Transcript of NASA Press Conference 23 October 2003 (part 2)

Part 1|2

MR. MIRELSON: Craig Couvault [ph], AVWE [ph].

QUESTIONER: Hi. This is for Bill over in Moscow.

Bill, a broader non-sciences question here. At your last briefing there a couple of weeks ago or so, you mentioned that you were going to send the NESC some topics for review, but we ran out of time that day for you to discuss what those topics were that you have either sent or will send to the NESC. Can you discuss them, please?

MR. GERSTENMEIER: We are still in the process of formalizing what topics we would like them to address. We have kind of built an in-house list of things we would like them to look at, and then we are going to dialogue with them and see if those are things they think they have expertise in.

I don’t have them all in front of me, but I could give you a couple of them.

We thought micro meteorite debris protection would be one item that we would like them to take a look at for us and see if there is anything there that we need to do slightly differently than we have.

We also have some potential discussions on the battery side, some small batteries we fly up to station. We would like them to maybe take a look at those items.

We also have some structural items and some life issues and some things along those lines, and we potentially would like to have them to take a look at.

We haven’t done anything formal yet. We are still kind of brain-storming and talking with them about where their expertise is, what they want to go do, and then we will come up with a list of formal items with the NESC.

QUESTIONER: One quick follow here, what would the structural issue be?

MR. LANGDOC: It is not really a structural issue. We take measurements. Now we are looking at life of various components from a cycle fatigue standpoint, and then the question there is, is there anything else we want to have them to take a look at, to kind of look over our shoulders and see if there is anything there that we ought to be doing differently.

QUESTIONER: Thanks.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Keith Cowing [ph], NASA Watch.

[No response.]

NASA PARTICIPANT: Earl Lane, Newsday.

QUESTIONER: I just wanted to ask Nitza and Bill Langdoc, if at this point, today, would you still make the same recommendation that the increment not be recommended for launch?

MS. CINTRON: This is Nitza Cintron.

We have our crew up in Space Station at the current time with the issues that we are addressing, and the path that we are taking, we would work hard with the program to keep our crew members in flight right now.

So, at the current time, we are a go for continuation of flight, ending all these issues and problems that you all have heard about, and that we are pursuing in conjunction with the program and in other circumstances with engineering as we make some repairs and some backup plans.

MR. LANGDOC: This is Bill Langdoc.

The concern was never with the launch itself. It was with the overall sustainability of the increment crew that is there now. They certainly have a means to come home at any time if they find there is an imminent threat. I am certainly comfortable at this point in time that the program has done those things that it reasonably can do under the circumstances to try to obtain the data required to be able to assure that it, in fact, is proper to continue.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Jason Bates, Bates News.

QUESTIONER: In light of the CAIB report, do you feel this whole flight readiness review process has gotten more attention either inside the agency and from observers outside the agency? And I guess this might be for Bill.

MR. GERSTENMEIER: As I said in previous interviews, we really read the CAIB report in the station program, and we have really taken it to heart.

We are working really hard to go above and beyond what is required of us to make sure that we look at everything we can and we make sure that we don’t leave any stones unturned and just fully investigate everything and every piece of data we can get.

I think we have looked at our process. I think we can still improve it. I think we are still in the process of improving it, but I think it is also good that we were able to bring forward these kinds of issues for discussion during these reviews.

I think it is a tribute to us that collectively folks are feeling that they are empowered enough to bring these issues forward, and we in the program are mature enough to listen to those issues and work with them to try to end up in a better condition and a better safety aspect for station.

We still have got work to do in improving, but I think this is a testimony that things are working the right way in terms of the CAIB and the flight readiness review process.

NASA PARTICIPANT: James, Mary Kicza has a follow-on on that question, also.

MS. KICZA: I would just like to echo Bill’s comments. I think that this is a very positive indicator that, in light of what we have seen in the CAIB report and the concerns expressed, that people do feel empowered to express their concerns, and management process all the way up to the very top is willing to listen to those concerns, analyze them and discuss them and debate them before making an informed decision.

QUESTIONER: This is Keith. Can you all hear me?

NASA PARTICIPANT: Yes. The mute isn’t working.

QUESTIONER: Very quickly, Mary answered half the question I was going to ask.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Keith, I will come back to you on a question. The parties here want to address that question still, and you will be next. Okay?

