in turn will drive our
future strategies for expanding and enhancing that work. That
is my sense of how this work will unfold.
Dr. Stodieck. Thank you. Modest funding. You know, it
depends, of course, on ultimately what it is going to cost for
transportation, and that is a fairly uncertain term at this
point, but just doing some estimates based on what I suspect
this will get, I would say if you funded an organization
somewhere between $50 million and $150 million, maybe ramping
up to that point, that you would have a substantial ability to
attract and raise the productivity of the space station,
something on that order.
Chairman Udall. Thank you. Dr. Nickerson.
Dr. Nickerson. From a scientific perspective, in order to
truly tap into the fundamental and the enormous potential of
the ISS as I mentioned in my previous testimony to lead to
global advances in human health, two things from my
perspective.
Consistent funding and access. The consistency in that
funding word is very important, because science doesn't stop
after one experiment. Good science leads to more questions than
it answers, and so once you find something truly remarkable in
flight and that potential for novel discovery, just as we found
in STS-115, we were fortunate enough to have the follow-up
flight on STS-123. But that consistency has to continue.
So consistency for funding and access.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Pickens.
Mr. Pickens. I think that it is a little more complex from
my standpoint, because I am from the commercial side. I have
seen where they have put experiments in space. They have done
kind of fits and starts of it in terms of funding, timing, but
they are in the middle of a construction program, and I kind
of, you know, put the analogy is that you are trying to do
open-heart surgery on the back of a bulldozer in the middle of
a construction site at a skyscraper.
You know, they were building a space station in space, and
they were putting and wedging the science in whenever they had
the opportunity, and that is very, very hard to do science that
way. When you talk to the scientists, they need to have
consistency where they are bringing back samples, they are
fixing them, they are going back again, over and over and over.
Now is the time, because we have completed the station or
we are near completion of the station. Now is the time that we
should get in there and do that. We should do it exactly like
Louis says. We should fund something. We should remain, if
there is somebody who is independent to make sure that these
initiatives are held forth, there is $100 billion asset up
there. The taxpayers expect a return, and they are entitled to
a return. And they need to be given that opportunity and that
science needs to be taken care of.
From a commercial standpoint I will take the low-hanging
fruit of those efforts, and I will take, and whenever they are
discovered to a point where they are commercial, and I will
move them on through to the marketplace.
Chairman Udall. I could follow on, what are your next steps
in preparing for the utilization of station?
Mr. Pickens. We are already moving, I mean, STS-123, 124,
we are headed out for the, you know, duration of the Space
Shuttle missions. We are concerned after that, because we don't
have as easy access to space. It is nearing the completion of
the manifest of the Shuttle. It is very, very tight to wedge
our way in there. We are doing that successfully thus far, but
we are very concerned about it, and we need that desperately
because by the time we finish, we need to not have some gap in
there, not to overemphasize the gap, but we don't want a gap
sitting there on the science either. We still have to make a
return as soon as possible to the American people and by
getting on these Space Shuttle flights and sending up what we
are sending up that goes a long way, and I commend NASA for
allowing us to go on the Shuttle to date.
And I hope for more of that.
Chairman Udall. You are ready to go, you have got the
capital lined up, you are confident what you need is----
Mr. Pickens. Yes, sir. I am sending samples to space as we
speak.
Chairman Udall. Thank you very much. I am going to
recognize Judge Hall for five minutes. Look forward to hearing
his questions.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I guess I will use part of my time in thanking this
very capable group of witnesses here. I have really got
something from every one of you. And I thank, Mr. Rohrabacher
for being here. I especially ask him, you can tell by my raspy
voice that I have been a victim of the influenza, and Dr.
Nickerson, if you will do some more work on that, we will all
be----
Dr. Nickerson. I will get right on that.
Mr. Hall. And everybody around me would appreciate it.
I want to say of course I enjoyed Dr. Knipling's work, and
to Dr. Stodieck, I liked your use of all agency's cost covered
and comparisons with other research, and NASA and Congress
admonished to have access to ISS and planning together and
producing together. Very good instructions.
And Dr. Nickerson, our nation badly needs good news from
space, not just tickertape, something over the television or
just huge appropriations and exciting and delicate yes and
still fragile missions. We need studies of cures from space,
and you certainly reflect your intention is such, and I know I
appreciate that and this group does.
Differences Between Government and SPACEHAB Activities
And to Tom Pickens, accelerating the need for microgravity
and the many experiments of space and the comparisons were very
helpful. And your salute to the Space Station by it being at a
class of all strategies is very, and the suggestion also to be
as sensible as possible as they can be with the funds.
And along that line let me ask you, Mr. Pickens, do you see
any distinction between the types of activity SPACEHAB seeks to
conduct versus those that would be of interest to university
and government researchers? Or commercial activities in
competition with other university government research for ISS
resources.
I would like to hear your comments on that if we have time
left. I would like to hear each of you.
Mr. Pickens. I always look when doing due diligence on, you
know, opportunities in the marketplace, I like to see paradigms
that were successful in the past, and I think a paradigm, you
could take most of them, but let us just take the railroads.
You know, the United States Government built the railroads
and then they proved out the technology and then today, you
know, the, you know, all that evidence of success is certainly
there. We built the International Space Station. We have built
the access to space. What we haven't done and what is necessary
here is that the government is the only one that is going to
take these kind of risks, because commercial enterprise is not.
They are not going to be sending up a whole lot of real basic
science that we really haven't gone to the steps necessary in
order to discover.
Again, we weren't given, the science community was not
given and nor should really, I mean, the amount of time that
they were given was generous by NASA. They were building a
skyscraper in space, and to be putting science in there was
generous of them to do that. But now we are at the stage to
where we need to go and promote that and move forward with it,
and government needs to go with the university level like Louis
suggests and do a lot of basic science work. When it gets to
the point to where it is commercial, people like me and myself,
we will see that. We will identify that, and then we will move
forward with how you end up taking that to a commercial
setting.
So I think that there is a differentiation between the
commercial interests and from the more basic science university
interest, and I think they should be treated differently as
well, sir.
Dr. Nickerson. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that
question. From researchers and scientific individuals'
perspective and maybe I was fortunate to have been trained in a
very multi-disciplinary background which thinks outside of the
box, but I have been trained, and I have always believed in a
diversified research portfolio that is funded on multiple
fronts, both by a government, traditional federal funding
agencies, but also by corporate and private funding as well.
In that capacity, therefore, a lot of times some of your
higher-risk research which has real tremendous potential to
lead to major advances in public health, but it is higher risk,
and sometimes some of the traditional funding venues in terms
of our federal funding agencies like in NIH, tend to steer away
from that a little bit and go for a more safer paradigm in
terms of funding.
And sometimes those risks don't pay off, but holy cow,
sometimes they do. And we have got to make that translational
leap of not phenomenology. This isn't would be, could be,
wishing kind of stuff. This is going to happen. It already is
happening, and it will continue to happen. And for us to
continue to maintain our nation's leap in technological and
biomedical innovations to translate in terms of these types of
advances, in terms of my end of public health, we have got to
be able to successfully balance these types of funding and get
away from them being normally separate but merge them together.
So absolutely. All three of those types of funding levels
can exist together nicely and do.
Mr. Hall. My time is up, and I hope Dr. Stodieck and Dr.
Knipling will answer my questions in some other people's five
minutes here in a little bit.
But I would say to you, Mr. Pickens, that your comparison
of railroads to space really goes from the bottom to the top,
and it is a good comparison. You know, I vote for Amtrak and
all that, and the dang thing goes to New York about 35 times a
day and goes to Philadelphia about 40 times, 38 times a day,
but, hell, they don't even whistle going through my district a
lot of times, but I vote for railroads because we relied on
rail during national emergency and war times and things like
that. Thanks for that good comparison.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Udall. Everybody here understands why Judge Hall
is known as a statesman, although in some quarters, well,
statesmen are dead politicians. We are glad to have a living
statesman here among us today, and infrastructure is so
important to our----
Mr. Hall. Maybe you will give me another five minutes.
Chairman Udall. That is going too far.
The Chair recognizes the great Member, the Chairman of the
Energy and Environment Subcommittee from Texas, Mr. Lampson. He
is also known, although there would be others that might want
to wrestle him for the title, as the man from NASA. He looks
after NASA with the passion and consistency. Mr. Lampson, five
minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have to agree
with some of the words that have been said. This is something
that can drive a great deal of the enthusiasm of this country
when we make our commitment to it and consider the return that
we are going to, that we have always gotten from our investment
in space and in science.
I have had a number of conversations of late with Mr.
Pickens, and one of the things that has impressed me
specifically that you said was about how we seem to have gotten
away from our concentration on science and relied more on the
idea of if we build a craft, we can figure out what we do with
it. We sort of get the cart before the horse. Really and truly
our use of space should be about what we can learn from it,
what we can get from the science. And then whatever craft we
have to put together, then so be it. We go and do it.
And I know that you have done some specific work, Mr.
Pickens, and I will pick on you because you do have SPACEHAB,
which is in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas, and we
are proud of the work that you do there and----
Mr. Pickens. We are proud to be there.
Mr. Lampson.--the many employees that you have there. But
let me start with you and ask you to continue your comment that
you made a minute ago about due diligence. You have done
something I think that is out of the ordinary with regard to
how you looked at what potential there was for commercial
activity.
Commercial Activity at the ISS
Can you discuss that a little bit? What did you do that may
have been different in your findings as related to the
potential for scientific research at the International Space
Station?
Mr. Pickens. As CEO of SPACEHAB, there, I am in a very
unique situation. I am on a platform where I can access all of
the thousands of people, billions of dollars, research, white
papers, scientists, all those people will always end up
responding to me. I have access to those people, they are
excited about having the discussion with somebody, especially
in the commercial sector, and as a CEO of SPACEHAB, I think I
am the only guy that has the kind of access and that kind of
position probably oddly enough in this country and maybe even
in the world.
Most of the other aerospace engineering companies are
aerospace engineering companies. SPACEHAB sent 1,500
experiments to space over a 23-year period of time. We had
intimate knowledge of how to do that, and I use that platform
and trained in New York, I consider myself quite a professional
in due diligence, and I don't stop until I hear glass break as
my granddad used to say.
And I just keep going and going and going, and these guys,
some of them on this panel right here, they are sick of me, and
that is usually when I start to slow down is about the time
they do get sick of me.
But I have found that there is a lot of value up there.
There is billions of dollars worth of value in terms of
commercial value. In this, you know, environment that we are in
that seems so appropriate where we should also be cognizant as
commercial enterprise leaders of commercial companies, we also
need to take care of things like environment and people and
whatnot. It is just such a great added benefit to also be able
to have the opportunity to save millions of lives with what we
see as opportunities in microgravity.
This thing is for real. I think just in summary to you,
Congressman, is this is for real. This is the real deal, is
that there is a huge amount of value in microgravity. It wasn't
given all the attention that it was, that we would have hoped,
but we were, again, constructing a skyscraper in space.
So I think that, you know, what needs to happen now is that
I think Louis is very, is being very conservative in terms of
the amount of investment that should go up there. We end up in
our barter arrangement that we ended up by taking and
transferring the Columbus Module, which is the ESA Module, the
European Space Agency Module, and the Kibox Module, with the
Japanese Space Agency Module. We get half of their space
because we transported that on our Space Shuttle. That is the
deal. It was a barter agreement.
We have so much laboratory space up there it is
unbelievable. With ours, with theirs there is lots of space
available. I would like to see billions of dollars go into the
basic science of this, and I think that it deserves it, and
with aging of America and with health being such a big issue
right now, there isn't any excuse not to. We should fund NASA
more. We should give them more money, and we should put them on
that focus to go get that done and exploit that $100 billion
asset up there.
Uncertainty Pertaining to Long-term Research
Mr. Lampson. I have got less than a minute left, so let me
just ask whoever would like to start on this question of the
panel. What impact does, I am concerned that we are not going
to fully use the ISS, especially after we retire the Shuttle.
What impact does the uncertain status of the ISS past 2016,
have on potential users being able to plan long-term research
using the Station?
Dr. Nickerson. Well, I think there are two questions there,
but first I would focus on what we can get done before 2016,
which if we get the kind of appropriations and funding in here
we need to, we can learn an enormous amount up until that point
in time. So let us not underestimate the tremendous impact that
that can make up until then.
After that point in time it is going to depend on access
and access to space through other venues and how we can
continue to use the microgravity environment after that. But up
to that point in time I am more focused on what we can do on a
consistent basis to maximize that space and utilize our
potential to lead to these new technology advances.
Mr. Lampson. If it, Mr. Chairman, can anyone else comment
before I yield my time back?
Dr. Stodieck. And I just want to add that I think, you
know, in fact, that 2016, is frankly much too close a horizon
for us to be planning it. It seems ridiculous to even be
thinking about the decommissioning of Space Station before it
has even been completed. But in reality, of course, that is
what you are really asking, and I think that we need to already
begin the planning, and I think, of course, appropriations
looks at, you know, five-year timeframes. It is not too soon to
really be thinking about extending the service life of the
Space Station, and I think we need to go out to at least 2020,
and frankly, I think, you know, when we start to get the kind
of productivity and the results that I expect to see, then I
think there will be a lot of interest and extended beyond that.
But I think we need to recognize that without the Space
Shuttle that the, you know, the clock really starts ticking for
Space Station because it will become more and more difficult to
maintain it and service it. So starting that productivity as
soon as possible and using it for as long as we can.
Mr. Lampson. Thanks. Dr. Knipling, anything?
Dr. Knipling. I believe my comments will reinforce what has
been said. I think much can be accomplished in the near term to
validate these concepts that we have talked about. And we are
very confident that they will be validated one way or the
other. We can adapt to what we learned, but I think that the
promise of what we learn will actually provide testimony for
further extension in the further of the Space Station in one
way or another.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. Thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, who is one of the most dedicated and consistent
supporters of this, and he always has his back peering over the
horizon and bringing some really creative thinking to NASA and
how we promote our space program both in the private and public
sectors.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. Let me note that I have
supported Space Station. I see the Space Station as a success
in the sense that we have learned how to build structures in
space. Humankind is to advance, if we are going to conquer this
frontier, we have learned how to cooperate with other countries
in achieving that.
I am not sure even from the testimony today, however, that
the accomplishments that are being talked about have been
accomplished in terms of medical research. All along we were
told that there would be these great accomplishments. It has
been a long time.
Frankly, they have not been validated yet. I have heard a
lot of rhetoric today, but I have been listening to that
rhetoric for 20 years. I am satisfied with the fact that we now
have the capabilities of building structures in space. I would
hope they are not just pyramids. I hope this isn't just a
pyramid that will be historic, a historic structure. I hope
that there is something that comes out of it in terms of a cure
for a disease. Believe me, I have been listening to that for 10
years. I haven't seen it yet.
ISS Lab Compatability
Your comment, Mr. Pickens, about that there is plenty of
lab space up there and value to be made from that. I
appreciated that. Are these, is the research facility that is
in the Space Station, the various labs that you have talked
about, are they outfitted for the type of research that is
necessary to validate the things that we have heard today?
Mr. Pickens. The way they have it set up is is that other
than the fact that the Columbus Module has an X-ray
crystallography machine that they have sent up with that so you
don't, you can actually do the defracture from the crystals off
the protein crystal growth from that piece of equipment.
Basically what they did is they set up these things that they
call express racks, which are really data feeds, power feeds.
They are just set up for you, and what they do is they take it
out of whatever the visiting, you know, vehicle is, and then
they put it in, and they slide it in there, and they flip on a
button, and then from that they control everything from the
ground operations.
And, yes, it is all there. I mean, they put that very
modularly in place, and they have done that. So, yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that the same answer I am getting from
the other panelists, too? Is--are these labs properly
outfitted?
Dr. Nickerson, you have been very optimistic about these
great achievements that are about to happen. Are we outfitted
up there to make sure that we can actually achieve those
things?
Dr. Nickerson. There were, of course, a number of cuts that
were made to important research infrastructure that was
supposed to be installed on ISS, the centrifuge, things like
that. It would be very nice if those things could be up there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you give me a couple of examples of
that?
Dr. Nickerson. In terms of how they could be used?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No. In terms of what needs to be replaced
so we can start thinking about financing it.
Dr. Nickerson. So it would be nice to have the centrifuge
facility up there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. A what now?
Dr. Nickerson. Centrifuge.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Centrifuge. Okay.
Dr. Nickerson. It would be nice to have some very nice
imaging capabilities on-board in terms of abilities to image
very small cells like microscopic imaging. It would be very
nice to have that up there so we can see in real time exactly
how these cells are manifesting their changes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are there any plans to put microscopic
imaging, I know about the centrifuge.
Dr. Nickerson. There were, but those plans were scrapped,
and it was being, those plans were in place, but I know those
funds were cut. For a long time I know with the MELFI there was
a question, and we need to be able to have for long-term work
on ISS, you know, capabilities to store at minus 80, and I know
after much time the MELFI, I think, is finally fully
operational up there in terms of the freezer capabilities.
But when we are going to be on terms of long-term research
on ISS, we need those kinds of capabilities, some samples we
want to store, some we want to keep viable. And when we store
them, we need to make sure that they are stored viably, and
their integrity is preserved.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we need storage and something to
do microscopic imaging, and I know that the centrifuge debate
was a big debate early on.
Dr. Nickerson. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And an imager, it is not just a small
investment----
Dr. Nickerson. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--there. It is huge. But----
Dr. Nickerson. That is one reason, though, that leads to,
and your question was well founded, is that you have heard
about this rhetoric for a long period of time. It is going to
lead to these advances, it is going to lead to these advances,
but in all honesty, the reason you haven't seen that is some of
those capabilities are now being able to be put in place and be
done. And with our study it was a biological first. It was the
first time that space flight had ever been looked at as ability
to affect disease-causing potential. It was the first time that
a pathogen had ever been looked at in terms of a complete
molecular global profiling and look at changing its virulence.
So those kinds of things, you know, until you can translate
that, and we just, by the way, repeated that so we do have
biological validation on the STS-123.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh. As I say, I think we learned a lot on
how to build structures.
Dr. Nickerson. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that in and of itself is for
humankind and how to cooperate internationally----
Dr. Nickerson. But to have those additional capabilities
would be helpful.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is good. But I would sure hope that
we see some of the things that you have been talking about. I
have heard this before, and I hope it is validated like we say,
and if we, Mr. Chairman, if we need a couple of things to add
to the Space Station to see that it actually accomplishes the
$100 billion that we have spent, if we are talking about tens
of millions of dollars to get some of these things up there--
thank you very much.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman from California for
his insightful questions and commentary.
Unfortunately, we need to move to the second panel. I know
everybody on the dais here could spend another hour directing
questions to the panel, and we hope to bring you back. We also
will direct some additional questions to you all for the
record.
I did want to take an additional moment, Dr. Nickerson had
mentioned that in the town of Alamosa, which is in the St.
Louis valley, South Central portion of our state, important
agricultural area. It is also an area in which we are planning
to develop a lot of alternative energy technologies. They had
to shut down their water supply system recently. You may have
read the story. It made the national news because of Salmonella
somehow infiltrating the system, and it, over 300 people were
taken ill in a town of about 15,000 people.
So your work is an area in which there may be real
applicability. So I look forward to watching and learning from
what you discover about Salmonella.
Dr. Nickerson. Thank you. I look forward to giving you
updates.
Chairman Udall. At this time we will excuse the panel.
Again, thank you for being here and providing us with such
informative testimony.
We will ask the second panel to take their seats as quickly
as we can, and we will move to the second round.
Let us move to our second panel of witnesses. I would like
to introduce each of them in turn.
Dr. William Gerstenmaier, who is the Associate
Administrator of the Space Operations Mission Directorate at
NASA. Next to Mr. Gerstenmaier is Cristina Chaplain, who has
been a visitor to our committee before, and she is the Director
of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO, has a great
rooting in NASA and many aspects of the NASA world. And then
finally we have Dr. Jeffrey Sutton, who is the President and
Director of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute.
Welcome to the three of you.
As you know, our spoken testimony is limited to five
minutes, after which Members of the Subcommittee will have five
minutes each to ask questions.
We will start with Mr. Gerstenmaier and his five minutes.
Welcome.
Panel 2:
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER, ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE OPERATIONS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Thank you. I have addressed your
questions specifically in my written testimony, and I won't
spend much time with my verbal discussion.
I would just say there is a couple of areas I think are
really important to stress here, and first of all, they were
discussed earlier a little bit. The international achievement
of the Space Station is really unprecedented in my mind. The
fact that we are actually operating internationally today with
the laboratories on-board Space Station is a huge testimony to
this team that has worked internationally to continue to build
Space Station and has guided it to this point.
And we have also done a lot of engineering evaluations and
tests and evaluation of Space Station. It fits well as we move
into exploration of the components, the hardware, the systems,
the engineering analysis that we are working and developing on
Space Station today that we used to assemble it. Those are
directly applicable to what we are going to be doing as we go
to the Moon and Mars, running pumps for long time, doing fluid
circulation, operating computers, working internationally, all
those things have direct application to what we are going to do
as we go, move beyond low-Earth orbit and move to the Moon and
Mars. And that is a first step in the engineering sense.
I would also say Space Station provides a commercial
opportunity as Mr. Pickens talked about a little bit earlier.
It clearly does for transportation. As we look to
transportation in the future as the Shuttle retires, we are
looking to commercial transportation for Space Station. We have
recently put out a request for a proposal to commercial
industry to provide transportation for Space Station. We think
that provides a tremendous opportunity for the commercial
sector to step up and provide transportation of the materials
needed for the research, for the investigations, as well as for
the basic supplies of Space Station.
We recently had the Automated Transfer Vehicle from the
European Space Agency dock to Space Station. That shows that we
are able to do the rendezvous docking. We are able to take a
brand new spacecraft, take it through developmental test
program, and actually dock it to Space Station so that gives
credibility and shows proof to the commercial sector that this
can be done and is very achievable and they are ready to move
forward.
We have also looked at a new thing, a new way of acquiring
hardware on Space Station. We are using a Sabatier reaction,
which takes waste carbon dioxide and waste hydrogen, combines
those, makes water, and generates methane that gets dumped
overboard. We will save about 2,000 pounds of water with that
system. We acquired that commercially for the first time. We
didn't pay the typical development way we do. It is not a cost-
plus contract. It is a fixed-price contract, and we get paid
for the water or the contractor gets paid for the water that is
generated. So they take the risk, and NASA is not involved in
the development. We are not attending their design reviews.
They show us the hardware is safe to fly in orbit. If it
generates water, they receive revenue from that. If it doesn't
generate water, they have lost their investment. So it is a new
creative way of utilizing the commercial sector to provide
services that we need. And that is another evidence of what the
Station can do.
And lastly, the previous panel talked a lot about the
research avenues. There was a lot of discussion on the
biological aspects. I think there is a lot of other areas of
Space Station that can be used. There is a combustion research
rack that is going up, there is material science activities,
there is fluid physics, and low temperature physics.
The unique thing about Space Station is it gives us a
different lens to look at all these phenomena, be it
biological, physical, or materials processes. It gives us a
chance to learn about things that we experience here on the
Earth in a different way. Some of the Apollo astronauts talked
about that we went to the Moon to learn about the Earth. I
think in the same sense we are going to Space Station and with
the different lens of microgravity, we are going to learn more
about processes on the Earth and directly impact what is going
on in the very physical sense.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Gerstenmaier
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the status of the
International Space Station (ISS) Program. It is a pleasure to report
to you the good year we have had in the human space flight program, and
the progress we are making in support of the Nation's exploration
goals. I would like to give you an update on the ISS, discuss the
challenges over the next five years, and report to you some of our
success stories. First, I would like to share with you how the ISS is
helping to prepare us for our next steps in exploration.
International Space Station--Experience in Exploration
The Space Station is a place to learn how to live and work in
space, which we need to do, and over a long period of time. It is also
a place to conduct the research we would like to do in a better way
than was possible in the more confined places we have flown in before.
Through the years of ISS design, development, test, assembly and
operations, NASA has acquired the experience necessary for operating
complex, multinational space vehicles. In areas ranging from
international collaboration to research and technology development,
crew operations, spacecraft system operations, and crew-system
interfaces, the knowledge gained from the ISS can be applied directly
to future long-duration exploration missions.
