Positioning the International Space Station for the Utilization Era
Mark L. Uhran, Assistant Associate Administrator, International Space Station
Office of Space Operations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546
Abstract
The completed International Space Station (ISS) is among the greatest of international cooperative endeavors in the history of science and technology. While the design, assembly and operations to date are remarkable human achievements in their own right, the opening of the utilization era over the next decade presents unprecedented opportunities for advancing research and development of space resources. NASA has been working with international partners in Canada, Europe, Japan and Russia, as well as the U.S. White House and Congress to maximize the value of this extraordinary global asset. Scientific, technological and industrial uses are being enabled through new initiatives that are designed to contribute to both the future of space exploration and the missions of organizations other than space agencies in the domains of public health, energy, the environment and education. International humanitarian projects are on the drawing boards, as is a U.S. independent non-profit foundation for the advancement of scientific research into the realm of applied products and services. During the next 12-18 months, the ISS will be strategically positioned to best support success in these initiatives and unequivocally demonstrate the benefits of international cooperation for peaceful purposes and value-added applications. A new global economy in space is approaching the tipping point.
Introduction
Attention is turning rapidly to scaling up practical uses of the ISS as completion of the assembly phase draws near. While much has been learned technologically, operationally and scientifically during the planning, development and construction phases, the dawning of full-scale utilization will re-boot the spacecraft for the purposes for which it was originally designed – scientific research, applications development, technological demonstration and industrial growth.
Federal policies have been promulgated through White House direction and Congressional statute1, in order to ensure research and development (R&D) opportunities are inclusive of both NASA and national mission objectives. Independent review by a Presidential Commission was completed in 2009 under the leadership of seasoned leaders in science, technology and diplomatic affairs. 2 Fiscal resources have been authorized through USG Fiscal Year 2013 with direction to extend the Program through 2020 or beyond. Canada, Europe, Japan and Russia are unanimously “go.” Completing the ISS as originally envisioned and then operating it as a permanently crewed laboratory, observatory and test bed has been an enduring controversy. The high cost (~ $60 billion according to mandated auditing standards) and long schedule (~ 25 years since the conceptual design phase was initiated) has nonetheless yielded an international asset with extraordinary technical performance capabilities. Expectations for productivity likewise run high for the next decade. As the systems integration and management leader for the ISS Program, NASA will ultimately be accountable for the outcome on the behalf of all international partners. In the U.S., future policy decisions regarding whether to decrease, sustain, or increase fiscal appropriations to human space flight will be strongly influenced by ISS productivity.
Two principle factors will determine ISS productivity in the coming years. Can ISS-based R&D truly have a substantive impact on future paths in science and technology? There are both cynics and visionaries on this question, which is to be expected in any emerging field of research. Also, will the programmatic opportunities and constraints allow for the R&D potential to actually be realized in practice? History is abounding with lost opportunities, sometimes even signaling the decline of entire societies when viewed retrospectively.
The following discussion will review both the R&D and programmatic prospects in the light of current scientific, technical and political conditions. After 25 years of due diligence by NASA on the subject matter, the decision to “use or lose” the ISS opportunity is now up to the governments of the respective international partners. As has been the history of human space flight, U.S. leadership may well determine the final outcome.
Research and Development Prospects
Beneficial uses of space were first considered while drawing up the seminal legislation that formed NASA in 1958. The National Aeronautics and Space Act recognized the need for “…studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.” The NASA programs that followed over the next 25 years (1959-1984) were largely devoted to establishing footholds in low-Earth orbit and on the lunar surface, so that humans could learn to live and work productively in extreme space environments. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab brought progressively increasing laboratory research components that revealed new biological and physical phenomena unique to the “free fall” environment of orbital spacecraft. Then, in 1981, the era of the Space Shuttle began and with it came opportunities to deploy the first fully outfitted laboratories for “bench top” experimentation in the new field of microgravity science and applications.
Spacelab flights enabled by European and Japanese participation, and later U.S. commercial Spacehab flights, resulted in 5-7 days per mission of dedicated laboratory-based experimentation across a virtually unlimited spectrum of scientific fields. It would be accurate to characterize these last 25 years (1985-2010) of Space Shuttle based research as a highly effective survey phase. During this period, 15 Spacelab and 8 Spacehab pressurized laboratory module missions were flown for a total of approximately 120 days in the microgravity environment. In addition, the Shuttle-Mir program and ISS assembly phase allowed limited opportunities to conduct research on the margins of higher priority spacecraft operations. However, in sum total, less than one year of dedicated laboratory research time accrued over those 25 years. Nonetheless, this period yielded provocative research findings that provide a reliable indicator of the prospects for future research payoffs during the ISS utilization era.
Now, it’s time to conclude the broad survey phase and focus on the most promising opportunities. While basic research must always continue, the research portfolio must also increase emphasis on applications-driven objectives based on the prior knowledge acquired. Success in achieving these new applications objectives will most effectively compel further growth in the national R&D investment for microgravity science and applications for the future. Before reviewing these prospects, it is important to also acknowledge that the lag period from basic discovery to product availability is not short. The notion that a single experimental finding is going to yield a profound discovery that rapidly impacts society in the form of widely available products is well beyond the bounds of history. Albert Einstein first proposed his theory of mass energy equivalence, E=mc2, in 1905, yet it took another 40 years before the principle was successfully demonstrated through a nuclear fission reaction. This classic “40 year lag time” between discovery and application is often cited, though obviously not an absolute condition.
The National Science Foundation sponsored the landmark “TRACES”3 study in an attempt to better understand the time-scales associated with discovery and application (Illinois Institute of Technology Research, 1968). This work was followed by TRACES-II and -III conducted by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories in 1973 and 1976. The results of these retrospective tracer studies are summarized as having found “…that a lengthy period, often about twenty years, occurs between an invention in basic research and its application in weaponry or medical innovation.” 4
1 President’s FY-2011 Budget, submitted to the U.S. Congress Feb, 1, 2010 and NASA Authorization Act of 2010, Section 504 Management of the ISS National Laboratory, enacted Oct 11, 2010.
2 Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation, Oct. 2009.
3 Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science
4 Rogers, E., Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition, Free Press, pp. 176-177, 2003.