MS. CINTRON: This is Nitza Cintron, and I just wanted to reemphasize what Bill Gerstenmeier said.

We are extremely comfortable with the process. When we brought this up, our concerns, we began a very extensive team work with the different parts of our organization.

There was never an instance where we were not feeling comfortable to work as part of the team and have done so, and I speak for the flight surgeons and space medicine contingent that we were part of the process. We continue to be part of the process. We are integral parts of the readiness review, and I think from it all, we came out as a stronger team for it.

So I really want to reemphasize that this was a very major team effort and a very positive experience for all of us.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Bill Langdoc wants to address that question, too, but we are getting somebody typing again that is kind of drowning things out. So, if you would, please, watch that.

MR. LANGDOC: This is Bill Langdoc.

What I wanted to say is we all read the CAIB report, and we certainly understood what the concerns were in the process.

What I saw going on was not the process that had been reviewed and criticized. I think Nitza and I both felt that, given the set of information we had at the time, that we had done the right thing in terms of raising the concerns and making the recommendations we did, but the program listened to that. They were involved with it, the highest levels of not only program management, but center management and agency management were involved with that.

I felt really good that all that we were worried about were out on the table, were looked at, concerns. There was nothing that was less somehow hidden and not fully vetted, and as a result of that, the process has worked. We have got to where we are because all of it was addressed.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Now, Keith Cowing, NASA Watch, with your question.

QUESTIONER: This whole topic has to do with life science concerns at NASA JSC. I recently posted an internal NASA JSC report in NASA Watch which dealt with the way that NASA runs most of the life sciences research down there.

The report is pretty frank, and it is highly critical of how JSC does things. As is is usually the case, there is a bit of a who-done-it hunt as to how the thing got out.

Now, the Administrator speaks regularly about how people should feel free to express themselves, and the guests just mentioned that, but, Mary Kicza, can you speak to the issues raised by the report and perhaps assure the author of this report and everybody else at NASA that they will not suffer recriminations or harassment or anything like that if they do speak out and raise concerns such as were contained in this report?

MS. KICZA: Oh, absolutely. One of the first things that I did when I asked for information about it, I said, “Let’s be very objective. I don’t want this to be a punitive exercise. I think it is very important that we listen to what is being said.” This is exactly the type of thing that we want to have happen. We want critical self-assessment. We want that self-assessment to be openly discussed, so that we can improve from here. This is something internal to my organization, Headquarters, and with the field centers that I do business with, and we have already initiated that discussion.

Now, while I have not had access to this particular report, I understand it was an internal report and was being worked through the system. What was posted, I think, was a first draft.

I applaud the fact that this assessment was being done, and, in fact, I am heading down to JSC tomorrow and I have asked specifically to have the opportunity to talk to [inaudible] to assure him that I think that his passion and making sure that those concerns that are there are being addressed and is something that I support.

MR. GERSTENMEIER: Gwenith Shaw [ph], Orlando Sentinel.

QUESTIONER: This question is, I guess, for Bill, although anyone else who cares to can take a crack at it.

Does this particular issue and a couple of the other things that we talked about today erode your confidence at all in the ability to keep the station crewed until the shuttle can return to flight?

As you know, the first date they are looking at is basically more than a year from now, and do any of these things that have cropped up make you worried that you may not make it until the shuttle is back?

MR. GERSTENMEIER: There’s a couple of things here.

First of all, you are getting a glimpse of how difficult it is for us to fly station. It is an extremely complicated spacecraft flying in a very hostile environment, and we really need to pay attention to detail. During this time frame, we have limited ability to bring supplies to station and return items from station. We need to be extra vigilant on how we do that activity and make sure the teams are really focussed and they are really prioritizing correctly what critical equipment goes up, what maintenance we do, what activities we do.

It shows how really focused and diligent the teams are, how important communication is to keep the spacecraft flying.

It is not an easy thing we are doing. Sometimes it appears easy, but it is an extremely difficult thing that we are doing.

The other thing that I always tell the team is our success or failure isn’t whether we keep the crew on board station or not. When I look at success or failure, it is if we end up in a degrading situation and we need to return the crew, we need to do that with enough advanced warning that we can return the crew, just like we would at the end of an expedition or at the end of an increment for the crew.

So, therefore, there is no additional risk to the crew. We can get the right rescue forces in place. We can get the right lighting conditions, and we can return the crew home in a normal fashion.