International Collaboration
Since 1988, the ISS international partnership has established an
unprecedented level of global cooperation among the U.S., Canada,
Europe, and Japan, and in 1998, Russia formally joined in this
worldwide endeavor. During the 17 Expedition missions to date, for nine
and a half years on-orbit, and over seven years of continuous human
presence, we have together assembled a research facility designed and
produced around the world that now resides some 250 miles above the
Earth. It is the largest spacecraft ever built; it will be 925,627
pounds at completion and measure 361 feet end-to-end. It is the length
of a football field with pressurized volume greater than a five-bedroom
house. By 2010, the international partnership will have managed over 80
assembly and logistics missions (including 26 Space Shuttle missions to
date through STS-123), with crew rotations and cargo transfer flights
on five different vehicles that will have included over 50 crew members
from around the globe. Over 650 hours of assembly and maintenance
activity have been performed during extra-vehicular activity outside
the ISS. Today, the ISS is approximately 70 percent complete and has a
mass of 261 metric tons.
The technical challenges of assembly, operations, and logistical
re-supply have been met through the coordination of more than 100,000
workers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, and Russia, including
numerous contractor facilities in the U.S. and over a dozen other
countries. The globally distributed control centers supporting ISS
operations will ultimately coordinate daily operations among Russia,
Germany, France, Japan, Canada, and three locations in the United
States--Alabama, Florida, and Texas. In addition, Kazakhstan and French
Guiana support launch and landing operations. The structural,
electrical power, thermal control, data and voice communications, and
environmental and life support systems have been designed and produced
across international boundaries. We continually monitor ongoing
challenges to safe and successful systems inter-operability due to
different industry and safety standards; varying life cycle development
philosophies; the need for common standards during development;
conversions between English versus metric units for production tooling;
development of common terminology; unique engineering and management
practices; export control constraints; and cultural and language
differences.
The ISS international partnership has risen to all challenges thus
far and forged the strong, positive relationships necessary for the
next great steps in human space exploration.
Research and Technology Development
The ISS is NASA's only long-duration flight analog for future human
lunar missions and Mars transit. It provides an invaluable laboratory
for research with direct application to the exploration requirements
that address human risks associated with missions to the Moon and
beyond. It is the only space-based multinational research and
technology testbed available to identify and quantify risks to human
health and performance, identify and validate potential risk mitigation
techniques, and develop countermeasures for future human exploration.
The ISS research portfolio includes human research and
countermeasure development for exploration. The ISS crew is conducting
human medical research to develop knowledge in the areas of clinical
medicine, human physiology, cardiovascular research, bone and muscle
health, neurovestibular medicine, diagnostic instruments and sensors,
advanced ultrasound, exercise and pharmacological countermeasures, food
and nutrition, immunology and infection, exercise systems, and human
behavior and performance.
The ISS also provides a testbed for studying, developing, and
testing new technologies for use in future exploration missions,
including advanced life support systems, environmental monitoring,
energy storage batteries, strain gauges on the truss structure to
measure structural loads, light-emitting diode (LED) lighting,
materials exposure experiments, cabin air monitoring and environmental
monitoring, robotic construction systems, and photographic inspections
surveys of external surfaces and components. In the physical and
biological sciences arena, the ISS is using microgravity conditions to
understand the effect of the space environment on the physical
processes of fluid physics, combustion and materials research, as well
as environmental control and fire safety. Finally, the Station is an
ideal platform for observing the Earth and performing educational
activities, including activities and investigations which allow
students and the public to connect with the ISS mission and inspire
students to excel in science, technology, engineering, and math.
Crew Operations
High performing crews are critical to successful long-duration
missions. The development of specialized skills and training for
international crew members, as well as advanced protocols, procedures,
and tools, will reduce the risks to future exploration missions.
Maintaining crew health will be critical to long-duration flights, and
the ISS provides a demonstration platform through the continuous
operation of life support and medical systems. While much has been
learned about crew health systems, crew medical care, environmental
monitoring, and exercise systems critical to maintaining crew fitness,
more must be learned before we undertake long-duration missions to the
Moon or to Mars. Next Spring, we will have on-board the ISS all of the
life support, habitability and crew health maintenance hardware (water/
urine processing, treadmill, galley, toilet, crew quarters, backup
carbon dioxide removal) required to support six-crew operations--a
continuous human presence in space that exceeds all prior human space
flight programs.
Effective on-board training is another key to future long-duration
exploration missions. The ISS provides a platform to develop efficient
methods for conveying new information to crew members and influence the
volume and types of preflight crew training. Computer-based training
can be utilized to supplement ground training and provide refresher
training for the on-orbit crew.
Exploration missions will also require advances in Extra Vehicular
Activity (EVA) suits, technologies, capabilities and procedures. To
date, Station and Shuttle crews have performed 109 U.S. and Russian
assembly and maintenance EVAs, totaling more than 650 hours. Our
evolving EVA procedures enable us to set the standard for in-space
assembly, repair, and maintenance.
The interaction of the crew with Mission Control is another element
critical to mission success. The ISS provides an environment to improve
the interaction between crew and ground to make missions safer and more
effective through planning and communication. The evolving operations
protocols and support tools are increasing crew autonomy and reducing
ground support infrastructure. The coordination of the Station support
facilities is all the more remarkable because the launch, operations,
training, engineering, and development facilities are dispersed around
the globe.
Spacecraft Systems Operations
The ISS provides a unique opportunity to flight test components and
systems in the space environment and to optimize subsystem performance.
Station is the only space-based testbed available for critical
exploration spacecraft systems such as closed-loop life support, EVA
suit components and assemblies, advanced batteries and energy storage,
and automated rendezvous and docking. Efficient, reliable spacecraft
systems are critical to reducing crew and mission risks. Characterizing
and optimizing system performance in space reduces mission risks and
yields next-generation capabilities for long distance and autonomous
vehicle and systems management.
As a direct result of the ISS Program, the inventory of space-
qualified materials, piece-parts, components, assemblies, subsystems,
and systems has expanded rapidly to serve future exploration needs.
These include:
<bullet> The ISS environmental control and life support
systems include water electrolysis for oxygen generation and
carbon dioxide removal.
<bullet> The thermal control systems include heat rejection
and management using multi-layer insulation, heat exchangers,
strip heaters and radiators.
<bullet> The electrical power system includes energy collected
by solar arrays and stored in nickel hydrogen batteries.
<bullet> The command and data systems include computer systems
using standard 1553B data buses and networks using the 802.4
Ethernet protocol.
<bullet> The U.S. Control Moment Gyroscopes (CMGs) and Russian
motion control systems provide guidance and propulsion.
<bullet> Station communication and tracking systems use S
Band, Ku Band, UHF, global positioning satellite system (GPS),
and Russian capabilities.
<bullet> The robotics capabilities include a seven-degree-of-
freedom robot arm.
<bullet> The EVA systems include U.S. and Russian airlocks and
suits, tools, translation aids, and training facilities.
Demonstrating and developing confidence in systems for water and
waste recovery, oxygen generation, and environmental monitoring
technologies is important as the distance and time away from Earth is
extended. U.S. and Russian life support systems represent dissimilar
yet redundant capabilities for carbon dioxide removal, oxygen
generation, and waste management. The ISS is currently recycling
approximately 14 pounds of crew-expelled air each day and using the
processed water for technical and drinking purposes. The ISS is well on
the way to demonstrating closed-loop life support for oxygen generation
and water recovery systems following the oxygen generation system
activation in July 2007, in conjunction with the water recovery system
demonstration targeted for October 2009. In 2010, the ISS plans to
incorporate a Sabatier system that will combine carbon dioxide and
excess hydrogen from the oxygen generation system to produce water for
the generation of oxygen. When the closed-loop life support system is
operational, it will reduce the amount of consumables needed by about
80 percent. This demonstration is critical for future exploration
missions.
To generate power, the ISS has the largest solar arrays ever
deployed on a spacecraft. Understanding how these arrays and other
power system components perform is important to moving toward longer
stays on the Moon and transiting to Mars. The solar arrays cover an
area of 27,000 square feet (an acre of solar panels, and arrays with
240-foot wingspans) and are generating approximately 76 kW of
electrical power, or 708,000 kW hours per year--enough to power 50
homes. Forty-eight nickel hydrogen rechargeable batteries are used for
energy storage, and gimbal mechanisms allow solar tracking and thermal
radiators to maintain battery temperature. The operating experience
being accrued on the ISS in solar arrays, mechanical gimbal, and rotary
joint technologies will be directly applicable to future power systems
in space.
Crew-System Interfaces
Demonstration and validation of the human-machine interfaces enable
sustained spacecraft operations over long periods of time. Advances in
crew and robotic operations, on-orbit maintenance and repair, in-space
assembly, and demonstrations of new crew and cargo transportation
vehicles are essential to expand human activity beyond low-Earth orbit.
Many of the techniques used to assemble hundreds of ISS components in
space are applicable to the assembly of components on the Moon, or at
other locations in space.
Assembling six major truss segments, eight solar array wings, and
four laboratory modules with interconnecting nodes demonstrates the
precision and coordination necessary for in-space assembly of large
structures. Autonomous rendezvous and docking capabilities, essential
to complex future space missions, are demonstrated routinely in the
global evolution of launch vehicles that transport crew and cargo to
ISS. These vehicles currently include the Space Shuttle, Russian Soyuz
and Progress spacecraft, and the new European Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV). In the future, other transportation systems currently in
development will also support the ISS. They will include the Japanese
H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), U.S. Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS), and the U.S. Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.
The ISS robotic arms provide the ability to assemble large elements
in flight, while ground control of certain robotic activities enables
the more efficient use of valuable crew time. The Station's 55-foot-
long robotic arm can move 220,000 lbs.--the mass of the Space Shuttle.
Canadian, Japanese, and European robotic arms work on different
portions of the ISS and can be commanded via the ground or by the crew
on-orbit. These multi-national robotic operations are carefully
choreographed between the ISS crew and the global operations teams.
Development of displays and controls is important for future
spacecraft system designs. Software tools play a role in helping crews
virtually practice EVA or robotic tasks before they ever don spacesuits
or power up the robotic arms. The ISS has more than 50 computers to
control on-board systems, and uses some 2.5 million lines of ground
software code to support 1.5 million lines of flight software code.
Standardized communication protocols control crew displays and software
tools, while common and standardized flight software products, tools,
interfaces, and protocols enhance operational practices.
ISS provides a real-world laboratory for logistics management and
in-flight maintenance and repair concepts for future spacecraft. These
techniques demonstrate an ability to evolve and adapt through daily
operations. We have designed and implemented systems to manage limited
re-supply capabilities, stowage, and consumables for long exploration
journeys. Common component designs simplify sparing systems and are
used to minimize the number of spares to be stored on-orbit (e.g.,
common valve design). Our inter-operable hardware systems include the
common berthing mechanism, utility operations panel, international-
standard payload racks, common equipment and orbital replacement units,
crew equipment, and robotic grapple fixtures.
Through thousands of days of operating experience, the ISS is
demonstrating the maintainability and reliability of hardware
components. Models used to predict this reliability and maintainability
are enhanced by measuring the mean-time-between-failure performance on
hundreds of components, including pumps, valves, sensors, actuators,
solar arrays, and ammonia loops.
ISS crews have had to demonstrate repair capabilities on internal
systems and external systems and components, as well as hardware not
originally designed for on-orbit repair. The on-orbit crews have
repaired malfunctioning space suits and Russian computers; replaced
CMGs, treadmill bearings, Russian Elektron oxygen generator and Vozdukh
carbon dioxide removal system subassemblies, solar array system
components, beta gimbal assemblies (BGAs), and remote power control
mechanism (RPCM) circuit breakers. The Expedition crews and their
ground maintenance counterparts have devised unique solutions that have
kept the ISS functioning, including remote maintenance and
sustainability procedures, and inspection and repair techniques. This
experience has helped identify design flaws and re-deploy systems and
hardware to orbit.
The ISS provides valuable lessons for current and future engineers
and managers--real-world examples of what works and what does not work
in space, creating valuable lessons for current and future programs.
The ISS gives us a glimpse of how our international partners approach
building spacecraft, and NASA is learning many lessons from our partner
countries in building, operating, and maintaining spacecraft as
cooperative endeavors. Working for months with crew members from other
countries and cultures is an important aspect of the ISS program.
Developing methods to work with our partners on the ground and in space
is critical to providing additional capabilities and solutions to
design challenges.
National Laboratory Opportunities
While the ISS continues to meet NASA's mission objective to prepare
for the next steps in human space exploration, it will also offer
extraordinary opportunities for advancing science and technology to
other U.S. Government agencies, non-profit research foundations, and
private firms. The National Institutes of Health entered into an MOU
with NASA in October of 2007 and plans to issue a formal research
announcement in 2008 for use of the ISS in the post-assembly period.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, is
evaluating a similar arrangement and may enter into an MOU in the near
future for plant- and animal-related research. In the private sector,
two Space Act Agreements are currently under development for pursuing
proprietary research in biotechnologies, and another agreement is
pending with the University of Colorado's Bioserve Center for ISS-based
research.
International Space Station Assembly and Resupply Operations
At this point, ISS is approximately 70 percent complete, and the
only major structural elements left to be flown are the remaining two
components of the Japanese Kibo laboratory; the final truss segment,
Node 3; and the cupola, which will provide observation capabilities for
operations such as docking/undocking, space walks, robotic activities,
and Earth/celestial observations. In addition to flying these
components, the Shuttle will also provide important logistics support
to the Station, delivering EXPRESS Logistics Carriers and spares.
NASA's Station and Shuttle teams have proven resourceful and
effective at addressing challenges that have arisen in both programs,
from using new solder points to resolve the Shuttle's recent Engine
Cut-Off (ECO) sensor issue, to performing a space walk to free the
snagged Space Station solar array last November. In endeavors which are
complex both in terms of engineering and organization, there will
always be the potential for events that could impact planned schedules.
Currently, the Shuttle Program is addressing challenges connected to
the manufacture of External Tanks (ETs). This series of tanks includes
the first set of entirely new ETs that have been built since Hurricane
Katrina, and we are experiencing some delays in the processing flow,
though this issue now has been largely resolved. NASA has a history of
successfully dealing with such eventualities, and the Agency has built
margin into the Shuttle manifest to minimize impacts from these events.
NASA is on track to complete assembly of the ISS and retire the Space
Shuttle by the end of FY 2010.
Over the past year, there have been 12 flights to the ISS,
including two crewed Soyuz flights, four Progress cargo flights, five
Space Shuttle assembly flights, and the initial flight of the European
ATV, which successfully docked to the ISS on April 3, 2008, in its
initial attempt. Over the past year, including the launch of the
Expedition 17 crew aboard the Soyuz 16 on April 8, there have been 44
people aboard ISS from 9 countries, including the U.S., Russia, Canada,
Germany, Italy, Japan, France, Malaysia, and South Korea (the latter
two countries represented by Space Flight Participants flying under
contract with Russia).
The June 2007 flight of Atlantis on STS-117 added a truss segment
and new solar arrays to the starboard side of the Station to provide
increased power. In August, Endeavour brought up another truss segment
and supplies, and became the first Orbiter to use a new power transfer
system that enables the Space Shuttle to draw power from the Station's
solar arrays, extending the duration of the Shuttle's visits to Space
Station. On the same mission, STS-118, teacher-turned astronaut Barbara
Morgan conducted a number of education-related activities aboard the
Space Station, inspiring students back on Earth and realizing the dream
of the Teacher In Space Project for which she and Christa McAuliffe
trained more than two decades ago. In October 2007, Discovery flew the
STS-120 mission, which added the Harmony node to the Station and
featured a space walk to disentangle a snagged solar array.
The STS-120 mission paved the way for Station astronauts to conduct
a series of ambitious space walks and operations using the Station's
robotic arm to move the Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 and Harmony node
in preparation for the addition of the European Columbus laboratory and
the Japanese Kibo laboratory in 2008. These space walks were
particularly challenging and impressive, as they were carried out
entirely by the three-person Expedition crews, without benefit of
having a Shuttle Orbiter, with its additional personnel and resources,
docked to the Station.
NASA continues to expand the scientific potential of the Space
Station in 2008, a year in which we are delivering and activating key
research assets from two of our International Partners. In February,
Shuttle Atlantis delivered the European Columbus laboratory during STS-
122; while the recently completed STS-123 mission featured the delivery
by Shuttle Endeavour of the experiment logistics module portion of the
Japanese Kibo laboratory, along with the Canadian Special Purpose
Dextrous Manipulator, or Dextre. Dextre is a small, two-armed robot
that can be attached to the Station's robotic arm to handle smaller
components typically requiring a space-walking astronaut. At the tip of
each arm is a ``hand'' that consists of retractable jaws used to grip
objects. This will allow astronauts to conduct operations and
maintenance activities from inside the Space Station, rather than via
space walks. In May, STS-124 will deliver the pressurized module
component of the Kibo lab.
The European ATV vehicle, which is currently docked to the ISS, is
a welcome and vital addition to the ISS cargo transportation system. On
its maiden voyage, the ATV rendezvoused and docked to the ISS nearly
flawlessly. It is carrying crew supplies, fuel, water, and air that are
required to sustain the crew and on-orbit operations of the ISS. The
ATV technologies and capabilities that were flight-demonstrated
represent a significant accomplishment for the European government and
industry aerospace community. It is also a testament to the level of
trust and cooperation between multiple international partners.
NASA is planning to address the issue of Space Station crew
transportation and cargo resupply after the retirement of the Space
Shuttle in FY 2010 through a variety of methods. On April 11, 2008,
NASA submitted a proposed amendment to Congress to extend the exception
under the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA)
that allows the Agency to pay Russia for Soyuz crew transportation and
rescue services. Under the proposed amendment, this relief would be
extended until the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle reaches Full
Operational Capability (planned for 2016) or a U.S. commercial provider
of crew transportation and rescue services demonstrates the capability
to meet ISS mission requirements. The proposal would also continue to
allow payments, in cash and in kind, for Russian-unique equipment and
capabilities through the life of the Station; these would include
sustaining engineering and spares (for example, acquiring Russian
equipment for use in training in the U.S., and hardware, such as
spares, to outfit the Russian-built, but U.S.-owned, Zarya module).
NASA is not seeking INKSNA relief to purchase Progress cargo
capability beyond 2011, however. The Agency is encouraging the
development of U.S. commercial cargo resupply capabilities through the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) effort, and released
a Request For Proposals (RFP) for commercial resupply services on April
14, 2008. We also have agreements for use of the European ATV and the
Japanese HTV. In using multiple service providers, NASA hopes to
minimize the risk to continued Station viability and promote the
development of a competitive, low-Earth orbit space economy, which will
grow as both government and non-government users increase the demand
for on-orbit services. If U.S. commercial cargo capabilities are not
available as early as desired, the Agency will depend solely on the
cargo up-mass capability of the ATV and HTV and rely on pre-positioned
important spares, delivered by the Shuttle before its retirement in
2010, until U.S. commercial cargo capabilities are available.
The ISS Program continues to evaluate the up-mass requirements and
spares procurement strategy to sustain nominal system and research
operations. Evaluations are based on actual flight performance of on-
board systems as well as estimates of component lifetimes. Internal and
external system performance continues to perform better than expected
except for a few notable components, including the CMGs, Beta Gimbal
Assembly and the Solar Array Rotary Joint. Further reductions in up-
mass requirements and crew time allocations required to maintain safe
on-board operations continue to be aggressively pursued.
Conclusion
Recent ISS assembly accomplishments are the direct result of years
of careful planning, diligence through tragedy and challenges, and the
efforts of a worldwide human space flight community dedicated to the
completion of a goal--to build and operate a world-class research
facility in low-Earth orbit. The ISS Program has been successful
because of the flexibility and resourcefulness of the Partnership in
adapting to changing environments, including challenges such as the
retirement of the Space Shuttle in FY 2010, elimination of habitation
and centrifuge facilities, and schedule delays with Space Shuttle
flights and the deployment of new transportation capabilities.
The efforts of thousands of people around the world over the past
two decades are about to pay off. The ISS Program is entering its
intensive research phase. The same careful planning, diligence, stable
goals, and dedicated efforts that have resulted in the accomplishments
to date are now required to be employed in the development of a robust
U.S. research program. The Agency will continue its exploration-related
research at the same time that we are progressing to expand the use of
the ISS to other Government agencies as well as commercial users.
NASA's National Laboratory effort is key to this expansion of U.S.
research utilization aboard the ISS. Yet, the U.S. is not alone in
utilizing the ISS for research; Station partners Japan and Europe have
maintained a broad-based research program in basic physics, material
sciences, pharmaceuticals, biology, technology, and other areas. The
groundwork for the U.S. utilization of the ISS is being laid today. The
continued stability of the Program is important to both the realization
of the research potential of the Station and to the development of
commercial transportation services that can serve Government and non-
government users in the new space economy.
NASA's leadership has been instrumental in developing and
maintaining a truly remarkable worldwide partnership in human space
flight. The ISS is currently being operated from the ground from six
countries: Russia, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, and the United
States. This partnership has demonstrated its ability to be flexible
and take on challenges when required to do so by unforeseen
circumstances. As the ISS is completed later this decade, not only will
the Partnership have completed its goal to build a world-class orbiting
research platform, but it will also have built an unprecedented global
community committed to human space flight exploration. The ISS has
played a key role in advancing U.S. leadership in space operations and
has the potential to provide an even larger role in the
commercialization of space transportation and research. ISS is an
invaluable training ground for the next generation of space explorers
and researchers.
I would be happy to respond to any question you or the other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Chairman Udall. Thank you.
Ms. Chaplain.
STATEMENT OF MS. CRISTINA T. CHAPLAIN, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION
AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Chaplain. Thank you for asking me to discuss our work
on challenges related to completing and sustaining the
International Space Station. This program has clearly achieved
significant successes in engineering, technology development,
as well as in building effective international partnerships.
The logistical and technical problems that have been overcome
in just the last year are a testament to the program's agility
and ingenuity under extreme pressures.
However, the ISS has also struggled with significant cost
growth, scheduled delays, redesigns, as well as changes in
requirements and content. Such challenges, in fact, have forced
cutbacks and planned capabilities and scientific research.
A recent change with wide-ranging impacts on the program
is, of course, the decision to retire the Space Shuttle in
2010. This was considered necessary to enable NASA to develop
new launch and transportation vehicles needed to support the
President's vision for space. But it leaves NASA with little
flexibility in the Shuttle schedule more at risk for not
completing the Station as planned, more at risk for not being
able to effectively support the Station, and more dependent on
other countries.
The schedule for completing the Station, for example, is
only slightly less demanding than it was prior to the Columbia
disaster when the agency launched a Shuttle every other month
with a larger fleet. Though there is some reserve, the schedule
leaves little room for the kinds of weather-related technical
and logistical problems that have delayed flights in the past.
NASA remains confident that the current manifest can be
accomplished within the given time, and there are tradeoffs
NASA can make in terms of what it can take up to the Station
should unanticipated delays occur. However, failure to complete
assembly as currently planned could further reduce the
Station's ability to fulfill its research objectives and short
the Station of critical spare parts that only the Shuttle can
deliver.
In the event that NASA completes assembly of the Station on
schedule and pre-positions an adequate number of spares, the
agency still faces a host of challenges in sustaining the
station until its retirement.
Simply put, there is no other vehicle available with the
capacity of the Shuttle to deliver supplies. Instead, the
program will rely on vehicles developed by its international
partners, the commercial sector, and NASA under the Ares and
Orion Programs.
While it seems that NASA has an array of options, there are
substantial limitations. One, only the Russian vehicles have
proven capability, though the recent operational tests of the
European vehicle is a good indication that this will not
continue to be the case.
Two, all vehicles currently or nearly available have mass
capacities far below the Shuttles.
Three, only the Soyuz vehicle can carry crew.
Four, neither the European, Japanese, or Russian progress
vehicle can take experiments or other materials back down to
Earth. They are expendable vehicles.
Five, more capability is planned for the COTS vehicles, but
their schedules are considered by many to be highly optimistic
and schedule slips have already occurred.
Six, NASA's Orion vehicle is not expected to come on line
until 2015, and we have found that it is not certain that this
date will be met due to inherent technical complexities and
production challenges.
Within this context it is our understanding that NASA would
like to rely solely on commercial vehicles to take cargo to the
Station beginning in 2013. The aim is to fully incentivize the
commercial industry to develop capabilities that are needed to
support the Vision in the long-term. There is merit to this
objective as commercial suppliers are being counted on to
reduce the costs of access to space and to introduce new
concepts and capabilities needed to sustain our country's
technical edge.
But there are also risks with this approach, particularly
if the commercial efforts are unsuccessful and more established
vehicles cannot be brought back into production quickly. NASA
is well aware of the predicament it faces both in completing
and sustaining the Station, and it has weighted options and
tradeoffs. It is important in going forward that flexibility
continue to be maintained as events impacting schedule occur
and that contingencies be well thought out and planned so that
results can be maximized.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I am happy
to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaplain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cristina T. Chaplain
NASA: Challenges in Completing and Sustaining the International Space
Station
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss challenges that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) faces in completing and
sustaining the International Space Station (ISS). After delays and
redesigns, efforts are under way for a long-envisioned expansion of the
station so it can support a larger crew and more scientific research.