So our job isn’t to keep the crew on orbit or isn’t to keep the crew there and put them at extra risk. Our job is to be looking out at all the things that are going on at station and determine of things are getting in a situation where the prudent thing to do is to bring the crew home and bring them home in a normal manner.

So, again, this is a tough time, but it is no tougher than it has been these past couple of months. We are working in a very limited [inaudible] NASA environment. We will do our best, and we will see what the hardware does for us. So far, the hardware has been very good in terms of failure rate, and the personnel have been outstanding in watching the detail. We just need to continue to keep that focus, and we will see how it plays out.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Ralph Arbadian [ph] with the Los Angeles Times.

QUESTIONER: Thanks. I understand that an unnamed medical officer has said that the astronauts have shown symptoms of headaches, dizziness, and an inability to think clearly.

I would like to know whether, in fact, the astronauts have shown any of these kinds of symptoms or other health symptoms that could be linked to the environment in the station, and then as a follow-up, I would like to know whether you have defined a set of guidelines for such symptoms that would require an evacuation.

MS. CINTRON: This is Nitza Cintron.

As Mary Kicza mentioned earlier, the crew was interviewed today, and they report throughout their increment feeling fine.

Throughout the history of space flight, there have been nonspecific symptoms like we pick up throughout every increment throughout shuttle flights, and there is no evidence that any of the nonspecific symptoms that we periodically get through our medical interviews and so forth are due to an environmental circumstance.

Now, I forgot the second part of your question.

QUESTIONER: Have you set a threshold such that if there were these kinds of symptoms and you could link them to the environment that the crew would be evacuated? At what level of symptoms would you consider the evacuation?

MS. CINTRON: The crew surgeon that is on counsel and we have that capability throughout the mission has contact with the crew nearly all the time. They do have specific privacy conferences, and they are diligent of those throughout the course of a mission.

Using your medical judgment and the data available, the level of symptomology is obviously when it begins to impact performance, and that has not been observed in any of the expeditions that we have seen, that we have flown up to date. So that is within the medical judgment and diagnosis that we do on a routine basis and would be the judgment of the medical group, and, again, the program relies on us to be able to give them that.

NASA PARTICIPANT: David Ketsumbaum [ph], National Public Radio.

QUESTIONER: I’m sorry if this question has been asked, but I feel like I haven’t gotten quite a complete answer.

Bill and Nitza, if the launch were to be tomorrow or next week instead, would you still sign as you did saying it would be better not to launch?

MR. LANGDOC: This is Bill Langdoc.

Let me, again, emphasize that the time we signed was very early in this process, after our initial reviews and before all of the mitigation strategies were defined and were worked out. So the recommendation that we gave was based upon the information or, I probably ought to say, the lack of information in my case that we had at the time to be able to sustain all of it.

By the time we got through the end of the process and we had been involved in all of that, when the program makes a launch decision, at the time that happens, we don’t vote again. This is not an everybody at NASA gets to vote and, if somebody says you are not ready to go, then you don’t go.

The program looked at all of the things. We were part of all of that and made the decision to go. Personally, I am certainly comfortable with going and continuing to support the operations as we have it.

MS. CINTRON: This is Nitza Cintron.

Again, I reemphasize what Bill Langdoc has said. Our process is a lengthy, very detailed one. When we made that recommendation was at the very start of our own internal process, and throughout the course of the weeks and the interactions and the information-sharing between the different directorates and different components of the program, we have been able to assess better the risk and able to address some of the open issues we have. And very importantly, we have a tiger team for the next 12 to 18 months, not just the immediate, which will look at what additional things we can add to mitigate.

So, with the crew currently on station — and I speak again not for myself only, but for our flight surgeons who are very dedicated to the mission — they are go to continue flight.

QUESTIONER: I understand, but if someone gave you this piece of paper today and you know what you know now, would you dissent or not?

MR. LANGDOC: The concerns that we had were being able to sustain the whole operations, and that still is up in the air. That is why we are trying to get this data, and when we get the data back, then we will be able to go and make that judgment as to whether or not we think we can sustain the increment.

NASA PARTICIPANT: I know it is definitely getting late in Moscow. We are running low on time. I am going to take one more question, and then we will wrap it up.

Dan Melina [ph], NBC, do you have a question?