NASA officials estimate the entire cost to complete the station will
total $31 billion, and another $11 billion will be needed to sustain it
through its planned decommissioning in fiscal year 2016.
The Space Shuttle has been and is critical to completion of the
space station and re-supplying the station. The Shuttle remains the
only vehicle capable of transporting large segments of the station into
orbit for assembly. NASA plans to complete ISS assembly duties and
retire the Shuttle fleet in 2010 in order to pursue a new generation of
space flight vehicles for exploration. To that end, NASA has begun the
process of making key decisions on suppliers that will no longer be
needed. NASA officials told us that in many cases, restarting suppliers
after these decisions are made would be cost prohibitive and time
consuming. However, a new NASA vehicle will not be available until 2015
at the earliest, when the Crew Launch Vehicle (Aces 1) and Crew
Exploration Vehicle (Orion) are expected to fly. To fill the gap
following retirement of the Shuttle and provide crew rotation and
logistical support, NASA plans to rely on a variety of spacecraft
developed by the commercial sector and other countries.
In July 2007, we testified on a number of challenges NASA was
facing with regard to completing the ISS within the time constraints
created by the Shuttle's retirement. Those challenges are still
relevant. In light of these issues, we examined the risks and
challenges NASA faces in (1) completing assembly of the ISS by 2010,
and (2) providing logistics and maintenance support to the ISS after
2010.
In short, our work continued to find that NASA's plans to complete
assembly of the International Space Station prior to the scheduled
retirement of the Space Shuttle at end of fiscal year 2010 require much
to happen and very little to go wrong. While NASA believes the schedule
is still achievable, the flight rate that NASA is projecting is only
slightly less aggressive than it was prior to the Columbia disaster\1\
when, from 1992 to 2003, the agency launched a Shuttle every other
month. At that time, NASA used four vehicles to maintain its flight
schedule. To complete the station by 2010, NASA will need to maintain a
similar flight rate with fewer Shuttles and with a Shuttle fleet that
is aging and continuing to face fuel sensor challenges. NASA remains
confident that the current manifest can be accomplished within the
given time, and in fact, it has several months of reserve time in its
manifest. However, agency officials readily admit that the schedule is
aggressive. If delays continue, NASA may need to reduce the number of
flights to the station, which could prevent delivery of items currently
scheduled for assembly and the pre-positioning of critical spares.
Further, while NASA still expects to be able to increase crew capacity
from three to six persons, changes it may need to make to the space
station's configuration could limit the extent of scientific research
that can be conducted on-board the ISS or quality of life for the crew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up as it returned to
Earth after 16 days in orbit. After the accident of Columbia, the
Shuttle fleet was grounded for approximately two and one-half years.
During that the time, U.S. crew and supplies were launched in the
Russian Soyuz and Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After assembly is completed and the Shuttle is retired, NASA's
ability to rotate crew and supply the ISS will be impaired because of
the absence of a vehicle capable of carrying the 114,199 pounds (or
51.8 metric tons) of additional supplies needed to sustain the station
until its planned retirement in fiscal year 2016. NASA plans to rely on
Russian, European and Japanese vehicles to service the station. Even
with these vehicles, this shortfall remains. While the Russian vehicles
are already in service, the European vehicle just completed its first
operational test flight, and development efforts are still under way on
the Japanese vehicle. In addition, these vehicles were designed to
augment the capabilities of the Shuttle, not replace them. Both the
European and Japanese vehicles were designed to deliver supplies to the
station but their capacities are not equal to the Shuttle's 37,864
pounds of capacity. Furthermore, aside from a single Russian vehicle
that can bring back 132 pounds of cargo and rotate crew, no vehicle can
return cargo from the International Space Station after the Shuttle is
retired. NASA plans to rely on commercially developed vehicles to
address some of these shortfalls and has pledged approximately $500
million for their development. NASA expects one of these vehicles will
be ready for cargo use in 2010 and crew use in 2012. However, no
vehicle has successfully been launched into orbit and their development
schedules may leave little room for the unexpected. If these vehicles
cannot be delivered according to NASA's current expectations, NASA will
have to rely on Russian vehicles to maintain U.S. crew on the
International Space Station until the new generation of U.S. spacecraft
becomes available.
To conduct our work, we reviewed documents and testimonies by NASA
officials relating to the challenges associated with ISS completion,
the delivery schedule for ISS assembly and replacement units, and the
Space Shuttle manifest. We reviewed key ISS budget and strategic
maintenance plans, the ISS Independent Safety Task Force Report, and
previous GAO reports relating to the ISS. We visited and interviewed
officials responsible for ISS operations at NASA Headquarters,
Washington, D.C., and the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. At
NASA Headquarters, we met with officials from the Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate and the Space Operations Mission Directorate,
including representatives from the International Space Station and
Space Shuttle programs. We met with ISS and Space Shuttle officials at
the Johnson Space Center. We also talked to a commercial developer of
space vehicles and met with representatives of foreign space efforts.
Complete details of our scope and methodology can be found in Appendix
I. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to April 2008, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
The International Space Station program began in 1993 with several
partner countries: Canada, the 11 member nations of the European Space
Agency (ESA), Japan, and Russia. The ISS has served and is intended to
expand its service as a laboratory for exploring basic questions in a
variety of fields, including commercial, scientific, and engineering
research. The first assembly flight of the station, in which the Space
Shuttle Endeavor attached the U.S. laboratory module to the Russian
laboratory module, occurred in early December of 1998. However, since
the program's inception, NASA has struggled with cost growth, schedule
delays and redesigns of the station. As we reported in the past, these
challenges were largely due to poorly defined requirements, changes in
program content and inadequate program oversight. Due to these
challenges, the configuration of the station has devolved over time. In
the spring of 2001, NASA announced that it would make major changes in
the final configuration of the ISS to address cost overruns. In 2003,
the National Academies reported that this reconfiguration greatly
affected the overall ability of the ISS to support science. NASA
estimates that assembly and operating costs of the ISS will be between
$2.1 billion to $2.4 billion annually for FY 2009-FY 2012. The ISS as
of February 19, 2008, is approximately 65 percent complete.
The Shuttle program and the ISS program are inherently intertwined.
The Shuttle has unique capabilities in that it can lift and return more
cargo to and from orbit than any other current or planned space
vehicle. Figure 1 shows the capabilities of the Shuttle in various
configurations. Most segments of ISS cannot be delivered by any other
vehicle. For example, the Columbia disaster in 2003 put ISS assembly on
hiatus as NASA ceased Shuttle launches for two and one-half years while
it investigated the safety of the fleet. During this period, the
Russian Soyuz became the means of transportation for crew members
traveling to and returning from the ISS.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
In a major space policy address on January 14, 2004, President Bush
announced his ``Vision for U.S. Space Exploration'' (Vision) and
directed NASA to focus its future human space exploration activities on
a return to the Moon as prelude to future human missions to Mars and
beyond. As part of the Vision, NASA is developing new crew and cargo
vehicles, with the first crew vehicle currently scheduled to be
available in 2015. The President also directed NASA to retire the Space
Shuttle after completion of the ISS, which is planned for the end of
the decade. Based on that directive, NASA officials told us that they
developed a manifest consisting of 17 Shuttle launches to support ISS
assembly and supply between 2005 and 2010.\2\ Nine of these have taken
place. In response to the President's Vision, NASA formally set
September 30, 2010, as the date that the Shuttle program will cease
because agency officials believe that continuing the program beyond
that date will slow development of the agency's new vehicles--
specifically, the agency budget cannot support both programs at costs
of $2.5 billion to $4 billion above current budget. As shown in Table
1, the Shuttle program costs NASA several billion dollars annually and
projected funding is phased out in fiscal year 2011. NASA officials
stated that the majority of Shuttle program cost is fixed at roughly $3
billion a year whether it flies or not. NASA officials stated that the
average cost per flight is $150 million to $200 million.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The manifest includes 18 total flights, but one of the launches
is reserved for repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope.
\3\ This cost is based on hardware, such as the booster rocket,
used for the Shuttles.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the U.S. segment of the
ISS as a national laboratory and directed NASA to develop a plan to
increase the utilization of the ISS by other federal entities and the
private sector. In response, NASA has been pursuing relationships with
these entities. NASA expects that as the Nation's newest national
laboratory, the ISS will strengthen NASA's relationships with other
federal entities and private sector leaders in the pursuit of national
priorities for the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. The ISS National Laboratory is also intended to open new
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
paths for the exploration and economic development of space.
The Retirement of the Shuttle Poses Challenges to NASA's Ability to
Complete the International Space Station
It will be a challenge for NASA to complete the space station by
2010 given the compressed nature of the schedule, maintenance and
safety concerns, as well as events beyond its control such as weather.
Any of these factors can cause delays that may require NASA to re-
evaluate and reconstitute the assembly sequence. NASA remains confident
that the current manifest can be accomplished within the given time and
there are tradeoffs NASA can make in terms of what it can take up to
support and sustain the station should unanticipated delays occur.
However, failure to complete assembly as currently planned would
further reduce the station's ability to fulfill its research objectives
and short the station of critical spare parts that only the Shuttle can
currently deliver.
Shuttle Flight Schedule Is Aggressive
In our July 2007 testimony, we reported that NASA planned to launch
a Shuttle once every 2.7 months. The plan for launches remains
aggressive, partly because NASA plans on completing the ISS with the
last assembly mission in April 2010, with two contingency flights in
February and July 2010 to deliver key replacement units. The five
months between the last assembly launch and Shuttle retirement in
September 2010 act as a schedule reserve, which can be used to address
delays. There are eight Shuttle flights left to complete the station
and two contingency flights left to deliver key components necessary to
sustain the ISS after the retirement of the Shuttle. There is an
average of two and one-half months between each Shuttle launch.\4\
Table 2 shows the current Shuttle manifest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This includes one mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope
and two contingency flights.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
NASA has launched Shuttles at this rate in the past. In fact, the
agency launched a Shuttle, on average, every two months from 1992
through the Columbia disaster in 2003. However, at that time the agency
was launching a fleet of four Shuttles.\5\ The Shuttles require
maintenance and refurbishing that can last four to five months before
they can be re-launched. Launching at such a rate means that the
rotation schedule can handle few significant delays, such as those
previously experienced due to weather and fuel sensor difficulties.
Lastly, NASA officials said that Shuttle Atlantis, which was to go out
of service after the Hubble mission, will return to servicing the ISS
for two more flights, which NASA believes will add more schedule
flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The remaining three Shuttles are the Atlantis, Discovery, and
Endeavor.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Potential Launch Delays Remain
NASA officials stated repeatedly that NASA is committed to safely
flying the Shuttle until its retirement and will not succumb to
schedule pressure. However, the compressed nature of the manifest will
continue to test that commitment. Fuel sensor challenges continue to
surface in the Shuttle fleet. For example, the recent Shuttle Atlantis
launch was delayed two months while NASA addressed a fuel sensor
problem associated with the Shuttle's liquid hydrogen tank. This is the
same system that caused a two-week delay in the launch of the Shuttle
Discovery in 2005.
There are also challenges associated with the Shuttle launch
window. NASA officials told us that the duration of that window is
dependent on a number of factors, which include changes in the position
of the Earth and spacecraft traffic restrictions. NASA must consider
its traffic model constraints for vehicles docking at the space
station. According to the traffic model for ISS, no other vehicle can
dock while the Shuttle is docked, and each vehicle has constraints on
how long it can stay docked. For example, the Shuttle can dock for a
maximum of 10 days, while the Soyuz can dock a maximum of 200 days. The
docking of these two vehicles must be coordinated and meet other
technical restrictions.
In addition, the Shuttle has experienced delays due to severe
weather, such as when Atlantis's external tank was damaged by a
hailstorm in 2007. In this case the delay was about three months.
Figure 3 shows the delays in recent Shuttle launches related to weather
and other causes.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Completion of ISS Needed to Expand Scientific Research
The ISS is scheduled to support a six-person crew as early as 2009
and maintain that capability through 2016. NASA officials said that
equipment essential to support a six-person crew, such as systems for
oxygen recycling, removal of carbon dioxide and transforming urine into
water as well as an exercise machine will be delivered to the station
this fall. In addition, there are two components that have been planned
to hold this and other equipment needed for the six-person crew, which
are scheduled to go up in April 2010. If unanticipated delays occur,
NASA may need to hold back these two components--known as the Node 3
and the Cupola--which could constrain the ability to conduct research
and the quality of life on the station for the crew.
NASA officials emphasized that NASA's intent was to have most
science conducted on ISS only after the assembly of the ISS was
completed. The ISS currently supports three crew members. NASA stated
that the majority of the crew's time is spent maintaining the station,
rather than conducting scientific study. According to NASA, the crew
spends no more than three hours per week on science. Completion of the
ISS would allow NASA to expand to a six-person crew who could conduct
more research.
Since the ISS is designated as a national laboratory, the
expectation is that it will support scientific experimentation. NASA is
in the process of negotiating agreements with scientific organizations
to support scientific research on the ISS. NASA officials told us that
they are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the National
Institutes of Health to explore the possibility of scientific
experimentation on-board the ISS. These officials also told us that
NASA is in the process of negotiating with at least two other agencies.
The Need to Pre-position Replacement Units to Sustain the ISS May Also
Affect Assembly
NASA's efforts to complete the ISS are further complicated by the
need to put replacement units--the spare parts that are essential to
sustaining the ISS--into position before the Shuttle retires. The two
contingency flights of the Shuttle have been designated to deliver
these key replacement units, which only the Shuttle is capable of
carrying. According to NASA, the original approach to deal with these
key components (also known as orbital replacement units--ORU\6\ ) was
to take the ones that failed or reached the end of their lifetime back
to Earth on the Shuttle, refurbish them and launch them back to ISS for
use. As a result of the Shuttle retirement, NASA will no longer be
bringing down ORUs to fix. Instead, NASA officials stated they have
adopted a ``build and burn'' philosophy, which means that after the
Shuttle retires, instead of being brought down to be refurbished, ORUs
will be discarded and disintegrate upon re-entry into the atmosphere.
To determine how many replacement units need to be positioned at the
station, NASA officials told us they are using data modeling that has
been very effective in determining how long ORUs will last. Table 3
illustrates the Shuttle manifest. This includes elements needed for the
planned configuration to complete the station and delivery of critical
spares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Orbital Replacement Units (ORU), according to NASA officials,
are critical spares are necessary to sustain the ISS.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
NASA currently plans to use two contingency flights for these
replacements because all other flights are planned with assembly cargo.
Recently, the NASA Administrator publicly stated that these flights are
considered necessary to sustain the ISS and have been scheduled to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
carry key spare units.
Alternative Vehicle Options to Service the International Space Station
Pose Challenges
In the event that NASA completes assembly of the ISS on schedule
and prepositions an adequate number of critical spares, the agency
still faces a myriad of challenges in sustaining the research facility
until its retirement, currently planned for fiscal year 2016. Without
the Shuttle, NASA officials told us that they face a significant cargo
supply shortfall and very limited crew rotation capabilities. NASA will
rely on an assortment of vehicles in order to provide the necessary
logistical support and crew rotation capabilities required by the
station. Some of these vehicles axe already supporting the station.
Others are being developed by international partners, the commercial
sector, and NASA. (See Figure 4) Furthermore, some of these
transportation services may face legal restrictions, and still others
face cost, schedule, and performance issues that raise serious
questions about their development and utilization. These issues will
challenge NASA's ability to close the sustainment gap between the
retirement of the Shuttle in 2010 and the availability of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in 2015. Failure of any or some of these
efforts would also seriously restrict NASA's options to sustain and
maintain a viable space station.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Russian Vehicles
With the exception of the Shuttle and the recently completed
demonstration flight of the ATV, the only vehicles currently capable of
supporting the space station are the Russian Progress and Soyuz
vehicles. NASA officials stated that both of these vehicles have
provided reliable service to the ISS. From the Columbia disaster in
2003 until return to flight in 2005, the Russian vehicles were the sole
source of logistical support and crew rotation capability for the
station. The Progress provides atmospheric gas, propellant, water, and
pressurized cargo. It also has the capability to use its thrusters to
change the Station's altitude and orientation. The Soyuz provides crew
delivery and rescue capability for three crew members. Progress
vehicles are expendable and offer no recoverable return capability, but
provide important trash removal capabilities. Soyuz vehicles have a
limited recoverable cargo capacity. However, some NASA officials have
suggested that their limited capabilities restrict the capacity of the
station to move to a six-member crew and significantly limit the
scientific research because the vehicles cannot bring experiments to
Earth for assessment. NASA currently purchases crew and cargo transport
services from Russia through a contract with the Russian Federal Space
Agency (Roscosmos).
NASA officials told us that after the initial ISS contract between
Roscosmos and NASA expired, NASA entered into another contract that
runs through 2011. However, according to NASA, the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000 restricted certain payments in connection
to the ISS that may be made to the Russian government. In 2005, NASA
requested relief from the restrictions of the Act, and Congress amended
the Act.\7\ Through this amendment, NASA and Roscosmos have negotiated
quantities and prices for services through January 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The 2005 Amendment to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000
altered the Acts definition of ``extraordinary payments in connection
with the International Space Station.'' NASA refers to this amendment
as its ``exemption.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA officials anticipate the use of four Soyuz flights per year
and approximately six Progress flights beginning in approximately 2010.
While NASA officials stated that they are making every effort to limit
amount of fees they pay for usage of Russian vehicles, to date, NASA
officials told us that they anticipate that from fiscal year 2009 to
fiscal year 2012, NASA will spend $589 million on cargo and crew
services from the Russians.\8\ NASA officials also told us that the
Roscosmos has suggested that it will charge NASA higher fees for usage
of its vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NASA and Roscosmos have negotiated quantities and prices for
services through calendar year 2011. According to NASA it will require
additional relief from the restrictions of the Act, currently entitled
the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act.
European and Japanese Vehicles
NASA has stated it will use its international partners' vehicles to
conduct some supply activities. Specifically, Japan's Aerospace
Exploration Agency (JAXA) H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) and the European
Space Agency's (ESA) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) vehicles will be
used for bringing up cargo. NASA's reliance on the ATV and HTV assumes
that these vehicles will be ready to service the ISS by the time the
Shuttle stops flying in 2010.
The new vehicles being developed by the European and Japanese space
agencies are very complex. The ATV had a development timeline of 20
years. Its first operational test flight to the ISS was in March 2008.
NASA has stated that both the European and Japanese vehicle development
programs experienced technical hurdles and budgetary constraints, but
are committed to fulfilling their roles as partners in the ISS program.
NASA officials told us they have confidence the European vehicle will
be available for ISS operations before retirement of the Shuttle, but
they are not as confident about the Japanese vehicle's being ready by
that time. The Japanese vehicle is still under development and has
faced some setbacks. NASA officials told us that the HTV's first test
launch is planned for July 2009.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
International Partner Vehicles Have Constraints in Ability to Ferry
Crew and Cargo to and from the ISS in Comparison to the Shuttle
In addition to potential development challenges, the international
partner vehicles have constraints in terms of what they can take to and
from the ISS in comparison to the Shuttle. NASA's current plans to
manage the gap after the Shuttle retirement do not take into account
the possibility of delays in the development of these vehicles, and
even if they do come on line on time, NASA officials estimate that
there will be a significant shortfall to the ISS of at least 114,199
pounds (or 51.8 metric tons) in cargo re-supply capability. These
vehicles were designed to augment the capabilities of the Shuttle and
have significantly less capability to deliver cargo to the ISS. The
Shuttle can carry a maximum cargo of close to 38,000 pounds (17,175
kg.). In comparison, the European ATV's maximum capability is 16,535
pounds (7,500 kg.) and the Japanese HTV's average capability is 13,228
pounds (6,000 kg.). The HTV and ATV are expendable vehicles. NASA can
use them for trash removal, but cannot carry cargo or scientific
experiments back to Earth because the vehicles disintegrate when re-
entering the atmosphere.
The Russian Progress and Soyuz vehicles also have very limited
cargo capacity. For example, the Progress has an average capability of
5,732 pounds (2,600 kg.)--roughly one-seventh the Shuttle's capability.
The Progress, like the ATV and HTV, is an expendable vehicle. The Soyuz
can transport three crew persons to the ISS and can serve as a rescue
vehicle capable of taking three crew members back to Earth. Unlike the
ATV and HTV, the Soyuz does have the capacity to bring down cargo--
roughly 132 pounds (60 kg.). NASA officials have stated that until NASA
deploys its new crew exploration vehicles or commercial vehicles become
available, NASA will be dependent on the Russian vehicles for crew
transportation services and on the Japanese and European vehicles for
limited cargo services whenever they become available.
Figure 7 compares the up mass capabilities of the various vehicles.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Commercial Vehicles
NASA is working with the commercial space sector through its
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to develop
and produce vehicles that can take equipment and crew to and from the
space station. NASA expects that these vehicles will be ready for cargo
use in 2010 and crew use in 2012. However, these vehicles have yet to
be successfully launched into orbit, and some NASA officials have
acknowledged that their development schedules leave little room for the
unexpected.
Under the COTS program, NASA has pledged $500 million to promote
commercial opportunities for space transportation vehicles. Using Space
Act agreements\9\ instead of traditional contracting mechanisms, NASA
will make payments to companies based on the achievement of key
milestones during the development of their vehicles. These agreements
are both funded and unfunded, For the two funded agreements that have
been reached, NASA stated that the commercial suppliers for space
transportation services will have customers outside of ISS, including
NASA's Constellation program, which plans to send humans back to the
Moon and eventually Mars. The COTS program will occur in phases. In the
first phase companies will demonstrate the vehicle launch and docking
capabilities with the ISS. The second phase is the procurement of
services for transportation of cargo and crew to the ISS, which is
scheduled to begin sometime in the 2010 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ COTS agreements are Space Act agreements issued pursuant to
NASA's other transactions authority. These types of agreements are not
contracts, and are therefore generally not subject to those federal
laws and regulations that apply to government contracts. NASA has
budgeted $500 million in fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2010 as an
investment for the demonstration of commercial orbital capabilities and
will be executed in two phases. The first phase consists of technical
development/demonstration funded by the Space Act agreements. The
second phase may include the competitive procurement of orbital
transportation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA had seven COTS agreements through the Space Act. NASA signed
five unfunded Space Act agreements, which facilitate the sharing of
technical and ISS integration information between commercial companies
and NASA. NASA has funded two companies, Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) and
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). NASA officials stated that
through the funded Space Act agreements, SpaceX has received $139
million for its project and is still working on successfully launching
a vehicle that can reach low-Earth orbit. The company successfully
completed a critical design review in August 2007 and told us that it
is planning its first orbital demonstration test flight for June 2009.
NASA officials told us that RpK received $37 million in funding, but
then forfeited the remainder of its share because it did not meet
certain financial development milestones. When NASA began to
redistribute these forfeited funds, RpK filed a bid protest with GAO,
which GAO denied. NASA officials then moved forward and awarded $170
million to Orbital Sciences Corporation in February 2008.
NASA officials acted quickly to award the forfeited money and
expect that SpaceX will have cargo capability available in 2010 (by the
time the Shuttle is retired) and crew capability 112012. While SpaceX
has been meeting key milestones in the development of its vehicle, some
officials at the Johnson Space Center were skeptical that COTS would be
available on the current projected schedule. Additionally, the
International Space Station Independent Safety Task Force (IISTF)
reported that design, development and certification of the new COTS
program was just beginning and that ``if similar to other new program
development activities, it most likely will take much longer than
expected and will cost more than anticipated.'' In our opinion, the
schedule is optimistic when compared to other government and commercial
space programs we have studied. We will be studying the COTS program
and schedules in more detail in response to a request of Members of
Congress.
Ares I and Orion
NASA is under pressure to develop its own vehicles quickly as the
Space Shuttle's retirement in 2010 means that there could be at least a
five-year gap in our nation's ability to send humans to space. Among
the first major items of NASA's development efforts to implement the
Vision program are the development of new space flight systems--
including the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle. Ares I and Orion are currently targeted for operation no later
than 2015. NASA plans to use these vehicles as they become available to
service the space station.
However, we recently testified that there are considerable unknowns
as to whether NASA's plans for the Ares I and Orion vehicles can be
executed within schedule goals, as well as what these efforts will
ultimately cost. This is primarily because NASA is still in the process
of defining many of the project's performance requirements and some of
these uncertainties could affect the mass, loads, and weight
requirements for the vehicles. Such uncertainty has created knowledge
gaps that are affecting many aspects of both projects. For example, a
design analysis cycle completed in May 2007 revealed an unexpected
increase in ascent loads (the physical strain on the spacecraft during
launch) that could result in increases to the weight of the Orion
vehicle and both stages of the Ares I.
NASA recognizes the risks involved with its approach and it is
taking steps to mitigate those risks. However, given the complexity of
the Orion and Ares I efforts and their interdependencies, any
significant requirements changes can have reverberating effects and
make it extremely difficult to establish firm cost estimates and
schedule baselines. If knowledge gaps persist, programs will cost more,
fail to meet their schedules, or deliver less than originally
envisioned. Ultimately, NASA's aggressive schedule leaves little room
for the unexpected. If something goes wrong with the development of the
Crew Launch Vehicle or the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the entire
Constellation Program could be thrown off course and the return to
human space flight further delayed.
Concluding Observations
The decision to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010 has had profound
effects on the ISS program. It leaves little flexibility in the Shuttle
schedule. Any delays could require NASA to choose between completing
the station as planned and the pre-positioning of needed critical
spares, The decision also leaves NASA dependent on Russia for crew
rotation services until other vehicles are developed and demonstrated.
And even with the development of these vehicles, NASA still faces a
significant capacity shortfall in its ability to provide logistical
support to the station. The shortfall may well impact support for a six
person crew and the quality of research that can be conducted on the
ISS. At the same time, it also provides opportunities to commercial
suppliers to demonstrate capabilities that could have long-term
benefits for future U.S. space exploration and development. We are not
making recommendations as a result of our review as NASA is well aware
of the predicament it faces with the station and has weighed options
and trade-offs for the remainder of the schedule manifest. However, it
is important that flexibility continue to be maintained as events
impacting schedule occur and that decisions be made with the goal of
maximizing safety and results.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or the other Members may have at this
time.
Individuals making key contributions to this statement include
James L. Morrison, Greg Campbell, Brendan S. Culley, Masha P. Pastuhav-
Purdie, Kea Vongvanith, and Alyssa B. Weir.
Appendix I:
Scope and Methodology
To identify the risks and challenges NASA faces in completing
assembly of the International Space Station by 2010, we
<bullet> analyzed key documents and testimonies by NASA
officials relating to the challenges associated with ISS
completion. This included: the delivery schedule for ISS parts
for assembly and the delivery schedule for replacement units,
the Space Shuttle manifest, budget documents and the strategic
maintenance plan, the ISS Independent Safety Task Force Report,
and previous GAO reports relating to the ISS.
<bullet> interviewed NASA mission officials to obtain
information on the status of the ISS. We also discussed these
issues with the International Partners (Canadian Space Agency,
European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)
to get their perspectives.
To determine the risks and challenges NASA faces in providing
logistics and maintenance support to the International Space Station
after 2010, we
<bullet> analyzed documents related to the up-mass and down-
mass capabilities of the International Partners and SpaceX
vehicles, the shortfall in ISS up-mass for re-supply and
sustainment, the new vehicles that will support ISS NASA's
plans for using Russian vehicles to support ISS through what
NASA refers to as its ``exemption,'' and the impacts to the
utilization of the ISS.
<bullet> We interviewed key NASA officials from NASA
Headquarters, the Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, and the ISS
program officials, and interviewed officials representing the
International Partners.
To accomplish our work, we visited and interviewed officials
responsible for the ISS operations at NASA Headquarters, Washington,
D.C., and the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. At NASA
Headquarters, we met with officials from the Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate and the Space Operations Mission Directorate,
including representatives from the International Space Station and
Space Shuttle programs. We also met with ISS and Space Shuttle mission
officials at the Johnson Space Center.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to April 2008,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Biography for Cristina T. Chaplain
Ms. Chaplain currently serves as a Director, Acquisition and
Sourcing Management, at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She
has responsibility for GAO assessments of military and civilian space
acquisitions. Ms. Chaplain has also led a variety of DOD-wide
contracting-related and best practice evaluations for the GAO. Before
her current position, Ms. Chaplain worked with GAO's financial
management and information technology teams. Ms. Chaplain has been with
GAO for 17 years. She received a Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in
International Relations from Boston University and a Master's degree in
Journalism from Columbia University.
Chairman Udall. Thank you.
Dr. Sutton.
STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFREY P. SUTTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SPACE
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. Sutton. Mr. Chairman, Judge Hall, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify here this morning.
I have the distinct honor of serving as the Director of the
National Space Biomedical Research Institute or NSBRI. And NASA
established NSBRI in 1997, and was charged to lead a national
effort for accomplishing the integrated biomedical research
necessary to support a long-term human presence development and
exploration of space. That mission has not changed since
inception.
And over the past decade NSBRI has brought unprecedented
intellectual and institutional resources to help NASA address
and reduce high-priority biomedical risks. And the focus has
been on the team approach to develop counter measures or
solutions to health-related problems in the physical and
psychological challenges that men and women face on long
duration space flights.
NSBRI is a success story for NASA. The Institute attracts
outstanding scientists, physicians, and engineers across the
country and coordinates them to advance in a cost-effective way
biomedical science and technology for space and to apply
results to enhance life on Earth.
We are excited by a number of things. We are excited by the
scientific and technological achievements, by the growing
number of young people who are participating in the science and
education programs, and also by the accomplishments of the
talented people in this endeavor. And we are particularly proud
at this moment, Dr. Michael DeBakey, from Baylor College of
Medicine in Houston, and Dr. DeBakey is a world-renowned heart
surgeon, innovator, military veteran, leader, and humanitarian,
and we are privileged that he is a dedicated and active member
of the NSBRI Board of Directors. And yesterday in a magnificent
ceremony in the Rotunda, the President and Congressional
leadership presented Dr. DeBakey with the Congressional gold
medal, the most distinguished award bestowed by the United
States Congress, and on behalf of NSBRI, I thank you for your
support of the award to Dr. DeBakey.
In my written testimony there are responses to a series of
thoughtful questions posed by the Subcommittee concerning
biomedical research and the ISS. What I would like to do here
is to talk about three points that cut across the questions and
the responses.
Now, the first is that ISS is critical to biomedical
research needed to prepare for exploration beyond low-Earth
orbit.
The second point is that there is a vibrant portfolio that
exist right now in ground base biomedical research that is
maturing toward flight studies for ISS.
And the third is that biomedical research for exploration
leads to advances that enhances life on Earth. Let me talk
about these three points in turn.
There is a broad range of human health risks associated
with extended operations in the microgravity environment of
space, and I know that Members are familiar with these examples
being accelerated bone loss, muscle atrophy, changes in
cardiovascular function, altered immune responses, sensory
motor adaptations, issues concerning habitability, and a
variety of other issues. And also how to deliver medical care,
to provide medical capabilities in this environment.
We are familiar with how imaging has impacted medicine on
Earth, the ability to make accurate diagnoses, to provide
treatment. During missions in remote harsh environments,
whether on Earth or in space, it is important to make the best
possible assessment in the event of a medical contingency.
Since treatment decisions pertain not only to the affected
crew member but also to the other crew members, the consumables
and possibly the mission itself, in a collaboration involving
academia, government, and industry, ultrasound training for
non-physician crew members aboard the ISS has led to several
scientific publications demonstrating the utility of ultrasound
for health monitoring and medical imaging in space.
The findings and subsequent lessons learned unquestionably
required ISS crew and resources could not have been done
without ISS, and this project exemplifies how the ISS provides
unique and invaluable capabilities. Their applications to Earth
in military medicine, in the ability to make diagnoses in
remote settings, air ambulances, and also applications to
sports medicine, and in fact, the technologies were used during
the last Olympic games.
The second point that I wish to make pertains to the way in
which the NASA's human research program and NSBRI are working
together. There is a significant portfolio of projects
involving 70 universities in 26 states that are moving the way
through a pipeline of counter-measure and technology
development from research to development, to testing, to
evaluation, and eventual operational integradation. There is a
user panel of astronauts, current and former and flight
surgeons, who are working together. I agree with Mr.
Rohrabacher's statement that there is a need to conduct
research on Station. This is why NSBRI was created, from the
standpoint of NASA leveraging off the Nation's investment and
biomedical research and being able to move projects to testing
in the Space Station.
The third point that I wanted to make concerns the spin-
offs, the first panel eloquently addressed this issue in the
context of unique conditions of space, leading to novel
insights and discoveries and also to spin-offs. And I want to
echo the comments of the other witnesses and thanking NASA and
the engineers for their ingenuity, hard work, and expertise in
making ISS a reality. There is really an unprecedented
opportunity here from the perspective of biomedical research,
and that this endeavor will be collaborative international and
would advance our nation as we build upon our legacy of
innovation, discovery, and leadership.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sutton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey P. Sutton
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of ``NASA's
International Space Station Program: Status and Issues.'' Since 2001, I
have had the privilege to serve as the Director of the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), a non-profit consortium
competitively selected and supported by NASA to address and develop
countermeasures for high-priority biomedical risks associated with
long-duration human exploration of space.
The International Space Station (ISS) provides a unique, invaluable
resource for the U.S. and its international partners to conduct
scientific research, develop and demonstrate innovative technologies,
test and evaluate procedures, protocols and products, and operationally
integrate hardware, software and other components to advance space
exploration goals. Designation of the U.S. segment of the ISS as a
National Laboratory, as specified in Section 507 of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), underscores the
importance of ISS as a facility for research and a means to enable
exploration.
In the ``Vision for Space Exploration,'' presented by President
Bush on January 14, 2004, the use of ISS to support space exploration
goals is highlighted, with one focus being to understand how the space
environment affects astronaut health and capabilities and to develop
countermeasures. The potential of ISS as an essential platform for
biomedical and technology research to support long-term human
exploration of space has been described in several recent reports,
including but not limited to (1) ``Review of NASA Plans for the
International Space Station,'' prepared by the National Research
Council in 2006, and (2) ``NASA Report to Congress Regarding a Plan for
the International Space Station National Laboratory,'' submitted in May
2007.
It is prudent for the U.S. to foster scientific and technological
achievements utilizing the unique attributes of the ISS. Innovation and
discovery contribute to American leadership and economic growth.
Accomplishments in space help inspire the next generation of
scientists, physicians and engineers, support U.S. competitiveness,
facilitate partnerships and international cooperation, and lead to
advances that enhance life on Earth. NASA and the Nation face many
challenges. As construction of the ISS nears completion and three
scientific laboratories become operational, the time is ripe to
capitalize on our country's investment in the ISS and all that it has
to offer.
The present hearing examines the status of the ISS and issues
related to its operation and utilization, including the planned and
potential uses of the ISS to meet both NASA and non-NASA research
needs. This testimony concerns itself with responses to a series of
biomedical questions posed in the Subcommittee's invitation letter.
What biomedical research is needed to prepare for exploration beyond
low-Earth orbit?
In the 47 years since the first human flew in space, a significant
amount of knowledge and experience has been acquired relating to the
inherent risks associated with human space travel. Missions in low-
Earth orbit, especially long-duration flights aboard Skylab, Mir and
ISS, have given insights into a broad range of human health risks
associated with extended operations in the microgravity environment of
space. Accelerated bone loss, muscle atrophy, changes in cardiovascular
function, altered immune responses and sensorimotor adaptations occur.
There are issues concerning proper nutrition, human-machine interfaces
and habitability, neuro-behavioral and psycho-social factors,
performance, sleep and chronobiology, radiation and medical care
capabilities, including ineffectiveness of medication. Some risks, such
as dust from the lunar or Mars surfaces, are unique to missions beyond
low-Earth orbit. Not all astronauts are affected equally by the same
risk or countermeasure, and individual differences need to be taken
into account.
An understanding of the risks and issues is critical to determining
what biomedical research is needed. The Institute of Medicine (IOM)
report, ``Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions,''
released in 2001, recommended that all relevant epidemiological data on
astronauts be captured, and that a long-term, focused health care
research strategy be pursued concerning health risks and their
amelioration.
The Bioastronautics Roadmap (http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov),
developed over the past decade by NASA in collaboration with the
external biomedical research community, is consistent with this
perspective. The Roadmap provides a framework for identifying,
assessing and reducing the risks of crew exposure to the hazardous
environments of space. It identifies 45 risks and assigns priorities to
these for three reference missions: a one-year mission to the ISS; a
month-long stay on the lunar surface; and a 30-month round-trip journey
to Mars.
NASA and its non-government organization partner, NSBRI, have used
the Bioastronautics Roadmap as a framework to build a biomedical
research portfolio focused on high-priority areas, such as accelerated
bone loss, radiation, neuro-behavioral and psycho-social factors, and
exploration medical care. More recently, the partnership has been
elucidating a level of detail necessary to prioritize risks across
physiological disciplines and to compare strategies for how to manage a
given risk across mission operational architectures.
Research on the ground and in space is needed to elucidate
processes but the importance of accelerating countermeasure and
technology development is also critical, as emphasized in an IOM report
released in 2005 entitled ``A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human
Exploration of Space.'' To prepare for exploration beyond low-Earth
orbit, the report stresses the need to establish safe radiation
exposure levels for all relevant risks. This sentiment is echoed in a
2008 report from the National Research Council entitled ``Managing
Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration.''
By its nature, research needs are dynamic as knowledge about risks
matures and countermeasures and other risk-reduction strategies are
implemented. ISS as a research platform provides an unparalleled
resource to define requirements for exploration needs and to support
research, development, testing, evaluation and operational integration
of deliverables to support crew health and well-being.
What progress has been made to date?
Progress in biomedical research and development has been made in
space and in ground-based investigations. Skylab, Space Shuttle
(including dedicated life science missions such as STS-90 Neurolab),
free flyers and the ISS have all pushed the frontier of biomedical
knowledge and technology. Beginning with the arrival of Expedition 1 to
the ISS in November 2000, and extending through the current Expedition
17 (launched April 8, 2008 with an expected return to Earth in October
2008) and Expedition 18 (expected launch and return in October 2008 and
April 2009, respectively) missions, NASA reports a series of
experiments devoted to human research and countermeasure development
for exploration.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ (http://www.nasa.gov/mission<INF> -</INF>pages/station/science/
experiments/Human<INF>-</INF>Research.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of these experiments with Earth applications follows:
<bullet> Bone and Muscle Physiology in Space Experiments
include research seeking to understand the effects space flight
on bone loss and muscle fatigue, kidney stone prevention, and
developing countermeasures, such as the use of medicines and
exercise. Potential Earth benefits include treatments and/or
cures for diseases such as osteoporosis and spinal cord
injuries.
<bullet> Cardiovascular and Respiratory Systems in Space
Experiments include research to understand orthostatic
intolerance, decompression sickness, and blood delivery to the
brain. Earth applications include improved treatment of low
blood pressure and prevention of cardiac deconditioning.
<bullet> Human Behavior and Performance Experiments include
research on crew interaction, understanding behavioral issues
and sleep cycles. Earth applications include improved treatment
of insomnia and improved behavioral performance of people in
high-stress situations.
<bullet> Immune System in Space Experiments include research
on developing new wound healing technologies, understanding and
monitoring immune system functions, and studying stress-induced
reactivation of viruses. Earth applications include wound and
tissue repair techniques that could prevent limb loss for
military and civilian populations and rapid detection of
stress-induced viruses, such as herpes, and improved treatment.
<bullet> Integrated Physiology Studies Experiments include
research on development of telemedicine strategies, nutrition,
and archiving of biosamples that will provide future research
opportunities. Earth applications include remote medical
diagnosis and treatment capabilities for rural health care and
greater understanding of nutrition on health.
<bullet> Microbiology in the Space Environment Experiments
include research on development of hand-held technology to
detect biological and chemical substances, understanding the
threat of pathogens inside spacecraft, and studying the effect
of reduced gravity on pathogens. Earth applications include
advances in vaccine development, new treatments of drug-
resistant virus strains, and diagnosis for potential sources of
microbial contamination.
<bullet> Neurological and Vestibular Systems in Space
Experiments include research on facilitating recovery of
functional mobility after long-duration space flight,
understanding hand-eye coordination difficulties in space, and
studying medications to treat motion sickness. Earth
applications included improved treatment of neurological
diseases, more effective motion sickness treatment, and reduced
risk of falling in the elderly.
<bullet> Radiation Studies Experiments include research on the
radiation environment, effects of radiation on the brain, and
assessing the risk of genetic damage caused by radiation. Earth
applications include benefits for brain tumor treatment,
insight on the origin of specific gene mutations, and improved
radiation protection on military and civilian aircraft crews.
A significant step forward by NASA in implementing an integrated
biomedical research program to support the long-term human presence,
development and exploration of space occurred slightly more that a
decade ago. In 1997, NASA competitively awarded, and has funded in
increments based on performance, a cooperative agreement (NCC 9-58) to
the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (www.nsbri.org). NSBRI
works in partnership with NASA's Human Research Program, that is part
of Advanced Capabilities within the Exploration Mission Systems
Directorate. NSBRI leverages the Nation's substantial investment in
biomedical research and brings unprecedented intellectual and
institutional resources to solve problems for NASA. The focus is on a
team approach to developing countermeasures and deliverables in close
collaboration with NASA (see Attachments A and B).
NSBRI is a virtual institute that currently supports approximately
65 coordinated and openly competed science, technology and education
projects at 70 universities in 26 states. There is a well established
pipeline of products, maturing through countermeasure and technology
readiness levels, in preparation for flight testing, evaluation and, if
appropriate, operational integration. Some projects have matured to
flight, while the bulk of the effort is ground-based and serves as a
source of biomedical research for the ISS National Laboratory.
As a nationally acclaimed translational research institute, NSBRI
adds unique value to NASA's Human Research Program. NSBRI is governed
by 12 consortium members, with combined annual biomedical funding in
excess of $3B from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). There are
strong productive collaborations not only with institutes within the
NIH, in the spirit of the recent NASA-NIH Memorandum of Understanding,
but also with programs within the Department of Defense, Department of
Energy, U.S. Naval Academy, and other entities. More than one-third of
NSBRI projects actively engage industry, and there is an excellent
education and outreach program spanning elementary through high school,
undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral education, and continuing
medical education efforts related to space. There is an eminent Board
of Directors (Attachment C) and active involvement of current and
former astronauts and flight surgeons (Attachment D).
Examples of NSBRI supported science and technology projects
include:\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.nsbri.org/Research/index.html for a complete
listing of projects.
<bullet> Understanding the harmful effects of space radiation
in exacerbating bone loss caused by microgravity, with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
implications on Earth for patients receiving radiotherapy;
<bullet> Investigation of pharmacological countermeasures to
limit hand and muscle fatigue in space, with applications on
Earth to lessening muscle weakness following injury or surgery;
<bullet> Development and testing of a needle-free blood and
tissue monitoring device for health assessment, science and
medical care in space, with applications on Earth for use in
ambulances, intensive care units, battlefield settings and
monitoring of vascular function in diabetics;
<bullet> Research and applications of blue light to affect the
human circadian pacemaker, performance and adaptation to shifts
in work schedule, with applications on Earth to shift work;
<bullet> Delivery of a miniaturized time-of-flight mass
spectrometer for environmental monitoring and medical
assessment in space, with applications for homeland security;
<bullet> Research, development, testing and evaluation (aboard
the NASA Extreme Mission Operations underwater habitat) of a
psychomotor vigilance test for the objective assessment of
fatigue and stress in mission-critical activities (Principal
investigator awarded a NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal
in 2007);
<bullet> Development of a microdosimeter instrument, tested
aboard the MidSTAR-1 satellite, for real-time personal
radiation monitoring, with applications to radiation assessment
on Earth;
<bullet> Ultrasound training for non-physicians aboard the ISS
for health monitoring and medical imaging resulted in a NSBRI/
NASA/contractor collaboration leading to the first scientific
publication from space,\4\ with applications on Earth for
remote-guided medical evaluation and sports medicine;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Radiology 2005; 234(2):319-322.
<bullet> Development and testing of a high-intensity, focused
ultrasound technique for non-invasive, bloodless surgery, with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
applications in space, emergency rooms and on the battlefield;
<bullet> Studies to determine oxygen requirements and means to
concentrate oxygen in hypoxic, harsh environments, with
applications on Earth to emergency and military medicine.
What role will the International Space Station play in addressing those
questions?
While short-duration flights and ground-based research, including
the use of analog environments, contribute to biomedical research for
space exploration, the ISS provides the only resource with the
capabilities to conduct certain types of research and to advance
countermeasures and technologies. There are two immediate strategic
goals the ISS can fulfill in the area of biomedical research to address
exploration needs. It will serve as a proving ground for scientific and
technological product development of deliverables currently in the
pipeline. These deliverables may address specific standards and
requirements. Secondly, access to the ISS would foster new project
opportunities that leverage off the portfolio of projects currently
addressing exploration needs.
What is needed to maximize the utility of the International Space
Station for conducting the necessary biomedical research?
Affordable and reliable access to and from the ISS is key to the
success of conducting the necessary biomedical research. Critical to
this access is the availability of cost-effective transportation
services.
Given adequate access to and from ISS, it is essential to have a
robust management structure and leadership for conducting and
integrating science. Research aboard the ISS should be of the highest
merit, with ample preliminary work to ensure success. There should be
clear justification as to why the ISS is the best, or perhaps only,
laboratory to conduct the research. Some biomedical research is
fundamental and can only be performed in a microgravity environment.
However, much of the necessary biomedical investigations for space are
translational. They mature through a pipeline from research, to
development, to testing, to evaluation, to operational integration. To
maximize the utility of the ISS in this context, it is wise to link the
ISS National Laboratory to the full spectrum of space-related research
being conducted throughout academia, industry and government.
Lastly, a countermeasure advancement process, developed
specifically for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory, would be
helpful to facilitate key research moving through the pipeline of
development to advance to validation in space. Such a process will
require strong program oversight and management rigor to assess the
operational need and feasibility of the research, thereby maximizing
the return on investment.
What, if any, critical enabling biomedical research for exploration
cannot be done on the International Space Station and will have to be
addressed by other means?
While many areas of biomedical research for exploration would
benefit from access to the ISS, some research is not suitable for ISS
and needs to be addressed by other means. Four examples follow:
Radiation Studies--Studies toward countermeasure development against
the acute and chronic effects of radiation cannot be fully conducted in
low-Earth orbit, given the presence of the Van Allen belts. The
radiation spectrum beyond low-Earth orbit can be emulated utilizing
beams of high-energy heavy ions, such as those found at Brookhaven
National Laboratory.
Long-duration Exposure to Reduced Gravity--The effects of microgravity
on the body during long-duration missions are well documented (e.g.,
approximately one percent bone loss per month). However, the effects of
long-term exposure to reduced gravity are not known. Gravity on the
Moon is one-sixth of Earth's gravity and on Mars it is three-eighths of
Earth's gravity. There are many open questions, such as whether extra-
vehicular activities in these gravitational environments obviate the
need for supplemental exercise countermeasures.
Lunar Dust--Dust, such as on the Moon, poses an environmental risk that
could result in mechanical failures in spacesuits and airlocks. Lunar
dust is exceedingly small, making it easy to get deep into the lungs.
The dust is littered with bonded shards of glass and minerals known as
agglutinates, which have not been found on Earth. It is not known
whether they can be expelled efficiently if inhaled.
Medical Emergency Management--Through the use of a high-fidelity
patient simulator, astronauts and ground personnel involved in mission
operations can practice management of medical emergencies. Ground-based
simulation of medical contingencies complements activities to advance
medical care capabilities that could be tested and evaluated aboard the
ISS.
In closing, as ISS construction nears completion, there is an
unprecedented opportunity to conduct biomedical and other research, and
to test and validate critical technologies for human exploration of
space. This endeavor will be collaborative, international and will
advance our nation as we build upon our legacy of innovation, discovery
and leadership.
Attachment A
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Jeffrey P. Sutton
Jeffrey P. Sutton, M.D., Ph.D., is President and Institute Director
of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). He was
unanimously appointed to this position in 2001 by the NSBRI Board of
Directors. NSBRI partners with NASA to support science, technology and
education at more than 70 universities across the U.S., with a focus on
developing solutions to health-related problems associated with human
space exploration. NSBRI also has extensive partnerships with industry,
U.S. Government programs and international collaborators.
Dr. Sutton guided the maturation of NSBRI into a premier,
internationally acclaimed institute of excellence in translational
biomedical research. Under his leadership, NSBRI has developed and
continues to generate important and operationally-relevant
countermeasures and deliverables to enhance health in space and on
Earth. Partnerships with government and industry have tripled, and
NSBRI is now a main portal to the extramural community for NASA-
sponsored human research. NSBRI's portfolio of projects is team-based
and addresses high-priority areas, innovation and successful product
development.