QUESTIONER: I got one, Dan, if you don’t.

QUESTIONER: Me, too.

QUESTIONER: This is [inaudible] at NBC.

Three presses here, and nobody at NBC has gotten a question in.

NASA PARTICIPANT: Okay. Well, here. Jim, that is who I was going to call next actually.

QUESTIONER: Hey, thank you guys.

I see a little disconnect here in the question of what indicators are again from the crew because the crew’s bodies must be the final sensor for a combination of other issues.

Dr. Cintron, I thought you said the symptoms are when they impact performance, but, yesterday, Dr. Akew [ph] said that if it is any indication whatsoever of hazard then they are going to come home.

Do you wait until they no longer stand that you bring them back?

MS. CINTRON: No, sir. This is Nitza Cintron.

The exact concern that we stated earlier in identifying the environment and being able to use the exercise equipment and being able to use medicines that are up to date, all of those, particularly the ones that monitor, are the ones that we rely on to — when things happen, that we are able to assess the situation from a crew health standpoint.

That is what the concern was at that point or why you need these subsystems to be able to do the work, but we do have a composite of information that comes in and that does include [inaudible].

The anticipation is that some things we will be able to monitor before it happens and other things are acute. So we are in the process of trying to put in place that monitoring system and capability ahead of time to be able to do that.

So performance is one of the things that we are responsible for maintaining, and we do not wait until there is a catastrophic event and then begin to worry, which is why we are proceeding with the recommendations that the program is following up on.

QUESTIONER: If the air smells bad or the water tastes funny, that would certainly be an indication, and at what point would you consider that to be of concern?

NASA PARTICIPANT: [Inaudible] answer yet.

QUESTIONER: Thank you.

MS. KICZA: This is Mary Kicza at NASA Headquarters, and I just wanted to add something and that is that Astronaut Michael Fole [ph] and Cosnaut Alexander Kaleri [ph] are also seasoned veterans. They have both flown several times, and they know if there is anything that compromises the safety of the crew, they work it out with the ground and come home if necessary. So these are professionals up there, and they have had much experience.

QUESTIONER: Are they making the decision, or are you?

MS. KICZA: I am going to ask Bill Gerstenmeier to join me in that one.

MR. GERSTENMEIER: What we do is we will take into account all the factors we see, all the information that is available. If we hear any concerns from the crew, we will factor those in. We will take a look at them. We will get with our experts. We will get with the folks you have been talking to here, and we will make a decision for the program on what we need to go do.

Again, our goal is to be anticipating this, be looking forward. We are looking for any clues, any kind of trace, small changes we see in the atmosphere. That is why we are interested in getting the solid sorbent air sampler back from space.

We have taken some time histories of that, so we can look for any kinds of trends of very small contaminants that could be building up or something that could be occurring in the atmosphere. So we will have an indication well in advance of any concern or any symptoms on the crew’s part.

But if we hear anything from the crew in terms of them seeing symptoms or conditions, we will evaluate those. We will try to understand what they are, see what the cause is, and we will do the right thing as a team and take all the experts, all the data, evaluate it, and then make a decision as a program.

NASA PARTICIPANT: I think that was Tracy Watson. I did call on you, Tracy, earlier. I didn’t get a response, but, yes, please, if you have a question, go ahead.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. I didn’t hear you.

I don’t know if maybe Dr. Langdoc or Dr. Cintron is the right person to answer this.

What did you calculate the effect to be of the breakdown from the exercise equipment? I would imagine that could have an impact on the bone and muscle condition of crew.

MS. CINTRON: We keep all of that information and accumulate it through the expeditions.

Up until now, the exercise, we have three different exercise modalities, and at some point or another, they had some problems and had functioned sometime employees in a degraded form, but are still able to provide us with aerobic capacity and the resistive capacity, the resistive exercise which we believe is important for maintenance of bone.

Thus far, with the very low end that we have, we are comparable in terms of bone and muscle from before Mir, but we have the crew members actually coming back in somewhat better shape on landing.

When I say better, there is a consequence to space flight, an adaptation, and especially if you have been there for a long term, that gets more profound, but within what we know as normal adaptation, the crew members are still coming back within that normal envelope that then we work with to rehabilitate in a matter of a few weeks to get them back on flight status.

NASA PARTICIPANT: With that, we will conclude. Thank you very much.

[End of press teleconference.]