Dr. Sutton has been at the forefront of several award-winning
education and outreach initiatives in science, medicine and
engineering. These programs inspire and support the next generation of
space explorers, within the U.S. and abroad. He has streamlined
business practices, and enhanced efficiencies and entrepreneurship.
Dr. Sutton was born in New York City and holds an M.D. degree
(1982), an M.Sc. in medical science (neuroscience, 1985) and a Ph.D. in
theoretical physics (1988), all from the University of Toronto. His
residency training was at Harvard Medical School. He is a Diplomat of
the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and a Fellow of the
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He practiced
medicine for 19 years.
Prior to his present position, Dr. Sutton was NSBRI Smart Medical
Systems Team Leader from 1999-2001, and also served as interim Team
Leader for the NSBRI Technology Development Team. He established and
from 1995-2002 was Director of the Neural Systems Group at the
Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard-MIT Division of Health
Sciences and Technology. Dr. Sutton was on the faculty of Harvard
Medical School from 1991-2002. He is currently on the faculty of Baylor
College of Medicine and has been an affiliate faculty member in the
Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, since 1995. During his career, he has taught
and mentored many students and physicians at various levels of
training.
Dr. Sutton's research expertise is in smart medical systems,
computational neuroscience and neuroimaging. He has made significant
contributions to these fields, is the author of numerous scientific
articles and holds several patents. He has received many accolades,
including a National Institutes of Health Scientist Development Award,
a President's Citation from the Society of NASA Flight Surgeons, and a
Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology Award for
Clinical Medical Education Excellence. He has been a founder of several
start-up informatics companies and holds a variety of advisory
positions with academia, government and industry.
Discussion
Chairman Udall. I thank the panel for that very important
set of presentations.
We are going to move right now to the first round of
questions. I am going to recognize myself for five minutes.
Cost of ISS Operations
I want to start with Mr. Gerstenmaier. In the interest of
clarification, I wanted to ask you how much will the taxpayer,
our taxpayers invest in the Station, including Shuttle flights?
There were some comments made in the previous panels about the
numbers. I want to make sure we had the correct number for the
record.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Are you talking about the basic Space
Station sustaining an operations budget on an annual----
Chairman Udall. I am talking about all, I think the capital
costs, the operational costs. There was a number of $100
billion mentioned in the last panel. I am not sure that is
correct, and I wanted to at least----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I would like to take that question for
the record so we can get the details of what goes into that.
There is a range of numbers that sits out there, and I would
like to get a common basis and provide a detail.
Chairman Udall. That would be helpful to the Committee, and
if you would include the Shuttle flights, I think, in total.
You could break those out, it would be useful.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. And we can include that with
transportation, with all the various pieces in there so then
you could see what the investment is. But it would be, it is
much better to do written than----
Chairman Udall. I would agree.
Logistics Flights
Let me continue questioning Mr. Gerstenmaier. I wanted to
follow up on your statement that the approach will, to the
Shuttle will, to the Station, I should say, will require living
off spares flown up by the Shuttle and taking some limited
degradation and ISS capabilities if there is a delay in the
commercial services.
In your engineering judgment, how do you pinpoint to
analyze the contingency of logistics flights to bring critical
spares to the ISS? Are they needed? If so, why?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, we have two contingency flights
that sits in our manifest. Those flights deliver critical
spares as you described, and the purpose of those spares are
essentially to give us some margin if the commercial re-supply
services are delayed a little bit, those spares are in place,
so if a component fails, that critical component has a ready
spare available on station to go ahead and replace it.
It allows the commercial re-supply sector to be a little
bit later in their delivery. So I consider those flights to be
critical to us, very important for us.
We also are monitoring actively what components are
failing, and we are going to change kind of in real time
exactly what components we put on those flights. So we have a
candidate list of things we would like to fly today, but we
reserve the right to change that around a little bit after we
see how the actual hardware operates.
And we have just activated a lot of our systems on the
outside of Space Station. We are getting more runtime on the
equipment, learning how to balance that, and we will position
the proper spares that will give us the most longevity of Space
Station to allow research to occur.
Chairman Udall. Could you speak further to the risk, the
level of risk that we incur if we didn't fly those two Shuttle
flights?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It is difficult to quantify exactly. It
is a function of how this, the current equipment operates and
how well it performs. We see some components do very well,
actually operate much longer than we have anticipated. We have
seen some not work quite as well. The beta gimble, a large
motor that rotates that tracks the sun with the outboard rays,
and then there is a large alpha joint, a big joint about 10
foot diameter, a steel ring that rotates that has some
degradation in it. We are probably going to have to make some
changes there. The control moment gyros that provide attitude
to station, it was supposed to last about eight years. We have
lost two of those in two or three years.
So there is significant degradation in some components but
then other components have run much longer than we have
anticipated. Our judgment has to be how do you anticipate what
those failures are, place them on the Shuttle, and then that
gives us the robustness to continue.
Chairman Udall. Are those flights a part of the manifest?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Those flights are, we treat them as part
of the manifest. They are shown there. We don't have approval
to fly those yet. We still need to seek approval to do that.
They are budgeted, and we are planning those actively to be in
the manifest, but they need to occur. We need to justify that
they need to occur. Then they need to occur before the----
Chairman Udall. Any back-up plan if we weren't to fly those
two logistic flights?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, if for some reason those flights
had to be dropped for some reason or they didn't occur for some
reason or we weren't approved, given approval to fly those, we
would anticipate what hardware we lose and then we would,
again, provide back to the community the risks associated with
not having those, that hardware based on the latest data at
that time, and we would make an informed judgment about what we
should do.
Chairman Udall. Ms. Chaplain, do you care to comment?
Ms. Chaplain. I agree with what has been said. I would also
comment that if this does get pushed off to when the COTS
vehicles are available, they might not necessarily have that
kind of capability to take up some of these larger spares, and
that would also constrain their ability to carry other things
up to the Station, and that is already a tight area right now.
Chairman Udall. Thank you for that insight.
I see my time is expired. I want to recognize Congressman
Hall for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the risks if we didn't fly
those two flights, and I am sure you are talking about the
flights that they have said they intend to fly. We just don't
know their status. I think you pretty well straightened that
out.
Soyuz Safety Issues
I guess my question is what if we do fly some flights, and
Mr. Gerstenmaier, with NASA's reliance on Soyuz during the
five-year gap and could you provide us with the details of the
two previous re-entry problems? And I think I was one of the,
among the first to insist on some escape module money for the
four birds, and I was always told it was either too heavy or
too expensive. I couldn't accept too expensive, but too heavy I
had to accept it.
But we have that in the new bird that is coming along, and
so I think reliability and safety are as much as what if we
don't fly them that I am interested in. I guess if you give us
the details of the two previous re-entry problems and what
actions are being taken by the Russians to ensure the continued
safety and reliability of Soyuz and is Soyuz a safe vehicle,
and what insight does NASA have into the Soyuz Program?
In five minutes.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Okay. I have talked a little bit about
both of those flights. Both of the flights had a ballistic
entry on the Soyuz vehicle and by ballistic entry instead of
the Soyuz actively flying and controlling the trajectory with
the lift vector pointed in a specific direction, it essentially
just spins the capsule much like a bullet coming out of a rifle
shell, and then essentially provides stability for the Soyuz
and ends up significantly shorter in location on the Earth
where it lands on the trajectory, but it is stable in the sense
that it is on track. It is just short by 400 kilometers, and
that is what we saw in both of these cases.
It also appears that on both of these Soyuz vehicles we saw
a failure of the instrumentation module and propulsion module
to separate from the Soyuz vehicle. When the Soyuz departs from
Space Station, it does a de-orbit burn, removes velocity from
the spacecraft. It starts to re-enter then goes into an
attitude in the orbital section, comes off, and the propulsion
and instrumentation section also comes off and then it is just
a little return capsule that returns.
It appears that that lower section did not properly
release. We saw that, the Russians saw that, and they showed us
the data that conclusively that that was still attached. We had
telemetry going across a cable that should have severed when
that came loose. So we know for sure on the previous Soyuz that
that occurred.
On the most recent one it is subjecture that that has
occurred. We need to get the capsule back to Moscow to
understand that. The Russians will do that. The Russians have
given us very good insight into their program. They understand
the risk of what is going on. They are as concerned as we are
about this event. The fact that we have similar occurrences of
something that we thought we understood on two vehicles calls
into question some design problems or maybe a manufacturing
change, something has changed in the vehicles. The Russians
will work that. They performed an independent commission. They
will provide us with the results of that. We will, before we
use the Soyuz for any other critical activities, we will make
sure we have looked at the safety, we have looked at what we
understand from this event that occurred, and we will make sure
that we understand the risks that is going forward to our
crews.
Mr. Hall. With that I thank you. I want to ask you one
other quick question. You may have to answer it in writing if I
don't have the time.
Exception to INKSNA
As you well know, in order for NASA to continue buying
Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians during the upcoming so-
called gap, Congress has to provide a new exception to the
Iran, North Korea, Syria, Nonproliferation Act called INKSNA,
and that is a place where your recommendations and of these two
groups here and Congress have to come together, and we have to
do something together.
What would be the consequences if this Congress were to
fail to provide that exception this year? And would NASA be
able to place a timely order with the Russians if legislative
relief were provided by say next spring?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We really need that relief now so we can
complete the negotiations with the Russians. The time that we
understand and the Russians have provided to us, which we agree
with, is about three years to have those vehicles manufactured.
We need to get those contracts in place. We need that relief
this summer so we can complete those negotiations and have the
vehicle there.
They are mandatory for us to keep a U.S. crew presence on-
board Space Station. We need a U.S. crew presence on-board
Space Station to operate the U.S. segments. The U.S. segment
then provides power, cooling, water, air circulation for the
other partner modules, including some of the Russian segments.
So we need a U.S. presence there to maintain the Space Station
so we need our crew members there. The only way to get them
there when the Shuttle retires, initially is the Soyuz vehicle.
So we need that relief. It is, and it is mandatory this summer.
Mr. Hall. And another alternative is that we might have to
abandon the ISS. We don't want to do that. And the affect it
has on our international partners. It is very, very important.
I thank and I yield back my time.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Congressman Hall.
The Chair recognizes Congressman Lampson.
Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I may sound like a broken record, Mr. Gerstenmaier, when I
talk about the AMS, the Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer, but that
is one of the things that there has been a great deal of hope
that would go to the International Space Station. And presently
it does not have a location on the manifest for a Shuttle
flight.
So I hope, first of all, that the two so-called contingency
flights so, indeed, get funded and are made to happen. I think
they are critically important.
But is there a possibility first that the AMS can go up on
a Shuttle before we end the use of the Shuttle Program? And I
guess beyond that, what other experiment, either facilities or
hardware that have been developed to support research
investigations, have been completed but are not planned for a
flight? And what, if any, plans does NASA have to fly that
hardware to the ISS, free flyers or other microgravity
platforms?
Is there a lot? And who has participated in those things?
Can you elaborate some on that for me?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. In terms of the AMS, right now we
don't see a spot in the current Shuttle manifest remaining ten
flights to fly the AMS, and that is because of the discussion
we just had on the criticality of the spares. The problem is if
I took those spares off and replaced it with AMS, then I have
hurt the basic infrastructure that is needed on-board Space
Station to support the AMS.
So in other words, AMS needs power, it needs data, it needs
cooling. If I don't fly the spares that could provide power,
data, and cooling and have to take those off for AMS, then AMS
is on-orbit, but it may not be able to be supported by Space
Station.
So I need those flights to fly the spares.
Mr. Lampson. But now those don't include the two
contingency flights?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. No. Those two contingency flights are for
those spares I just described.
Mr. Lampson. They are full. So even beyond the
contingencies we don't have a place for the AMS.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Not in the existing manifest with those
two contingencies.
Mr. Lampson. What if----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. There is not room.
Mr. Lampson.--what about the other facilities and
experiments and such?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The other facilities, I don't think there
is any facility that is actually on the ground ready to be
flown. There are ones that have been cancelled earlier like the
large centrifuge module that was talked about earlier. That was
cancelled very early in its development phase or not very early
but in its development phase, and it is in nowhere ready
condition to go fly.
We do have many facilities scheduled on the remaining
Shuttle flights on the multi-purpose logistics flights. There
is a combustion rack that is going to go up. There is a window
observation facility that will fly.
So the basic research racks that were originally designed
are still present on the manifest, and they are still there.
Our goal is to outfit Space Station with the best racks we
could to provide a wide variety of research capability for
Space Station, and that is the goal we are still on, and we
still have plans for those equipment.
But I will take it for the record to go investigate a
little bit deeper to see if there is anything that is completed
that is not getting to fly. But my recollection is there is
none.
Mr. Lampson. But is it worth this Congress giving
consideration to the additional money necessary to get those
things, even if it is just down to the AMS, and I think there
are some other things related and otherwise. Is it worth our
country to look at the potential investment necessary for the
hope of the return that would come from these things?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, that is tough for me to pass
judgment on. I am an engineer who builds the basic laboratory.
I think it would be better posed to the scientists and the
researchers associated with AMS than to myself.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you. Thank you for that. The candor. I
appreciate it. I really think that we have set some unfortunate
policy along the way, and we really have been shortsighted on a
number of things that we have done. Perhaps if we would have
finished the crew return vehicle when we did the X-38, if you
all remember that, that we shut down prematurely, we were at
the end of its development, and we actually spent more money to
shut it down than we would have to fly it. And perhaps that
could have been used today to have been the crew return, I
mean, crew exchange vehicle.
So I hope that we are getting our ducks lined up properly.
I would sure like for us to give consideration as this panel
and as a Congress to what we can do to identify other of those
pieces of hardware, and I think we also have to consider what
we have done as far as relationship is concerned of the nations
that spend more than a billion dollars just on that one
project, for us to renege on our promise to help put it up
there to completion.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to editorialize there at the end.
Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield just one moment?
Mr. Lampson. I would indeed.
Mr. Hall. Part of the problem is the expectations of a lot
of universities that have put considerable work and requests in
and were promised certain things on certain flights----
Mr. Lampson. Yeah.
Mr. Hall.--that have not been flown. Where it is important
to go with our international allies, it is also important to
keep the word with the universities. That is the reason we need
these two flights if we can get them. Texas A & M being one in
particular that you are very interested in protecting.
Mr. Lampson. Absolutely.
Mr. Hall. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Lampson. And reclaiming my time. Thank you very much. I
think it is critically important for our reputation among other
nations of the world and if we are going to entice countries to
want to work with us on other science-related activities, that
if we say we are going to do something, we ought to keep our
word. We ought to do it. And I guarantee you that when we make
that commitment, the return to us is going to be no different
than what it was during the Apollo years. We will get so much
back, more or beyond the investment that we make to make those
things happen. It will be extremely worth our while.
I hope and pray that we don't lose our position to other
nations in this space race.
I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Lampson. It has been said
you give two Texans a lever, you can move the world. We are
going to continue to try to find you all a lever, so you can do
so.
The Chair recognizes Congressman Rohrabacher for five
minutes.
Russian Cooperation and Capabilities
Mr. Rohrabacher. Maybe you could tell us about the
willingness now of the Russians and their cooperation to meet
the challenges that the Space Station, or excuse me, the
retirement of the Shuttle, are going to present? Is there a
willingness on the part of the Russians or a lack of
willingness on the part of the Russians to expand our
cooperation to make up for that loss?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think we have really come to work
together as an international partnership. When we had the
Columbia tragedy and the Shuttle was lost, and we lost our
transportation capability to Space Station for a temporary
period of time, the Russians rose to that challenge and
provided us with Soyuz vehicles and Progress vehicles that
essentially kept Space Station viable during that period. So
during those two years when we were not flying the Shuttle, if
it were not for the Russians and their support to us, we would
not have had a Space Station.
As we go to the future, they need our crew on-board Space
Station as much as anyone does because I described, you know,
we provide power to their segment, and we provide attitude
control for the entire Space Station, which saves them
propellant. We have many synergistic things that we share with
them back and forth, so they need our U.S. crew presence there.
They recognize they can't maintain the U.S. segment on their
own.
So they will help us in that venture, but, again, they are
going to want compensation in terms of financial contract with
us, and we will work with them to work out the details.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are they capable of delivering spare parts
and the other type of things that are necessary to maintain the
Station?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. They are capable of delivering the spares
needed for their segment and to keep it operating. For our
segment we will use the commercial re-supply services to
deliver those components to Space Station for our equipment
that needs to be----
Mr. Rohrabacher. If it is, we don't have that capability
now.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We do not have that capability now. We
can also use the Automated Transfer Vehicle that the Europeans
are building and the Japanese are building an----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Which they don't have the capability now.
The only people now who have got the capability are the
Russians. Is that correct?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. No. The ATV recently docked to Space
Station. We brought it up so we have proven at least one time
that that is a good capacity. It performed exactly the way it
should. We flew it in within 10 meters, backed it back out,
flew it back and successfully docked, and it is viable.
The Japanese have a full up test, propulsion test article
they are test firing in Japan. Their vehicle is scheduled to
fly next year.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But this is, I am talking about something
that is online, not something that we have done once.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The thing that is online is the ATV.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And so that will, that capability
will permit us then once the Shuttle is retired, to deliver
these spares that we need?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We are going to need a combination of
services when the Shuttle is retired. We are going to need the
ATV, the HTV, and commercial re-supply.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me note that to the degree that
we are not, that we have been shortsighted, and to the degree
that we have been shortsighted in some of the decisions that we
have been making, number one, we, of course, it was hard to
project that we would lose Shuttles as we have. And also let me
just note that Congress, this body here, this committee no
differently, and others have been unwilling to prioritize. It
is not that there is not enough money being spent. It is just
we have not prioritized what spending would be, so whatever it
is that we are lacking, I think that we could trace it back to
the fact that there are things that we are unable to say no to
that should have less priority than, for example, the
successful completion of this space station mission, this
project that we endeavored to move forward on 20 years ago.
Additions to the ISS
We heard about today microscopic imaging and storage would
be two things that would be added that would help us be,
utilize this great asset to a way that we could actually
achieve more.
Are there any thoughts of what it would cost to provide
that to the Station?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We have a micro, we have a minus 80
degree freezer that is currently on-board Space Station that
can provide I believe the cold storage. We need to talk to Dr.
Nickerson and understand exactly what her needs are.
We also have some small centrifuges, not large, but small,
that may provide some other information that she could use. So
we have some dialogue I think we need to have with her and her
needs to see what is already available. They may not be our
equipment. They may be European equipment or maybe Japanese
equipment that we have access to. We need to work with the
Committee to make sure we understand what their needs are and
see what is available.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And indeed, if these things will, if there
are additions to the Space Station, that will have great value
as we heard from Mr. Pickens today. There is a great value to
be achieved from what we have constructed. Now, if by adding a
couple million dollars of a piece of equipment here or there to
achieve billions of dollars worth of return, it would seem to
me that we need to codify that and to go down and understand it
and perhaps even the private sector might be interested in
investing a $10 million piece of equipment or something like
that that cost a certain amount to put it on the Station. If
there is going to be a return from the private sector, maybe
these private sector entities might even be willing to invest
in that.
We should be thinking creatively out of the box and
especially we should be thinking about how we can work with the
Russians.
Oh, we have another round of questions, so that is, but we
should be thinking of a way we could work with the Russians
constructively.
Mr. Chairman, I will be visiting Russia at the end of May,
and I am meeting with their space people, also meeting with the
space people in Berlin, and any type of guidance that NASA
would like to throw in my direction as to what we can do to try
to further the cooperative spirit that would be mutually
beneficial, I am open to suggestions.
So thank you very much.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman. I would note that we
have about 10 minutes left. We have to vacate the hearing room
around 12:30 to prepare for another hearing at 1:00. That will
leave us 10 minutes of a round of questions from the Chair and
from the Ranking Member if he so desires.
Let me turn--so the Chair does recognize himself for five
minutes.
INKSNA Amendment
Let me go back to what Chairman Hall mentioned. Mr.
Gerstenmaier, NASA's amendment would remain in effect until the
end of the International Space Station's life. What would be
the impact if a shorter time period were written into the
statute, for example, January, 2016?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We have two aspects we need. We need the
crew transportation, and we need that until either a commercial
capability comes on line or our CRV comes on line, and we could
no longer need that exception after those vehicles are
available.
For other small things such as docking mechanisms, some of
our toilet activities, those kind of things that we purchased
from the Russians, we need some small sustaining stuff. We do
some small engineering studies with the Russians. Those kind of
activities need to be around for the life of Space Station.
So they are small. They are very low-dollar value, but
there are some engineering analysis, studies sustaining
engineering kind of thing that need to be there throughout the
life of Station. So we have tried to structure our language
such that it meets those two requirements. It ends when we no
longer need the capability, but the exception continues for
those other small items that are needed for the life of
Station.
Chairman Udall. I need to pursue this line of questioning
further. The proposed amendment would exclude from the
exception any payments for crew transportation or rescue
services provided by Soyuz vehicle once, number one, the U.S.
Orion crew exploration vehicle reaches full operational
capability, or a U.S. commercial provider of crew
transportation rescue service demonstrates the capability to
meet ISS requirements.
When do you envision full operational capability for the
CEV vehicle?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think our current planning shows it
being in 2016, or so. The first flights are in 2015, and then
about one year of other things until we get to full operational
capability. I know that is at the end of the Space Station
life, but we would see how that comes about.
We are looking at some things to see if there is some
things that we can do to advance. We have some internal
schedules that are looking--we will see how that plays out. And
commercial, it is really probably better asked to the
commercial sector what they think their schedules are for this.
Chairman Udall. Regarding the possibility of U.S.
commercial crew transportation and rescue services, what
specifically would those providers need to demonstrate to meet
the provision? I know you have spoken to that, but I want to
make sure we are as clear as possible for the record.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think the recent Soyuz
experience has shown us how difficult this environment is we
are flying in. This return was, you know, the Shuttle, the
Soyuz vehicle has been around for 30 years or so. This is a
tough environment going from 17,000 miles an hour down to zero
landing on the Earth. And it is not trivial. They need to show
us that there is robustness in their systems designed to take
and accomplish that re-entry, that it is safe to return. They
need to show us that they can stay docked on-board Space
Station for a six-month period, and then perform that re-entry
exercise.
So there is many engineering assessments and evaluations
that we need to see, as we would for our own vehicle to make
sure that the vehicle is really viable in performing the design
it wants, and it can safely transport our crew to and from
Station.
Chairman Udall. Amendment would also allow NASA to obtain
ancillary goods and services from Russia in addition to crew
transport and rescue. Just how important is it for NASA to be
able to purchase unique tools from Russia, and would the safe
operation of the Station be in jeopardy if those services were
not available?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Those services are extremely important to
us or are mandatory for us. There are in a whole variety of
areas. We use an air-safe pump that actually pumps down the
atmosphere of our air lock to go do space walks. That is a
Russian-provided pump. We need to keep that up and operating so
we can continue to use the air lock to go out and do space
walks.
So and there is a variety of components I can give you that
are small but are Russian provided that need to be there for
the life of the Station. So I would say that that is critical
to the long-term viability of Space Station.
Chairman Udall. NASA has indicated that relief through the
life of the ISS may be necessary even after a U.S. commercial
capability is available because some potential providers have
Russian contractors, Russian-supplied hardware, or other
relationships with the Russian entities that could trigger
INKSA's extraordinary payment prohibition.
Would you provide any specifics?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Some of the potential bidders for the
commercial re-supply services, they use Russian components,
they use Russian engines, and they would, I think be subject to
the INKSA legislation, so they are going to need relief in that
same manner. So some of these things, even Atlas V uses an RD-
180 engine underneath it. If that becomes one of the options
for the commercial re-supply that gets bid back to us in this
request for proposal, then that would potentially fall under
this INKSA restriction, and they would require relief as well.
Soyuz Landing Problems
Chairman Udall. I have completed this line of questions. I
would, I just have a few second. I wanted to, kind of a
personal interest. You talked about the Soyuz landing 400
kilometers short of the designated landing area. This is on the
plains of Cossack, the high steppes. I couldn't help but think
about Colorado. If you landed 400 miles, 400 kilometers short
of the landing zone, you have 1,400 foot peaks on the western
side of Colorado, about 400 kilometers from where I think you
would try and land. That could cause an additional problem, but
in the high steppes you have a lot of open terrain I assume.
Could you identify the situation for me a bit more?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. There is a lot of land that is open.
Chairman Udall. And I know you were just there, so you can
speak from personal experience.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It is not nearly as pretty as the
mountains of Colorado, but it is nice for landing. It is nice
and flat, and there is not much out there. I think there is one
power line. They did land near some farmers that were burning
some grass off the steppes, which added a little more interest.
Chairman Udall. Yes. The story was the astronaut team
opened the hatch, peered out, and immediately closed the hatch
again as this fire moved toward them. Is that right?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. That is true. They saw the burning, and
we are still not sure exactly what caused the burning. The
parachute itself was consumed. It appears that it blew down
into an area where the grass had been previously burned, and
the parachute caught on fire. The crew saw the fire, closed the
hatch, waited until the fire extinguished itself, and then
opened the hatch. And by that time the Cossack farmers in the
area were there to help the crew and assist them----
Chairman Udall. Thank you for that----
Mr. Gerstenmaier.--exiting the spacecraft.
Chairman Udall.--narrative. We have about five minutes
left. I want to recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes
to wrap things up from his point of view, and then we will
conclude the hearing.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, sir, and I will take the five minutes.
I just want to compliment this group here. Thank you very much.
You know, I have counted one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, nine past Chairman of this committee, and I have
worked with seven of them. I think the one I didn't work with
was Olin Tiger Teague, who first started really the NASA
thrust. And my kids think I was here with Overton Brooks, but I
wasn't here in the teens.
But I want to recognize Mr. Gerstenmaier. You have carried
out the book on you. You are the best doggone NASA program
manager we have ever had, and I want to thank you and thank for
your, for the gifts of all three of you and the other members.
I yield back my time. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Udall. I thank the Ranking Member.
The previous panel, Judge Hall talked about longevity of
the human lifespan and the health challenges we face, but I
think they ought to put you in the program to find out why you
are so robust and so engaged and so energetic. We may not need
to know more from outer space if we can study you.
Mr. Hall. You know, if the dean of the United States House
of Representatives is the oldest, I am the dean.
Chairman Udall. You are the dean in my book.
Mr. Hall. And I run three miles every morning, do about 50
sit-ups, and I can outwork any of the rest of those guys over
there.
Chairman Udall. I should probably leave it there. I think
Judge Hall, though, probably meets the requirement. My father-
in-law lived to be 90, and I asked him for his secret. He used
to like to drink a little wine, eat a little chocolate, but he
got up every morning and walked two or three miles and worked
out, and he said, my secret is everything in moderation,
including moderation, and I think maybe that fits what I know
of Judge Hall.
Again, on a less serious note, I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here today. This is very, very important
testimony, helpful to the Committee as we move forward.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
In addition, I would also like to include a statement for
the record that the American Society for Gravitational and
Space Biology is submitting for today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. What do you see as the most significant challenges with respect to
the Department of Agriculture's involvement in the ISS National
Laboratory and how should those challenges be addressed?
A1. The two major challenges to USDA's participation in research on the
ISS are funding and relevancy. Although the program is designed to
provide free access to the ISS, considerable funds must be expended by
the USDA to develop the experiment intellectually and physically.
Technical expertise for working in microgravity would have to be
developed by USDA scientists. This work is not currently programmed;
therefore, any additional funds would have to be obtained from other
programs or industrial partners. Relevancy of many possible experiments
is difficult to assess because of the unfamiliar potential of work in
microgravity.
Q2. How can the use of the ISS National Laboratory help improve
American agriculture?
<bullet> Is the research that USDA intends to conduct on the
ISS at the level of basic research, applied research or both?
<bullet> What type of outcome would the USDA require in order
to characterize its ISS utilization as successful?
A2. The level of work discussed by USDA is at both basic and applied
levels. Successful ISS utilization would ultimately be characterized by
USDA as having solved a problem for American agriculture. Interim
success would be characterized by USDA as having developed new
scientific knowledge that demonstrates significant promise for solving
a problem of American agriculture.
Q3. How significant is the need to be able to return cargo from the
Space Station--for example, research samples or lab equipment--for the
type of research initiatives you expect to pursue on the ISS? What are
the implications if this return cargo capability is not available?
A3. Some experiments would benefit from the return of cargo to the
Earth. For example, one hypothesis proposes that cells induced to grow
into a functioning organ in microgravity would transform to cells
capable of doing the same at Earth gravity. Returning the cells to
Earth would be the only way of evaluation. On the other hand,
behavioral tests of insects or documentation of plant growth would not
require the return of any material to Earth.
Q4. There has been no commitment by the current Administration as to
how long the U.S. will participate in the International Space Station
program, although the Administration's budget plan for NASA would end
funding for the program after 2016. On the other hand, NASA has
indicated in previous testimony that it sees no technical or
operational barriers to continuing ISS operations until 2020. What
service life do you think would be optimal or required for the types of
research activities that you envision the Station being utilized for?
A4. The longer service life of the ISS (until 2020) would be better for
agricultural research. Very little agricultural research has been done
in microgravity, therefore more study will be required to move from
elementary to advanced studies.
Q5. Dr. Stodieck indicated in his prepared statement that three
actions are required for the ISS National Laboratory to be successful:
1) creation of an independent management organization;
2) provision of modest funding to support utilization; and
3) assurance of reliable and frequent transportation to and
from the ISS.
<bullet> Do you agree that these are required actions
necessary to ensure the Laboratory's success?
<bullet> If not, could you please discuss the priority steps
that you believe need to be taken?
<bullet> What, in your view, would be an effective mechanism
for coordinating and managing the use of the ISS National
Laboratory?
A5. The creation of an independent management organization might be
useful to promote the best research on the ISS; however, other
organizational models (e.g., a department within NASA) would probably
also function well. ARS generally does not have sufficient unobligated
funding to pay for the development of experiments for the ISS, and thus
provisions for funding augmentation to support ISS utilization would be
helpful. Those experiments will require payload costs ($20K per
kilogram) and engineering costs to develop automated, self-contained
experimental systems (likely at least $200K per experiment). Regular
and frequent transportation to the ISS would be necessary for
continuous experiments, but not for the single-use experiments
discussed so far.
The priority steps for developing agricultural experiments on the
ISS are:
1) Define the technical parameters of work on the ISS;
specifically, the space available, the potential time frames of
experiments, and the possibility of manual participation by
astronauts.
2) Identify experiments and strategic research directions that
are considered mutually valuable.
3) Find funding for priority experiments.
4) Integrate the experiments into the program requirements of
ARS.
The ARS portion of research on the ISS could be effectively managed
by a committee formed from ARS National Program Staff with
representatives from NASA.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no--or
very limited--ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and
other materials from station. What are your thoughts about the
usefulness of ISS as a laboratory if there is no down-mass capability?
Will the inability to return research samples to Earth seriously
jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What
steps can research take to compensate?
A1. The lack of a down-mass capability will not inhibit many kinds of
experiments that are more oriented toward basic science rather than
product development. Experiments that gather data in place and that do
not involve returning samples to Earth could have good relevance.
Q2. Several witnesses recommended. that NASA identify an organization
to manage research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage ISS research
today, and how would a newly established research management
organization differ from the current model?
A2. ARS is unable to answer this question, since it concerns NASA
management. From an ARS perspective, the current National Program Staff
would be the logical administrative mechanism for coordinating
research.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Louis S. Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies;
Associate Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering Sciences,
University of Colorado at Boulder
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. Your prepared statement notes that the success of the ISS National
Laboratory will require ``regular, reliable and frequent transportation
access to and from the ISS.''
Q1a. What level of frequency and reliability in access to the ISS do
you anticipate will be needed and why?
A1a. As the ISS is nearing completion, it is important to consider how
to utilize this world-class facility in ways analogous to that of
ground-based facilities. On the ground, research investigations can be
designed, carried out and data analyses completed with a comparatively
short turnaround. This allows results from each investigation to be
fully incorporated into the next so that progress to a final result or
product can occur within a reasonable timeframe. It also allows for
investigation failures to occur, whether due to human error, flawed
experiment designs, equipment problems and so forth, such that an
investigation can be promptly repeated. To be most productive,
transport of research equipment, supplies and samples to the ISS should
occur at a minimum frequency of four times per year. A greater
frequency would be even better.
In the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and biomedical fields, the
ability to analyze samples on board the ISS remains very limited. As
such, return of materials processed on orbit will be essential for the
foreseeable future. Ideally, the frequency and quantity of
transportation return from the ISS (down-mass) should be 75-90 percent
of the transportation to the ISS (up-mass).
It is also important to try and provide a certain degree of
reliability in transportation access capabilities. Reliable
transportation refers to a number of important aspects including
reliably meeting a launch schedule (launching on time), reliably
delivering utilization cargo to the ISS (successful rendezvous and
docking) and reliably returning materials to Earth. Ideally, reliable
transportation should include late stowage and early retrieval access
for time sensitive biological materials. Finally, the process for
approving samples and equipment for transport to the ISS should be
streamlined so that the transportation manifest can be kept flexible as
late in the timeline as possible. This will accommodate late-breaking
research results and optimized equipment and samples. In essence, the
reliability goals and services for transportation access to and from
the ISS should be viewed in a similar manner to commercial carriers
such as Federal Express and the UPS.
Q1b. What are the implications if this return cargo capability is not
available?
A1b. Productivity on the ISS will be highly dependent on the frequency,
range of services and reliability of available space transportation
carriers. Without return capability, research studies will be limited
to those that produce electronic data on the ISS that can be down-
linked to investigators on the ground.
To give an example in the life sciences, modern sample analysis
methods have become substantially based upon molecular analyses of
messenger ribonucleic acid or mRNA expression. So called gene
expression data or closely aligned protein analysis data have become a
mainstay of modern biology. In theory, these data could be generated on
board the ISS. However, to do so, samples must be processed using
hazardous chemicals, multiple fluid addition and removal steps,
centrifugation and heating and cooling steps to produce the final
preparation that can then be analyzed. The analysis might be done using
a spectrophotometer, plate reader, gene chip reader or another piece of
similar equipment. Because of the use of hazardous chemicals, all steps
must be done with redundant levels of containment in place to protect
the crew member carrying out the process. Crew members will require
extensive training on the sample processing and analysis protocols or
will need to be trained life scientists. Some work has been done by
NASA to develop automated methods for relatively simple molecular
analyses in space but these technologies are still too limited to be of
much value for a productive ISS laboratory. Without a significant
investment in new sample processing hardware, the complexity of these
analyses will dictate that the samples are processed on the ground by
highly trained personnel.
Conducting modern biotechnology and biomedical research and
development on the ISS will be severely hampered without a sample
return capability. If sample return after the retirement of the Shuttle
is limited to the small down-mass capability of the Russian Soyuz
vehicles, then the ISS will be unable to meet any significant
commercial or academic R&D demand. The return sample requirements of
NASA's exploration program alone will almost certainly exceed the Soyuz
transportation capability. This will create a severe bottleneck for
research and discourage potential users whether they are researchers
from industry, universities, the NIH, the USDA or any other government
agency. Effectively, the productivity of the ISS National Laboratory
will be reduced to a fraction of what otherwise would be possible.
In addition to trying to minimize this risk by fostering the
development of commercial transportation capabilities, NASA could do
more to support the development of flight certified equipment that
could enable on orbit modern analytical methods.
Q1c. Could you please elaborate on how you arrived at 20-25 percent as
a potential figure for volume on ISS supply missions that is devoted to
National Laboratory work?
A1c. Research investigations, samples and equipment are currently
typically housed within mid-deck lockers on the Space Shuttle.
Experiments are either stowed within a NASA--provided locker or the
locker can be removed and replaced with a customer--provide payload. A
mid-deck locker ``package'' is often referred to as a mid-deck locker
equivalent or MLE. Each MLE can weigh or carry up to 32 kg in total
mass. Based on the history of the Space Shuttle program during the
1990's when it was used extensively for research and not being used to
assemble the ISS, flight of research equipment and materials exceeded
50 to 75 MLEs per year. This range of transportation need would enable
productive use of the ISS National Lab and would equate to 1.6-2.4
metric tons (MT) of research utilization supplies and equipment per
year.
NASA recently released a Request for Proposals for ISS Commercial
Resupply Services (CRS). Within this solicitation, NASA included a
model task order that estimated the requirement for pressurized cargo
delivery to the ISS of 7.4 MT per year. Assuming that this figure does
not include ISS National Lab requirements, the estimate for ISS
National Lab users would need to be added to NASA's logistics and
exploration research requirements. This equates to a range of 18-25
percent of the total ISS transportation requirements. Again, to be most
effective as a National Lab, delivery should be distributed across a
minimum of four to five flights per year.
Q2. There has been no commitment by the current Administration as to
how long the U.S. will participate in the International Space Station
program, although the Administration's budget plan for NASA would end
funding for the program after 2016. On the other hand, NASA has
indicated in previous testimony that it sees no technical or operation
barriers to continuing ISS operation to 2020.
<bullet> What service life do you think would be optimal or
required for the types of research activities that you envision
the Station being utilized for?
A2. The answer to this question depends on a number of key assumptions:
<bullet> Transportation of research to and from the ISS will
not be overly constrained after the Space Shuttle is retired.
<bullet> Demand from multiple end users (commercial,
government and academic) will grow as the ISS assembly is
completed and the benefits of conducting research in space are
clearly recognized.
<bullet> Resources, including funding, to support productive
use of the ISS will be available.
<bullet> No major technical or operational problems will occur
to prevent continued use of the ISS.
<bullet> A six-member crew will be available to support a
robust research and development utilization program on the ISS.
Based on these assumptions, then a 10-year operational life for the
ISS after the assembly is complete should produce a high yield of
products, technologies and scientific data. This would suggest that
utilizing the ISS through 2020 would be appropriate. By 2020, the
development of commercially viable alternatives to the ISS for space-
based R&D could reasonably be expected to be available. If so, and if
the continued cost of maintaining and operating the ISS are high, then
ending the ISS Program would seem appropriate. Of course, the ISS
lifetime can be evaluated on an ongoing basis and adjusted as
necessary.
If one or more of the assumptions listed above do not come to
fruition, then productivity of the ISS will be limited and the return
on investment to the Nation will be reduced. In this case,
consideration should be given to an operational lifetime beyond the
2020 timeframe.
Q3. Given your experience as director of a research center that deals
with universities, federal agencies, and industry in conducting space
life sciences research, what factors do you believe are essential for
the management of the ISS National Laboratory? What should NASA
consider as it explores options for managing the ISS National Lab?
A3. A key responsibility for the management organization will be to
form partnerships and agreements with commercial, academic and
government agency organizations that wish to access the ISS National
Lab. A number of additional key responsibilities for the ISS National
Lab management organization were outlined in written testimony. In
brief, these additional responsibilities include:
<bullet> Performing outreach across multiple disciplines and
multiple organizations to educate scientists and managers on
the benefits of conducting research and development in space.
<bullet> Working to seamlessly integrate and fly research as a
turn-key process so the researchers can focus on the research
and not on the processes to get their research flown on board
the ISS.
<bullet> Working closely with the ISS Payloads Office to
streamline the process of integrating and certifying research
for flight.
<bullet> Maintaining a database with key specifications for
all available space flight research hardware that might be used
on the ISS.
<bullet> Assisting NASA to archive results from work performed
on the ISS and effectively communicating these results to the
public.
To carry out these responsibilities, the ISS National Lab
management organization would need to have a number of technical
discipline experts who understand the type of research that can be done
on the ISS, the processes that must be followed for the research to be
successfully executed on orbit and the capabilities (and limitations)
that exist in available flight hardware. In other words, this
organization will need to consist of scientists and engineers working
side by side to support the many university, government and commercial
end users of the ISS. Thus, the most critical factor for success of an
effective management organization will be in developing an organization
consisting of scientists, engineers and managers with space flight
research expertise.
Currently, NASA has formed an ISS National Lab management office
within the Space Operations Mission Directorate. This organization is
effectively developing partnerships across the various academic,
government and industry sectors. However, more could be done to grow
the demand for ISS utilization and to support those organizations that
are interested but do not know how to conduct research on the ISS. NASA
should consider growing this organization within the agency or partner
with outside organizations to assume more of the responsibilities and
expertise described above.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no--or
very limited--ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and
other materials from station. What are your thoughts about the
usefulness of ISS as a laboratory if there is no down-mass capability?
Will the inability to return research samples to Earth seriously
jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What
steps can researchers take to compensate?
A1. These questions have largely been addressed above. Indeed, having
limited ability to return samples to Earth during the gap period will
seriously jeopardize the ISS National Lab concept. Commercial users
will be unable to pursue any reasonable business development
activities. Non-NASA academic or government scientists will be unable
to have any reasonable level of scientific productivity and will be
discouraged from even trying to use this national asset.
As mentioned above, if modern analytical techniques could be
employed on the ISS, then data could be produced and down-linked to
researchers on the ground. For this to work, investment by NASA and/or
other agencies would be needed now so the required equipment could be
developed and pressed into operation on the ISS. The protocols and
equipment required to prepare and analyze samples on orbit would not be
easily obtained but could be an effective alternative to inadequate
sample return capacity.
Q2. Several witnesses recommended that NASA identify an organization
to manage research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage ISS research
today, and how would a newly established research management
organization differ from the current model?
A2. As indicated above, NASA has formed an office within the Space
Operations Mission Directorate that is focused on developing the ISS
National Lab. This NASA office currently is working on identifying and
forming agreements with prospective ISS National Lab end-users
including those from industry, non-NASA government agencies and
academic institutions. The goal of this office is to provide access to
the ISS for research and development once the assembly of the station
is complete. To date, NASA has Memoranda of Understanding and Space Act
Agreements with a number of government agencies and companies and with
our university.
The ISS National Lab Management office at NASA Headquarters works
closely with the ISS Payloads Office at NASA-Johnson Space Center. The
JSC Payloads Office supports all NASA and non-NASA users of the ISS by
prioritizing payloads, manifesting Shuttle transportation and
integrating payload hardware and operations requirements across all
NASA and non-NASA payloads. The Chief Scientist of the Payloads Office
also supports scientific and public outreach.
These NASA offices work well together and do an excellent job of
supporting the full range of science being conducted on the ISS.
However, these offices are limited in their ability to market the
unique and outstanding R&D potential that the ISS represents. With the
completion of the ISS only two years away, NASA must continue to
develop a broad ISS user community that can take advantage of what the
ISS has to offer.
It is important to remember that a large research user community
had been developed by NASA through the former Office of Biological and
Physical Research. This office and the community that it supported was
vastly reduced and reorganized under the current Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate. As a result, the non-exploration user community of
the ISS National Lab now has to be effectively reformed from sponsors
outside of NASA. The potential certainly exists for the NIH, USDA, DOD,
DOE, ED, NSF, universities, colleges, foundations and various industry
sectors to benefit through R&D conducted on the ISS. Many of these
organizations have already recognized this potential and have formed or
are in the process of forming agreements with NASA to utilize the ISS.
The ISS National Lab user community should be re-established through
the sponsorship of these many organizations.
As the demand for the ISS grows, one of the most critical issues in
supporting a robust and productive set of R&D activities on the ISS
will be funding. The organizations that are interested in benefiting
from the ISS should not have to redirect funds from other high-
priority, ground-based research programs. Rather, new funds should be
made available to support the translation of high-potential R&D to the
ISS National Laboratory operating in orbit. This point cannot be overly
stressed. The demand is now growing and should be grown even further.
Congress should make strategic investments through NASA and the non-
NASA agency sponsors of the envisioned ISS R&D.
By expanding the ISS National Lab office at NASA and/or through the
development of appropriate partnerships, an ISS National Lab management
organization could assume some of the additional responsibilities
described above that are not currently being supported by any NASA
office. As an example, our center continues to provide support for
scientists who are conducting space-based research so that they can
focus on their research and not on learning how to develop, flight
qualify, integrate and operate a payload or experiment on the ISS.
While our center is happy to provide this level of service to enable
flight research, this set of services will need to be expanded if the
ISS is to become even more productive after the assembly is complete.
It will probably be inefficient for the NIH or the USDA or a commercial
user to develop such in-house expertise. Establishing an organization
that can support both science and engineering aspects of a broad space
research program would help assure ultimate success of the ISS National
Lab.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Cheryl A. Nickerson, Associate Professor of Life Sciences,
School of Life Sciences, Center for Infectious Diseases and
Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. Up until now, your experiment return needs have been met by the
Shuttle. With the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010, this will no
longer be available to you. How significant is the need to be able to
return cargo from the International Space Station--for example,
research samples of lab equipment--for the type of research initiative
you expect to pursue on the ISS? What are the implications if this
return cargo capability is not available?
A1. The loss of down-mass resulting from the retirement of the Shuttle
will have a dramatic impact on the types of analyses performed and the
information gathered from ISS scientific research. Ground based
analysis of samples has historically allowed more thorough analyses and
``real time'' changes in procedures to optimize and maximize research
findings. Loss of down-mass will especially affect research that
requires equipment which cannot be easily miniaturized or multiple
pieces of equipment to fully evaluate the sample. While not
preventable, scientific losses can be mitigated, in part, by the
provision of flight hardware that can be utilized by multiple
investigators. Examples include laboratory basics, such as centrifuges
and specialized microscopes that would prevent the need for repetitive
up-mass for individual experiments. In addition, the development of
specialized hardware for flight, such as miniaturized molecular genetic
analysis equipment, will allow experimental samples to be analyzed
during flight by the crew.
Q2. There has been no commitment by the current Administration as to
how long the U.S. will participate in the International Space Station
program, although the Administration's budget plan for NASA would end
funding for the program after 2016. On the other hand, NASA has
indicated in previous testimony that it sees no technical or
operational barriers to continuing ISS operations until 2020. What
service life do you think would be optimal or required for the types of
research activities that you envision the Station being utilized for?
A2. The International Space Station is a unique facility that will
likely not be reproduced in our lifetimes. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to extend the life and scientific use of this one-of-a-
kind laboratory as long as possible. The field of microgravity research
has only begun to be investigated and holds enormous potential for
ground-breaking biotechnology and biomedical innovations and
discoveries to globally advance human health. ISS will be a critical
platform for research (exploration and non-exploration) as long as it
remains operational.
Q3. Dr. Stodieck indicated in his prepared statement that three
actions are required for the ISS National Laboratory to be successful:
1) creation of an independent management organization
2) provision of modest funding to support utilization
3) assurance of reliable and frequent transportation to and
from the ISS
Q3a. Do you agree that these are required actions necessary to ensure
the Laboratory's success?
A3a. I believe that key modifications are needed to the actions
proposed by Dr. Stodieck.
Q3b. If not, could you please discuss the priority steps that you
believe need to be taken?
A3b. Dr. Stodieck's proposal for the creation of an independent
management organization for the ISS National Laboratory would appear at
first glance to be beneficial; however, the development and operation
of such a board is not a trivial matter. Many complex issues would have
to be addressed by such an organization in a clear, concise and non-
biased manner for such an approach to be even marginally effective. For
example, how would they ``integrate'' with NASA, the European Space
Agency, etc.? How would this board interact with and coordinate
interdisciplinary research between multiple scientists--or between
commercial investors/investigators? How would intellectual property and
conflict of interest issues be handled? Who determines the merit of the
research to fly and when it will be manifested on ISS? What are the
research priorities? Both Exploration (mission applied) and non-
Exploration (non-mission/terrestrial-driven) research goals should be
funded--how does the board make these decisions? What is the
composition of the proposed management organization--NASA, other
Federal Government agencies, academic, commercial? Regardless, this
board would still have to interact closely with NASA flight operations,
so the establishment of another level of complexity in the scientific
process is not inherently an improvement over the current paradigm.
Alternatively, could the current NASA management paradigm be modified
to be more effective in operation--thus precluding the need for another
complicated and perhaps detrimental level of management.
Dr. Stodieck's second recommendation was for modest funding to
support ISS utilization. This language is of serious concern to me, as
``modest'' funding levels do not work well for robust life sciences
research programs on Earth, much less for flight experiments. While
this type of language may appear more palatable, the correct phrase is
``appropriate funding.'' You get what you pay for--and hypothesis-
driven, innovative, cutting edge research requires investment. The goal
is not to fly something simply to say that it has flown in space, but
rather, to use the novel enabling research platform of space flight to
translationally advance our understanding of biological and physical
phenomenon that will provide long lasting return to the protection of
humans as they explore space and for the general public here on Earth.
Accordingly, experimental requirements and applications for space
research should be clear and the funding adequate for successful
completion. Running a space research program on a ``shoestring budget''
is not the way to conduct cutting edge science that is critical for
exploration, nor is it the way to maintain US leadership in space
exploration. Exploration drives science and science drives
exploration--the two cannot be separated. Unfortunately, the currently
adopted paradigm has negated the critical value of space research as an
essential component of NASA. This has led to slashing the already
minimal life support funding system for space research--and in so
doing, has both decimated and alienated a large segment of the U.S.
space life sciences research community and has seriously undermined the
position of the U.S. as the world's leader in space exploration. Our
nation's Vision for Space Exploration is dependent on the space life
sciences community to generate knowledge leading to solutions to ensure
safe passage for humans beyond Earth, to train the future workforce to
maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration, and to translate
findings from this work into human health benefits for the general
public on Earth.
Q3c. What, in your view, would be an effective mechanism for
coordinating and managing the use of the ISS National Laboratory?
A3c. NASA's current structure provides an acceptable mechanism for the
operation of the ISS National Laboratory; however, several changes at
NASA would benefit the science that can be performed. First, the
direction of the fundamental science that is performed should be guided
by long-term, well coordinated goals to benefit general science. NASA
has previously assembled ``blue ribbon'' panels that have made
recommendations regarding the vision, direction and priority of
research goals, (including commissioned Decadal Studies by the National
Academy of Sciences). However, NASA's commitment to these collective
expert recommendations over time has been inconsistent. Thus, in order
to provide meaningful vision, direction and continuity of research over
time, a standing science advisory board with members representing NASA,
other federal agencies (e.g., NIH, USDA, etc.), and academia should be
established. This board would guide fundamental research (both mission
and non-mission-oriented) and should not be confused with NASA's own
research goals to benefit the exploration of space. For example, the
development of countermeasures to protect crew health during flight
would remain under the purview of NASA. Second, scientific
collaboration and resource sharing should be facilitated with the
international partners of the station. While other factors do govern
the exchange of funding and intellectual property, NASA should be
provided some exception to these constraints to fully utilize this
unique resource. Finally, it is critical to stress that consistency in
both access to the ISS and funding for research is key for any
successful utilization of the ISS as a National Laboratory.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no--or
very limited ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and
other materials from station. What are your thoughts about the
usefulness of ISS as a laboratory if there is no down-mass capability?
Will the inability to return research samples to Earth seriously
jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What
steps can researchers take to compensate?
A1. Yes, lack of down-mass will limit use and jeopardize the usefulness
of ISS as a laboratory. It will drive a need for improved and self
sufficient analysis equipment and other resources needed to complete
the work on orbit in the future (i.e., without the need to return
payloads)--for example, microscope with greater imaging and functional
capabilities, easy access to knowledge of available and functional
hardware for research use (this is currently difficult information for
researchers to obtain), molecular genetic tools, and available space.
These self-sustaining in-flight research technologies will be critical
to leave low-Earth orbit, when lack of resupply is a critical issue!
*Also, please see response to Question #1 from Chairman Udall
above.
Q2. Several witnesses recommended that NASA identify an organization
to manage research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage research
today, and how would a news established research management
organization differ from the current model?
A2. * Please see response to Questions 3b and 3c from Chairman Udall
above.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Thomas Boone Pickens, III, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, SPACEHAB, Inc.
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. What do you see as the most significant challenges with respect to
SPACEHAB's involvement in the ISS National Laboratory and how should
those challenges be addressed?
A1. SPACEHAB's announcement of a Space Act Agreement with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for use of the
International Space Station (ISS), for research, development and
industrial processing purposes removed one of our most significant
challenges. This agreement will provide SPACEHAB with flight
opportunities on the Space Shuttle for the remaining assembly phase of
the ISS, as well as appropriate on-orbit ISS resources during both the
pre- and post-assembly phases. The largest remaining challenge for
SPACEHAB is the uncertainty of flight opportunities to the ISS
following the final Shuttle flight, currently scheduled for 2010.
Q2. How significant is the need to be able to return cargo from the
Space Station--for example, research samples or lab equipment--for the
type of commercial initiative you expect to pursue on the ISS? What are
the implications if this return cargo capability is not available?
A2. The commercial initiatives we are pursuing, including vaccine
development and protein crystal growth, require return cargo capability
from the ISS National Laboratory. While research and development could
occur on the ISS, the samples would need to be returned to Earth in
order for this research to be commercially viable. If the return cargo
capability is not available, it would change the direction of
SPACEHAB's current commercial initiatives in space. Our research has
indicated that most identified research and development would require
return cargo capability.
Q3. What types of results would SPACEHAB and the broader investment
community need to see in order to gain confidence in the use of ISS for
commercial drug development or other initiatives? On what timescale
would they need to see these results?
A3. SPACEHAB is already seeing results of microgravity research with
our recent discovery of a salmonella vaccine target giving us a great
deal of confidence for further research and development through the use
of the ISS. Our successful flights prove that scientists can continue
to rely upon the development of microgravity products on the ISS for
years to come.
Q4. What are the implications for your business model if NASA decides
not to operate the ISS past 2016?
A4. This would take away an incredibly valuable national resource that
has already proven to save lives on earth with our salmonella vaccine
discovery work however we have just begun and many more experiments
need to be conducted. We reviewed over 2,000 experiments that have
already been sent to microgravity and have chosen those that have
showed the most commercial near-term value. We saw many experiments
that had great promise but needed more work on-orbit before we could
get comfortable with an acceptable level of risk/reward. Therefore, the
longer the ISS is in service the more experiments will fly and the more
commercially viable products will be discovered. It is simply a ratio
between having access to microgravity and continuing to discover
products that will enhance and save lives on earth. Having spent 15
years and over $100 billion on this unique environment, it seems a
shame to have it fully operational for only five or six years when
mankind could benefit from its service for many decades.
Q5. You discussed SPACEHAB's involvement in the Space Technology and
Research Students (STARS) program. What do you believe has been the
impact of the STARS program on STEM education?
A5. The STARS program gave students a heightened enthusiasm for STEM by
giving them the opportunity for hands on participation in microgravity
research. By utilizing the allure of space, STARS is able to attract
students to STEM that might otherwise not show an interest in these
areas.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no--or
very limited--ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and
other materials from station. What are your thoughts about the
usefulness of ISS as a laboratory if there is no down-mass capability?
Will the inability to return research samples to Earth seriously
jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What
steps can researchers take to compensate?
A1. See response to question two from Chairman Udall.
Q2. Several witnesses recommended that NASA identify an organization
to manage research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage ISS research
today, and how would a newly established research management
organization differ from the current model?
A2. Working with NASA to fly samples on the Shuttle is an add hock
process that offers no assurances as to participating organizations and
making it nearly impossible to convince the investment community that
there is assured access to microgravity. While NASA has been very
accommodating to date, there is a lack of confidence that we will make
the next flight, even up to the final hours prior to lift-off. This
makes it very difficult to attract and commit capital for the expensive
pre-flight processing when all would be lost if we were told we would
not be on the next flight due to cargo priorities.
It would therefore be very helpful if there was a policy that
required NASA to fly both pre-commercial experiments and commercial
samples to microgravity. Previous attempts to promote commercial uses
of space by NASA have been largely unsuccessful as we feel the more
people that are involved slows down and complicates a process that is
already very understood and streamlined. Therefore, in response to the
question, we would recommend only a change in the NASA policy to be
mandated to send these payloads without exception but use the existing
structure of selection and flight safety review as this seems to be
appropriate at this time.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space
Operations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. How much will NASA have spent in total developing, building, and
operating the International Space Station when it is completed in 2010?
Please provide the direct costs for development, operations and
utilization, cargo and crew transport, Shuttle transportation costs,
and other costs to NASA.
A1. The total direct cost of the International Space Station (ISS) from
FY 1994 through assembly complete in FY 2010 is estimated to be $47.0B.
This includes $14.0B for development, $16.0B for operations and
utilization, $1.0B for cargo and crew transportation, $13.0B for Space
Shuttle transportation costs, and $3.0B in other costs to NASA. These
figures exclude costs for phases A, B, and C (i.e., the Freedom
Program) and International Partner costs.
Q2. What, if any, mechanisms exist for ISS users to communicate their
transportation requirements to potential and future ISS commercial
cargo providers, or do you expect individual researchers to be working
directly with commercial companies?
A2. International Space Station (ISS) user transportation requirements
for both NASA users and non-NASA, National Laboratory users must first
be integrated into a cohesive, time-phased delivery plan before being
passed on to future ISS commercial cargo providers. This ensures that
user payloads are scheduled for deployment and operation on the ISS
during a period when payload resources and accommodations are actually
available. The ISS Payloads Division within NASA's ISS Program Office
collects all U.S. domestic user transportation requirements in order to
accomplish this function. This is done through the formal ISS Payload
Integration Agreement process. The ISS Program Office then integrates
U.S. user payload transportation requirements with requirements for
payload and system operations and maintenance from Canada, Europe,
Japan, Russia and the U.S. The result is a time-phased cargo
transportation plan that is optimized across the international mixed
fleet of transportation vehicles, in order to both maintain the ISS
system successfully and operate payloads productively within the user
resource allocations specified in the international agreements. This
function is accomplished through regular, periodic Technical
Interchange Meetings across the ISS partnership.
Individual users may also work directly with commercial companies
in order to ascertain possible future transportation costs and
available physical accommodations during the transport phase. In the
future, some portion of the available commercial transportation
capacity may be set aside on commercial flights for the service
provider to market directly to paying customers; however, user payloads
bound for the ISS must first be assigned physical accommodations and
operating resources before being manifested for flight. As this
scenario evolves, it will be important that the ISS Program Office
continues to work closely with the commercial service providers, so
that all payloads arriving at the ISS can be physically integrated and
productively operated.
Q3. How does NASA plan to validate vendors' claims that they can meet
the Agency's ISS cargo requirements in a credible and safe manner?
A3. NASA released an ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) Request for
Proposals (RFP) on April 14, 2008, for resupply and return of ISS and
utilization cargo. Proposals were due back to NASA at the end of June
2008, with an award expected at the end of calendar year 2008. The RFP
identifies the specific criteria that NASA will utilize in evaluating
industry proposals. The criteria that NASA will utilize includes
evaluating such areas as: the offeror's capability to meet the
statement of work based on the level of development maturity of those
capabilities; the production and annual delivery capability, and
processing lead times; how the offeror's schedule and planning for ISS
integration will impact the delivery of services under this contract;
the offeror's understanding of the risks of providing the ISS resupply
services, completeness in identifying risks, and the appropriateness of
their mitigation plans; and, the offeror's approach for safety (range,
ground, flight, etc.), reliability, maintainability, supportability,
quality, software assurance, and risk management for completeness and
effectiveness at meeting the contract requirements.
Q4. What effect will the increase to a six-person crew on ISS have on
crew time to support research and other utilization activities? Will
the time available for research double?
A4. In the early 2009 timeframe, when the ISS is still operating with
three crew, there will be approximately 40 crew-hours per week
available, on annual average, to operate, maintain and utilize the U.S.
Operating Segment (USOS). This assumes that 1.5 of the three crew
members is working on the USOS, and that each astronaut works
approximately 32.5 hours per week. This is equivalent to approximately
48.75 crew hours per week, and is reduced to approximately 40 crew-
hours per week after joint Shuttle-Station assembly period operations
are subtracted out. Also during this timeframe, 37-40 crew hours per
week will be needed for USOS systems operations and maintenance. Under
these circumstances, up to three crew-hours per week are estimated to
be available for USOS utilization.
By late 2009, ISS crew complement will increase to six and,
assuming three of the six astronauts are working on the USOS, will
yield approximately 85 crew hours per week to operate, maintain and
utilize the USOS. By this timeframe, the remaining assembly elements
will have been integrated and it will then require approximately 65
crew-hours per week to operate and maintain the USOS, and there will be
approximately 20 crew-hours per week available to utilize the USOS. The
time available for research in the USOS increases from up to three
hours per week (three crew) to 20 hours per week (six crew).
During the post-assembly period, the crew time capability for the
USOS is estimated to further increase to approximately 100 hours per
week because there is no longer the need for joint Shuttle-Station
assembly operations, while the requirement to operate and maintain the
USOS remains constant at 65 hours per week. At this stage,
approximately 35 hours per week are projected to be available for USOS
utilization.
The table below summarizes this evolution in USOS crew time
capability, reflected in hours per week.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Q4a. How will crew time be allocated for ISS utilization activities?
A4a. Crew time will be allocated according to payload operating
priorities as determined by the tactical level, multilateral Research
Planning Working Group in accordance with strategic level NASA
Headquarters policy direction and international Memorandum of
Understanding provisions.
Q4b. Do ISS crews need to be trained in advance to support research
and other utilization activities occurring through the National
Laboratory? If so, how much lead time is required for this crew
preparation and when would NASA need to know what research would be
flown?
A4b. Yes, virtually all utilization activities require some level of
crew familiarization and training. These requirements vary widely
depending on payload complexity. Nominally, a two-year planning horizon
is desired so that specific utilization activities can be identified in
the Increment Definition and Requirements Document; however, the Space
Station Program is currently integrating relatively small (e.g., mid-
deck locker scale) experiments within six months of launch,
particularly when re-flights of flight-certified apparatus are
involved. Future utilization demand appears to be evolving largely in
the direction of the life sciences and biotechnologies where
experiments are being planned at the cellular and molecular levels. In
these cases, locker-scales are common and integration is relatively
straightforward.
Q5. Regarding cargo transport to the ISS, your testimony notes that
``The ISS Program continues to evaluate the up mass requirements and
spares procurement strategy to sustain nominal system and research
operations.''
Q5a. When does NASA anticipate being able to provide firm up mass
requirements to potential commercial providers?
A5a. NASA issued a Commercial Resupply Services Request for Proposals
in mid-April of this year, and proposals were due by the end of June.
Following proposal evaluation, NASA plans to enter into firm fixed-
price contracts for commercial transportation services by the end of
calendar year 2008. These contracts will specify up-mass requirements.
Q5b. Will those requirements include down-mass?
A5b. The contracts will also include down-mass requirements for those
service providers that can deliver the capability.
Q5c. How much additional up-mass and down-mass would be included in
NASA's requirements to support ISS National Lab users?
A5c. The specific transportation requirements for National Laboratory
users have not yet been defined in detail because the U.S. Government
agencies and private firms that have entered into agreements with NASA
to use the ISS are just beginning to plan their respective research
programs. NASA has estimated that a throughput capacity of as much as
three metric tons per year could be available on the International
Space Station to support National Laboratory users.
Q5d. When do potential commercial cargo suppliers need to know the
full breadth of cargo requirements in order to assess the potential
market and respond accordingly?
A5d. Commercial cargo suppliers have been informed of the full breadth
of cargo requirements throughout the Request for Information and
Request for Proposals processes over the last several years. The
International Space Station cargo requirements have been well-defined
and stable, and are highly representative of future needs.
Q6. What is NASA's timeline for determining a management structure for
the ISS National Lab?
A6. As outlined in the report NASA submitted to Congress in April 2007
regarding International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory
Applications Development, the strategy to first identify credible and
qualified end-users was emphasized. Since that report, NASA has entered
into separate Memorandum of Understanding with the National Institutes
of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural
Research Service. In addition, two Space Act Agreements (SAAs) with
private firms and one with a state university have been signed, while
additional SAAs remain under development. Finally, a self-organizing
Biotechnology Space Research Alliance has been formed in southern
California that consists of university, industry and municipal
government partners. As a result of these developments, NASA is well
along in the process of identifying credible and qualified end-users.
In FY 2010, efforts will turn to: (1) defining the respective
research programs for each of the new partners and translating their
strategic research objectives into an executable portfolio of specific
payload plans with detailed specification of requirements for ISS
resources and accommodations; and, (2) working with the new partners to
determine the most effective and appropriate management structure(s)
for the post-2010 real-time operations timeframe. In this latter
activity, the ISS Program's Payload Office will perform a central role
in physical, analytical and operations integration, while NASA's Space
Operations Mission Directorate continues to manage policy aspects of
ISS National Laboratory operations in concert with direction from the
Executive and Legislative branches. Decisions regarding ISS operations
post 2016 will be made by future Administrations and Congresses.
Q7. Section 2006 of the America COMPETES Act directs NASA to ``develop
a detailed plan for implementation of I or more education projects that
utilize the resources offered by the International Space Station.''
What is the status of NASA's work on developing this plan?
A7. Working with the established interagency ISS National Laboratory
Education Concept Development Task Force, NASA has completed a plan in
response to the provisions of Section 2006 of the America COMPETES Act
(P.L.110-69) and a report outlining the plan was submitted to Congress
on June 20, 2008. The report identifies a series of specific education
projects conceived by the cooperating agencies that could be conducted
using the International Space Station.
Q8. The America COMPETES Act also directs NASA to develop a plan for
ISS research that will serve to increase U.S. science, technology, and
engineering competitiveness and to consult with organizations that have
agreements to use the ISS National Lab in developing the plan. What is
the status of this planning effort?
A8. NASA has brought this provision of the America COMPETES Act (P.L.
110-69) to the attention of each of the new ISS National Laboratory
partners. In each case, we expect these partners to develop specific
research and development (R&D) plans in the coming year that can be
made available to the Congress in direct response to the Act. For
instance, NASA is currently cooperating with the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) on development of a Funding Opportunity Announcement to be
issued by NIH by the end of FY 2008. The response to this announcement
and the proposals selected by NIH will represent their initial R&D plan
for the ISS. It is important to note that these plans may be
constrained by the availability of appropriated funds at each partner
Agency.
Q9. I understand that you have recently met with the Russian company
making the Soyuz.
Q9a. Do you have any insight into their quality control processes?
A9a. The Soyuz has long track record of success. NASA's insight into
their quality control process is part of the reporting in the contract
and is handled through regular contract progress reviews and anomaly
reporting. Additionally, the Russians have been responsive to specific
requests for information concerning the April 2008 ballistic re-entry.
Q9b. Since NASA will be relying on Soyuz during the gap, are you
taking any additional precautions following the last ballistic Soyuz
re-entry to ensure the safety of U.S. and partner astronauts using the
Soyuz to return from the ISS?
A9b. The International Space Station is an interdependent partnership.
NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency share the goal of fully
understanding mission anomalies to ensure the safety of all of crew
members. NASA will continue to work closely with Russia on our
respective anomaly reporting and correction processes, during both
manufacturing and operations phases.
On July 10, 2008, Cosmonauts Sergei Volkov and Oleg Kononenko
performed RS EVA #20A. The primary task on EVA #20A was the inspection
and retrieval of a pyrobolt from one of the five latches on the Soyuz.
This was done to support the investigation of the ballistic descent of
the last two Soyuz vehicles. Kononenko's Orlan suit was outfitted with
a U.S. Wireless Video System to allow ground specialists to monitor
real-time views from his helmet camera during the retrieval. While no
anomalies were observed during the EVA, the pyrobolt will be returned
for close inspection as part of the ongoing investigation process. NASA
is working closely with Roscosmos to thoroughly evaluate all aspects of
Soyuz design and operations, and assist in the performance thermal and
structural analyses related to the re-entry conditions.
Q10. It has been reported that the Russians will need additional
funding to complete construction of its ISS research facilities.
Q10a. Have the Russians informed NASA of delays to its planned Multi-
Purpose Laboratory Module and Research Module?
A10a. In the most recent review of Russian activities, the Russians
reported that all their modules are on schedule.
Q10b. How do these delays factor into the planning needed to complete
ISS construction and begin full operations?
A10b. There is no impact to the U.S. program if the Russian modules are
delayed.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. At the hearing, concern was raised about the future cost of
carrying research experiments and samples to and from ISS on cargo
flights. Specifically, the research community fears that the cost of
integrating the experiment for launch to and from ISS, plus the cost of
the operations and safety certification, and transportation on cargo
flights, could prove to be too expensive for many researchers. What are
NASA's plans with respect to managing and pricing experiments to be
conducted on ISS?
A1. There are six categories of cost related to conducting research and
development (R&D) projects within the utilization capacity of the
International Space Station (ISS) USOS U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) in
its role as a National Laboratory. The ``user community'' consists of
other U.S. Government agencies (e.g., National Institutes of Health and
Department of Agriculture), private firms (e.g., SPACEHAB and Zero
Gravity, Inc.) and universities (e.g., Bioserve Space Technology Center
at the University of Colorado) that have entered into formal Memoranda
of Understanding and/or Space Act Agreements for use of the ISS for R&D
purposes. Each of these categories is discussed below.
1. Cost of ISS USOS On-Orbit Resources and Accommodations: NASA does
not intend to charge any user fees for U.S. use of ISS National
Laboratory accommodations and resources. These costs are subsumed under
the annual operations and maintenance cost of the ISS USOS.
2. Cost of Participating R&D Personnel: The research community that
NASA has entered into agreements with for use of the ISS as a national
laboratory recognizes that it is their responsibility to cover the cost
of their own R&D personnel. In the case of government agencies, this
includes the cost of external grant recipients and/or internal research
staff. In the case of private firms and universities, this includes the
cost of company personnel and/or university employees and students.
3. Cost of Space Certified Equipment and Facilities: In most cases, R&D
plans will rely on the use of existing payload equipment and facilities
that have been developed and flight-qualified previously in the ISS
Program (e.g., Express racks & pallets, rack-scale special purpose
research facilities, mid-deck lockers and drawers, refrigerators and
freezers, etc.). A complete listing of flight equipment can be found
at: http://www.nasa.gov/mission<INF>-</INF>pages/station/science/
experiments/Discipline.html
4. Cost of Payload Analytical and Operations Integration: These costs
include: definition of payload characteristics, properties and
requirements in a formal Payload Integration Agreement; training crew
for on-orbit payload operations; and, final integration of the payload
into the on-orbit operations timeline. The ISS Program Office is
currently budgeted to perform these functions for full use of the ISS
USOS utilization capacity.
5. Cost of Payload Physical Integration and Safety Certification: The
build-up of specific payload configurations, document production,
verification testing, and safety certification is a responsibility of
the end-user. NASA has worked aggressively to minimize these costs
within the safety and mission assurance environment. The key to cost
containment is the re-flight of previously qualified flight equipment
that can maximize the use of existing hardware/software systems and
documentation products. Experienced end-users have developed a close
familiarity with the rigors of NASA payload physical integration and
safety certification practices, and are knowledgeable in minimizing the
associated costs.
6. Cost of Space Transportation: NASA is currently in the midst of
acquiring domestic, commercial space transportation services (Request
for Proposals released in mid-April with plans for award of firm fixed-
price contracts by the end of 2008). At this time, the cost and
availability of these services is not clear; however, these aspects
will continue to mature in the coming years as U.S. commercial service
providers evolve and demonstrate their capabilities and pricing
strategies. A transition period can be anticipated during which end-
user payloads are initially transported in the marginal capacity of ISS
re-supply missions purchased by NASA and later manifested directly by
the commercial service provider. The specific prices, practices and
procedures will become clearer as this capability emerges in the post-
assembly, post-Shuttle period.
Q2. The Europeans, Russians, and soon the Japanese, have--or will
have--their own research facilities on-board ISS. What steps are taken
among the international partners to ensure there is no duplication of
research activities on ISS, and that the science return is maximized?
A2. Each ISS partner is free to pursue research at its own discretion
in accordance with provisions of the bilateral agreements. Some degree
of duplication is anticipated and indeed encouraged, in order to foster
unique approaches to solving common scientific issues and advancing the
state-of-the-art. Nonetheless, cooperation is also encouraged where
beneficial to both, or all, partners. For example, we establish
arrangements for research from one partner to be conducted in the
facilities of another partner to maximize the science return from those
facilities on orbit. This is fostered through scientific working groups
in discipline-specific areas, such as life sciences and microgravity
sciences. For example, the International Life and Microgravity Science
Working Group (ISLSWG), composed of the Japanese, Canadian, and several
European space agencies (ESA, DLR, CNES, ASI), meets twice a year to
discuss and coordinate research activities, many of which will be
conducted on the ISS.
Q3. What options does NASA have in place should COTS not prove viable?
Will ATV and HTV be able to meet station needs until Orion/Ares becomes
operational?
A3. Services to deliver cargo transportation requirements are being
acquired through the Commercial Resupply Services competitive
procurement, which is open to all bidders, including existing COTS
partners (holders of both funded and unfunded COTS Space Act
Agreements). In the event domestic commercial cargo resupply services
are delayed, NASA will further optimize its usage of other cargo
delivery capabilities, while aggressively managing the degradation in
ISS systems and adjusting U.S. utilization of the ISS until the
services become available.
In addition to commercial services, NASA's strategy is to pre-
position ISS system spares on the flights which remain before Space
Shuttle retirement in 2010. NASA also receives a share of the cargo
capacity on all ATV and HTV flights as a part of the barter agreement
for launch of European and Japanese elements to the ISS on the Space
Shuttle. Finally, NASA has contracted with Russia to continue to
provide cargo on Progress flights through the end of calendar year
2011.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. Your prepared statement concludes that any delays in flying the
Shuttle could ``require NASA to choose between completing the station
as planned and pre-positioning of needed critical spares.'' In your
view, what would NASA need to consider in making such a tradeoff?
A1. There would be little value in bringing up additional components to
the station, if the station itself could not operate effectively until
2016 or beyond. Therefore, NASA would have to consider what spares are
vital to sustaining the station that require the lift capacity of the
Shuttle and give them high priority. This is a fluid situation as NASA
is still learning about the lifespan of its spares and is continually
identifying parts that need special attention.
Q2. What does GAO think about NASA's acquisition strategy for
acquiring commercial cargo transportation services? What do you think
about the schedule it has laid out in the ISS re-supply services
request for proposal?
A2. On the surface, it would seem that NASA is prematurely awarding a
launch contract given that COTS capabilities have not been
demonstrated. However, the government's liability for costs is limited
by the fact that the contract is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite
Quantity (IDIQ) contract, which provides for an indefinite quantity of
supplies or services within stated limits during a fixed period of
time. More specifically, the government is only obligated to purchase a
minimum amount of supplies or services. Under NASA's solicitation, the
agency may select multiple vendors to participate in this contract;
they all will be subject to NASA insight and approval for notice to
proceed and or approval of requirements, plans, tests, or success
criteria; there are stated criteria as to what capabilities need to be
demonstrated; and NASA will determine if vendors are successful.
Therefore, while NASA has already awarded the contract to one vendor,
it is our understanding that the vendor still needs to demonstrate
capability before more than the minimum amount of services will be
ordered. Moreover, other vendors, including those who are not being
paid under Space Act agreements, can eventually participate in the IDIQ
if they develop capability that would suit the station.
Q3. Your prepared statement indicates that NASA has stated it will use
international partners' vehicles to conduct some supply activities.
Since partners have already committed these significant portions of
these vehicles' capacity to carry their own cargo, how much additional
cargo capacity would NASA have access to?
A3. NASA is conducting ongoing assessments on how ISS re-supply will be
supported by international partner vehicles. International partner
vehicles differ in what cargo they can carry and each has an internal
capacity of roughly 2,000 kilograms. However, even with the use of
these vehicles in some fashion, NASA still faces a capacity shortfall
of over 50 metric tons between 2010 and 2015.
Q4. In your prepared statement you indicate that if unanticipated
construction delays occur, NASA may need to hold back two components--
Node 3 and the Cupola--which could constrain the ability to conduct
research and the quality of life on the station for the crew. What
research would be impacted?
A4. It is difficult to identify what research would be impacted by not
installing the Cupola and Node 3. Both elements are not specific to the
conduct of research. However, failure to install these elements would
further limit the availability of storage space on the station. A
shortfall in storage capacity could impact research if some of the
laboratory modules are used to store materials and supplies. We will be
examining this question more specifically in a follow-on review for
this subcommittee.
Q5. In your prepared statement, you indicate that Johnson Space Center
officials were skeptical that commercial transportation services would
be available on the projected schedule. How do you reconcile this
skepticism with the accelerated pace embodied in the schedule for the
new Commercial Resupply RFP?
A5. The schedule goals for the COTS program may well be optimistic as
our testimony emphasized. However, the launch services RFP itself only
obligates the government to purchase a minimum amount of services or
supplies.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. What options does NASA have in place should COTS not prove viable?
Will ATV and HTV be able to meet station needs until Orion/Ares become
operational?
A1. NASA's options for servicing the International Space Station (ISS)
are limited if Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) do not
prove viable. The European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the
Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), along with the Russian Progress
vehicle, can provide limited capabilities to deliver cargo and supplies
to ISS, but NASA predicts a 51.8 metric ton shortfall to ISS re-supply
needs relying on these vehicles alone after Shuttle retirement. The ATV
has a cargo capability of 7,500 kg (primarily for water and atmospheric
gas); the HTV has a cargo capability of 6,000 kg (primarily for water
and atmospheric gas, but also for limited unpressurized external
cargo); and the Progress has a cargo capability of 2,600 kg (including
some pressurized cargo). None of these vehicles has the capability to
carry crew members. Additionally, none of these vehicles has a cargo
return capability because they disintegrate during return to Earth.
Lastly, only limited numbers of the ATV and HTV are being produced.
According to NASA officials, without COTS, only Russian Soyuz
vehicles can provide for crew rotation and very small cargo return
capabilities. Currently, NASA reliance on Russian vehicles for ISS
support is permitted under an exemption to the Iran Nonproliferation
Act of 2000 (now entitled the Iran, North Korea and Syria
Nonproliferation Act), which expires January 1, 2012.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jeffrey P. Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical
Research Institute
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. Your prepared statement refers to ``strategic goals the ISS can
fulfill in the area of biomedical research to address exploration
needs.'' Could you please elaborate on these goals, the progress being
made to date, and what more needs to be done to achieve these goals?
A1. Two broad strategic goals are outlined in my prepared statement
regarding the International Space Station (ISS) and biomedical research
to address exploration needs. The first goal is that ISS serves, and
needs to be utilized, as an invaluable platform for biomedical science
and technology projects that are currently under way. These projects
have substantial promise for yielding results, countermeasures and
technologies that will enable safe human exploration of space. Some of
the projects are ground-based studies that are working their way
through a product pipeline toward ISS flight testing and evaluation
over the next several years. Other projects are presently ready for
flight definition and study aboard the ISS. As ISS nears completion and
research capabilities grow, it is strategically prudent to capitalize
on investments made in the current portfolio of research and technology
development.
A second goal is to take advantage of the efforts associated with
the first goal and foster new opportunities in biomedical research and
development for exploration. One area to look at is emerging
partnerships between academia and industry, where there has been
positive activity to share costs on projects. Another area of
opportunity lies in the integration and synergy among projects that
make up an expanding portfolio of flight studies. Integration among
projects is important and adds value to the scientific enterprise. It
is also timely as the depth and breadth of ISS capabilities as an
orbiting, microgravity laboratory expand. Moreover, integration fosters
international cooperation, international crew participation, and can
lead to new, unanticipated discoveries to advance knowledge and
countermeasures to complex biomedical risks.
These two goals were presented in the context of the important role
the ISS can have for biomedical research and exploration. There are
other considerations as well. For example, beneficial information for
exploration is gained on human performance, psychosocial adaptation and
team cohesion while accruing operational experience aboard ISS.
Furthermore, it should not be construed that the goals stated in my
testimony are inconsistent with the goals and sub-goals put forth in
the ``2006 NASA Strategic Plan.''
With this clarification in mind, it is laudable that progress in
ISS biomedical research has been achieved, given the (1) challenges of
conducting biomedical research in general, (2) constraints imposed by
mass, power, volume, cost and crew time, (3) impacts from the Columbia
tragedy, and (4) limitations imposed by performing research within a
facility simultaneously undergoing construction. Progress in specific
areas is summarized in my prepared statement, which provides references
for the principal U.S.-sponsored biomedical experiments aboard the ISS.
Ground-based projects that are ready for, or in the process of maturing
toward, ISS testing and evaluation, are also listed with references.
Regarding matters that need to be addressed in order to achieve the
goals, it is vital to have adequate and consistent funding to enable
continuity in science and technology efforts. At present, there is a
small but critical mass of outstanding and dedicated investigators from
acrossthe Nation, who are conducting necessary investigations to enable
safe human exploration of space. These investigators are scientific,
technical and educational leaders, who are at the forefront of their
fields and are at premier academic institutions, biotechnology
companies and government laboratories (NASA and other agencies). They
have the unique, collective expertise to drive U.S. achievements in
space biomedical research forward, while at the same time inspiring and
training the next generation of scientists, engineers and physicians.
It is therefore important that their projects and teaming with each
other, with younger investigators entering the field, and with the
operational community at NASA be sustained and appropriately augmented
as ISS capabilities expand.
Along similar lines, as NASA looks to implement memoranda of
understanding with other federal agencies, such as the National
Institutes of Health, new appropriations for collaborative ISS research
should be considered. These new appropriations are also relevant to the
success of the ISS National Laboratory. It is not apparent how ISS
science endeavors can be implemented by relying only on funds
redirected from within agencies with relatively flat budgets.
In strengthening the pipeline of biomedical research that requires
ISS utilization, it is further recommended that NASA permit the
National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) to be more engaged
in transitioning and managing science and technology development for
the ISS. The 1996 NASA Cooperative Agreement Notice 9-CAN-96-01,
``Soliciting Proposals for the Establishment of the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute,'' states in Section 7.0, and reiterates
in Section 10.4, that ``it is NASA's intent that responsibility for all
appropriate NASA-sponsored Space Station human experiment opportunities
be transferred to the Institute.'' Although NSBRI is NASA's primary
partner for biomedical research, and has multiple international
collaborations, NASA has not utilized the resources and expertise of
NSBRI to help review, select or manage research for the ISS. This is an
area that should be revisited.
Q2. NASA has developed a Human Research Program Utilization Plan for
the ISS, which identifies the risks for human exploration of space and
the research on the ISS that can help mitigate the risks and lead to
the development of countermeasures.
Q2a. Do NASA's current plans for ISS utilization enable the agency to
adequately address the risks outlined in the plan and to develop
countermeasures?
A2a. NASA's ``Human Research Program Utilization Plan for the
International Space Station'' identifies 25 human health and
performance risks requiring the ISS in order to perform research needed
to quantify the risks and validate countermeasures and technologies.
For each risk, there is a brief description of the planned activities
and a top-level schedule, wherein a significant portion of the proposed
work will be completed by 2016. Some risk assessment and countermeasure
validation will occur beyond this date.
As stated in the document, the plan is subject to change based on
multiple considerations. Nevertheless, in its current instantiation,
the plan summarizes important risks and the development of
countermeasures. Some risk areas are described in more detail than
others, but in general, limited information is provided in the
document.
NASA's current plans for ISS utilization enable the agency to
address the risks. The question is what constitutes adequate risk
mitigation? It is apparent that a more detailed, integrated utilization
plan is needed to ensure as much progress and success as possible
within the proposed time frame.
Q2b. If not, what else needs to be done?
A2b. Items to be done are listed as recommendations for the Human
Research Program Utilization Plan for the ISS:
<bullet> Prioritize the risks into categories to identify
those among the 25 that are the most urgent to mitigate
utilizing the unique capabilities of the ISS;
<bullet> Expand each risk section to provide a more
comprehensive listing of proposed research, countermeasures and
technologies;\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, ISS research to address the first risk in the
plan, ``Risk of Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew
Member,'' is scheduled for FY08, FY09 and FY11. It would be helpful to
list all relevant technologies at high readiness levels for flight that
are candidates for testing and evaluation aboard ISS. Near infrared
spectroscopy for non-invasive blood and tissue chemistry, and in-flight
blood lab-on-a-chip technology for astronaut health monitoring are two
such technologies. While both projects are currently funded by NSBRI,
neither project is identified in the plan.
<bullet> Characterize the current pipeline of biomedical
projects feeding into, and already approved as part of, the
portfolio of research, development, testing and evaluation to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
be conducted aboard the ISS;
<bullet> Identify current science and technology gaps in the
risk reduction plan utilizing the ISS;\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This is important to do now as there is often a significant
lead time to procure the needed studies and mature them to ISS-ready
status.
<bullet> Outline the flight resources and manifest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
opportunities;
<bullet> Describe current and planned experiment hardware and
associated engineering needs;
<bullet> Discuss opportunities for integration and added value
among studies addressing different risks;\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For instance, NSBRI is supporting a project to develop an
ultrasound catalog for autonomous medical care. The catalog will
provide, among other deliverables, an atlas of normal human anatomy and
physiology acquired using ultrasound aboard the ISS, starting with
Expedition 6. Studies should continue on this project which addresses
multiple risks, including but not limited to the ``Risk of Inability to
Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member,'' ``Risk of Accelerated
Osteoporosis,'' ``Risk of Cardiac Rhythm Problems,'' and ``Risk of
Intervertebral Disc Damage.''
<bullet> Depict the roles and extent of industry involvement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the enterprise;
<bullet> Estimate the crew time dedicated to participate in
research activities;
<bullet> Describe the metrics to be used to assess risk
mitigation effectiveness and outcomes for the planned ISS
activities;\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ All projects within the Human Research Program can be assigned
countermeasure and/or technology readiness levels. The rate of change
of these levels with time provides an estimate of when projects are
ready for flight testing and evaluation. Not all projects mature to
flight and some projects enter the system as flight studies. There are
also other measures to characterize the pipeline beyond readiness
levels and their time rate of change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Address plans for data sharing;
<bullet> Address plans for how intellectual property will be
handled;
<bullet> Expand on issues concerning ISS partner
participation;
<bullet> Discuss how research, development, testing and
evaluation will be supported.
Q3. In your prepared statement, you indicate that affordable and
reliable access to and from the ISS are key to the success of
conducting biomedical research. You go on to say that critical to this
success is the availability of cost-effective transportation services.
How critical is a down mass capability for biomedical research?
A3. The physical return of samples and other materials is critical to
the success and reproducibility of biomedical experiments aboard the
ISS. Down mass capability is essential to guarantee the quality of
certain types of biological specimens (fluids, cells and tissue) being
returned to Earth. Access to powered, large-volume, pressurized lockers
for transport is necessary.
Given the need for this capability, whenever possible, it is
anticipated that on-orbit resources would be utilized to characterize
findings, and that digital data would be down-linked to Earth. In my
verbal testimony, I referred to the successful use of on-orbit
ultrasound to perform medical imaging on ISS crew members. Streamed
video and still images of clinical quality from a series of studies
were obtained without the need for down mass capability.
The U.S. orbiter and the Russian Soyuz have served as the primary
means to ensure safe return of biomedical samples from research
conducted aboard the ISS. Both vehicles are capable of providing
powered mid-deck locker return, when necessary, for valuable
experimental materials. It is desirable to have configurable soft-packs
when power and/or pressurization is not necessary.
The transfer vehicles in development by international partners (the
European ATV and the Japanese HTV) do not provide down mass capability.
Although these vehicles play an important role in delivery of cargo to
the ISS, their utility for transferring experimental samples and other
materials from the ISS to Earth is absent. Similar to the conditions
provided by the orbiter and Soyuz, the Space X Dragon capsule,
currently under development for NASA's Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services program, is expected to be able to accommodate
both pressurized and non-pressurized cargo in a mid-deck locker-like
configuration. Other developments are also in progress.
Q4. Given your experience in leading an institute that involves
universities, federal agencies, and industry in conducting research to
support human space exploration, what should NASA consider as it
explores options for managing the ISS National Lab?
A4. NASA should consider management options for the ISS National Lab
that have been successfully implemented in other large-scale, ambitious
research and engineering projects of national and international
importance. Within NASA, excellent examples include the Apollo and
Hubble Space Telescope programs. There are many non-NASA examples,
including the Manhattan Project, which exemplify how outstanding
scientists have been brought together to work on teams, with an upper-
level management structure guiding and integrating teams to achieve a
single common purpose of paramount significance.
There is not necessarily a single, best way to manage the ISS
National Lab. Substantial resources exist, and more are being put into
place, aboard the ISS. There is a wealth of biomedical research and
technological infrastructure within universities, medical schools,
industry and government laboratories to enable ISS National Lab
achievements. As mentioned previously, there is a cadre of outstanding
investigators who have, and students who are acquiring, the necessary
skills to generate productive and meaningful discoveries in space, in
partnership with ISS crews. Funding, reliable access to and from the
ISS, and international limitations are challenging issues but
fundamentally solvable.
Two items that NASA should focus on regarding management are
requirements and leadership. A strategic and tactical plan that is
consistent with, but includes more detail than the reports presently
available on the ISS National Lab, should be developed, with particular
attention paid to requirements. The management options are narrowed by
considering only those systems that allow the requirements to be met.
In formulating the strategic and tactical plan, it can be useful to
assemble a small working group of NASA and non-NASA experts, whose
membership includes experience in leading large scientific institutes,
conducting basic and applied biomedical research in space, partnering
with industry and successfully implementing international science and
technology programs. Attention should be paid to the needs and
expectations of key stakeholders, and the plan should be thoroughly
vetted before being implemented.
Leadership is a key consideration for success in managing the ISS
National Lab. The Director should possess not only the necessary
credentials, experience, skills and integrity to perform his or her
duties, but must also have a bold vision for the ISS National Lab that
is embraced by NASA, other federal agencies, Congress, and to the
greatest extent possible, the American public. The ISS National Lab
must have a strong leadership team to effectively implement the
strategic and tactical plan, and to modify the plan accordingly, in
order to achieve maximum return on, and benefit from, our Nation's
investment in the ISS and its precious resources.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. At the hearing, you outlined a number of initiatives conducted by
the National Space Biomedical Research Institute related to developing
countermeasures for long-term human exploration of space. Which among
these has generated the most promise, and which, in your opinion,
continues to pose the greatest challenges?
A1. Ten NSBRI-sponsored science and technology projects, all generating
substantial promise, are highlighted in my prepared statement. Three
are described in more detail here to illustrate the extent of promise
within NSBRI's portfolio. This is followed by remarks concerning an
NSBRI initiative, which despite considerable promise, poses great
challenges.
NSBRI took a strong position in enhancing near-infrared
spectroscopy analysis and subsequently developing a small, lightweight,
portable means of performing non-invasive blood and tissue measurements
for use in space.\5\ By assessing tissue pH and lactic acid in real-
time during exercise, it is possible to adapt exercise countermeasures
and efficiencies for individual crew members. This device has been
tested on astronauts exercising at Johnson Space Center, and the
technology is maturing toward evaluation aboard the ISS. There are
medical applications for space exploration (e.g., assessing tissue
viability in the case of a crush injury or exposure to extreme
temperatures) and applications to health care on Earth (e.g., assessing
the microvasculature in diabetics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The device is reminiscent of the medical tricorder used by Dr.
McCoy in the fictional series Star Trek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light in the blue part of the spectrum is being used as a
countermeasure for performance errors associated with circadian
desynchronization, sleep loss and adaptation to shifts in work
schedule. NSBRI has sponsored research published in leading journals,
such as Science and Nature, delineating mechanisms associated with blue
light effects. The Institute has also taken the lead in developing,
testing and evaluating the countermeasure in operational settings, and
in working with NASA to modify the lighting in designs for the crew
exploration vehicle. There are several applications of this
countermeasure on Earth.
NSBRI assessed the utility of several portable medical imaging
technologies (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, magnetic resonance
imaging, diffuse optical tomography and ultrasound) for use in space.
In partnership with NASA, a series of elegant studies were performed
aboard ISS using ultrasound, which has become the medical imaging
technology of choice. NSBRI therefore shifted its portfolio to reflect
the promise of ultrasound, and currently supports novel countermeasure
development projects using scanning confocal ultrasound and high-
intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). HIFU shows particular promise in
addressing the risk of inability to adequately treat an ill or injured
crew member. NSBRI has co-sponsored, with the Department of Defense, a
small portable ultrasound system capable of sensing and then (using
autonomous image guidance) performing non-invasive surgery with
HIFU.\6\ This countermeasure, employing an integrated sensor-effector
platform, has applications on Earth in emergency medicine and on the
battlefield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See http://www.nsbri.org/Research/Projects/
viewsummary.epl?pid=158
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most challenging risks to mitigate, for human space
exploration, is the harmful effects of radiation. A recent report from
the National Research Council, entitled ``Managing Space Radiation Risk
in the New Era of Space Exploration'' (2008), provides an insightful
assessment of the risk and efforts to protect against exposure to space
radiation. NSBRI supports NASA's radiation program in several ways.\7\
The Institute funds the development of gas and solid-state dosimeters
for real-time assessment of radiation exposure to astronauts. This is
particularly important for missions beyond low Earth orbit. A number of
projects on NSBRI teams, such as those dealing with bone and the
cardiovascular system, have a radiation component. Countermeasures are
being investigated to protect against the harmful effects of radiation
to these and other systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ It is worth noting that NASA's radiation program, within the
Human Research Program, is supported at an amount that is 50 percent
greater than the entire NSBRI. To accomplish its mission, the Institute
relies on its ability to leverage resources in innovative ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most significant contribution of NSBRI in addressing
radiation risks is a new initiative addressing the mitigation of
effects due to acute radiation exposure. In February 2008, NSBRI
released an announcement ``Research Opportunities Soliciting an NSBRI
Center of Acute Radiation Research for Ground-Based Studies on Acute
Radiation Effects.'' \8\ The goal is to develop countermeasures to
acute effects that could potentially compromise crew members and even
the mission itself. Countermeasure development in this area is
challenging, but it is an essential part of supporting long-duration,
human exploration of space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See http://www.nsbri.org/Announcements/rfa08-02.html
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Statement of the American Society for
Gravitational and Space Biology
ASGSB President, Danny A. Riley, Ph.D.
Professor of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy
Medical College of Wisconsin
The American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology (ASGSB),
founded in 1984, provides a forum to foster research, education and
professional development in the multidisciplinary fields of
gravitational and space biology. We are a diverse group of scientists,
engineers and students who exchange ideas that bridge basic and applied
biological research in space and gravitational sciences. Our society of
350 professionals and students from universities, government, and
industry represents the core community that works with NASA to create
and disseminate knowledge about how living organisms respond to gravity
and the space flight environs.
For many years, our members have worked toward the reality of an
International Space Station (ISS) as a platform for conducting the
cutting edge research, as described in the multiple National Research
Council (NRC) reports.\1\ We consider the ISS National Laboratory an
essential and unique tool for probing biological function and
adaptation during long-term space flight. The studies are essential for
human space exploration and, at the same time, return multiple health
and economic benefits to America. There is no substitute on earth.
Moreover, the U.S. has already invested at least $100 billion in the
ISS. This is not the time for us to abandon the investment or the
opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An Assessment of Balance in NASA's Science Programs (2006).
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2006).
Science in NASA's Vision for Space Exploration (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Society has been decimated by the unprecedented retraction and
termination of funding of non-exploration fundamental biology. The
viability of our community is foundationally linked to the ability to
conduct cutting edge research on ISS.
The American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology considers the
following elements ESSENTIAL to make the International Space Station
productive for research:
Viable ASGSB research community
<bullet> Substantial and long-term commitment of NASA to fund
fundamental biology ground and flight research programs
<bullet> Active community of plant and animal scientists and
engineers engaged in world class, fundamental and applied space
research
<bullet> Stable research and training environments to attract
and educate next generation scientists and engineers
<bullet> Continuous pipeline of meritorious, peer-reviewed
investigations encompassing fundamental and applied research in
space-related biological sciences
ISS Resources and Environment
<bullet> Hardware and instrumentation to support animal and
plant housing and experimentation on ISS, including bio-
containment work stations and variable speed centrifugation
capabilities
<bullet> Frequent and affordable transportation to and from
ISS
<bullet> Commercial and basic research entities participating
jointly on missions
<bullet> Ground personnel and facilities support for flight
experiments
<bullet> Crew member involvement in the conduct of
investigations
ISS National Laboratory Management
<bullet> Empowered and budgeted administrative unit within
NASA to fund and integrate the flight hardware and science for
non-exploration fundamental biology
<bullet> An ISS National Laboratory management unit, a
consortium of stakeholders, tightly coupled with external
advisory and peer review to implement NRC-defined research
priorities
<bullet> External science advisory structure with oversight
and influence on NASA programmatic priority decisions
To revitalize and establish all of these elements requires immediate
attention, time and a renewed national commitment as well as supportive
leadership at NASA Headquarters.
ASGSB life scientists have conferred extensively with their
counterparts in the physical sciences. The consensus is that, for the
U.S. to prevent the utter destruction of the human capital and living
knowledge in the space life and physical sciences, there must be an
infusion of ``keep alive'' funds in 2009. We jointly estimate such
``keep alive funds'' at $91M for the coming fiscal year. Such funds
must be assigned to ``non-exploration research'' in the space life and
physical sciences at NASA. Moreover, for NASA to engage in the mandated
``America COMPETES'' initiative, $160M of additional funds are required
for the life and physical sciences at NASA.
It is ironic that the loss of financial support for the life
sciences and our research on the ISS began in 2004, immediately after
President Bush announced the ``Vision for Space Exploration'' and
asserted that the ISS would be completed because the U.S. finishes what
we start. He also recognized explicitly that we must use the ISS to
learn about long-term space exposure on the body, in order to venture
safely and successfully into space.
Failure to utilize fully U.S. investment in the space station and
neglecting, to the point of destruction, the ASGSB community is
antithetical to competitive national goals and interests. We look
forward to working with Congress to regain American leadership in the
space enterprise and to continue to make great contributions to health
and knowledge while cultivating the next generation of scientists and
engineers.
<all>