Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research [1 ed.] 9780309575690

Citation preview

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

i

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH

Task Group to Review Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research Space Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ii

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the task group responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by Contract NASW 96013 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor. Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acade my has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iv

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

v

TASK GROUP TO REVIEW ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH CORNELIUS J. PINGS, American Association of Universities (retired), Chair JUDITH H. AMBRUS, Space Technology Management Services ROBERT J. BAYUZICK, Vanderbilt University ANTHONY W. ENGLAND, University of Michigan CHARLES A. FULLER, University of California at Davis RICHARD H. HOPKINS, Northrop Grumman Corp. (retired) ERNEST G. JAWORSKI, Monsanto Co. (retired) MICHAEL J. KATOVICH, University of Florida SAMUEL KRAMER, Kramer Associates G. PAUL NEITZEL, Georgia Institute of Technology LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, Air Force Office of Scientific Research JOHN G. STEWART, Stewart, Wright and Associates JOHN C. TOOLE, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Ex Officio Member NORMA M. ALLEWELL, Harvard University Staff JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Study Director TOM ALBERT, Senior Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board SUSAN GARBINI, Senior Program Officer CLAUDETTE K. BAYLOR-FLEMING, Senior Program Assistant EDMUND M. REEVES, Consultant

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vi

SPACE STUDIES BOARD CLAUDE R. CANIZARES, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair MARK R. ABBOTT, Oregon State University FRAN BAGENAL, University of Colorado DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado ROBERT E. CLELAND, University of Washington GERARD W. ELVERUM, JR., TRW Space and Technology Group (retired) * MARILYN L. FOGEL, Carnegie Institution of Washington BILL GREEN, former member, U.S. House of Representatives JOHN H. HOPPS, JR., Rozewell, Georgia CHRIS J. JOHANNSEN, Purdue University ANDREW H. KNOLL, Harvard University * RICHARD G. KRON, University of Chicago JONATHAN I. LUNINE, University of Arizona ROBERTA BALSTAD MILLER, Columbia University GARY J. OLSEN, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign MARY JANE OSBORN, University of Connecticut Health Center GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, The Aerospace Corporation JOYCE E. PENNER, University of Michigan THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology PEDRO L. RUSTAN, JR., U.S. Air Force (retired) GEORGE L. SISCOE, Boston University EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MITCHELL SOGIN, Marine Biological Laboratory NORMAN E. THAGARD, Florida State University ALAN M. TITLE, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center RAYMOND VISKANTA, Purdue University PETER W. VOORHEES, Northwestern University JOHN A. WOOD, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Director

*Former member.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vii

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD WILLIAM HOOVER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Chair A. DWIGHT ABBOTT, The Aerospace Corporation RUZENA K. BAJCSY, National Science Foundation WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., Lockheed Martin Corporation ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, Aviation Safety Consultant AARON COHEN, Texas A&M University DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired) HOYT DAVIDSON, Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette ROBERT A. DAVIS, The Boeing Company DONALD C. FRASER, Boston University JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation ROBERT C. GOETZ, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI, GRA Incorporated JAMES M. GUYETTE, Rolls-Royce, North America FREDERICK H. HAUCK, AXA Space JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus Industrie of North America, Inc. GEORGE K. MUELLNER, The Boeing Company DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JAMES G. O'CONNOR, Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University WINSTON E. SCOTT, Florida State University KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia DIANNE S. WILEY, Northrop Grumman RAY A. WILLIAMSON, George Washington University GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

viii

COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS PETER M. BANKS, Veridian ERIM International, Inc., Co-Chair W. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado, Co-Chair WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., Lockheed Martin Corporation SHIRLEY CHIANG, University of California at Davis MARSHALL H. COHEN, California Institute of Technology RONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M University SAMUEL H. FULLER, Analog Devices, Inc. JERRY P. GOLLUB, Haverford College MICHAEL F. GOODCHILD, University of California at Santa Barbara MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, JR., Carnegie Institution CAROL M. JANTZEN, Westinghouse Savannah River Company PAUL G. KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc. KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota JOHN R. KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company (retired) MARSHA I. LESTER, University of Pennsylvania DUSA M. McDUFF, State University of New York at Stony Brook JANET L. NORWOOD, U.S. Commissioner of Labor Statistics (retired) M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, Stanford University NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory ROBERT J. SPINRAD, Xerox PARC (retired) MYRON F. UMAN, Acting Executive Director

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ix

COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS W. DALE COMPTON, Purdue University, Chair ELEANOR BAUM, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art RUTH M. DAVIS, Pymatuning Group, Inc. E. GAIL DE PLANQUE, Consultant, Potomac, Maryland NORMAN A. GJOSTEIN, University of Michigan at Dearborn HENRY J. HATCH, American Society of Civil Engineers STUART L. KNOOP, Oudens and Knoop, Architects, PC NANCY G. LEVESON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology CORA B. MARRETT, University of Massachusetts at Amherst ROBERT M. NEREM, Georgia Institute of Technology LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, Bechtel Technology and Consulting BRADFORD W. PARKINSON, Stanford University BARRY M. TROST, Stanford University JAMES C. WILLIAMS, Ohio State University RONALD W. YATES, U.S. Air Force (retired) DOUGLAS BAUER, Executive Director

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

x

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FOREWORD

xi

Foreword

The International Space Station (ISS) is one of the largest and most complex international research programs ever attempted. Up to now, the task of designing, building, and assembling this intricate space facility has dominated the attention of NASA and its international partners. Even before the ISS has been fully assembled, however, the agency is facing the problem of establishing an organizational infrastructure that will ensure its most effective utilization for scientific and engineering research. The diversity of the investigations— which will encompass fundamental physics and biology, materials science, biomedical research, remote sensing, and space technology experiments, to name just a few—means there will be an extraordinarily broad range of participants in addition to those associated with the operation of the space facility itself. This report responds to a request from NASA to assess alternative approaches to the management of ISS research. Options range from an office composed largely of government employees and embedded within the agency, through a completely separate institution under contract to NASA, to a separate, quasi-governmental agency. In the intermediate case, there are further options for the levels of authority and responsibility that a nongovernment organization (NGO) would assume and the scope of its task. NASA has had positive experiences with NGOs in the operation of the Hubble Space Telescope and the space shuttles, among others, and has for this reason been contemplating the idea of an NGO for ISS research. The NRC task group concludes that NASA should establish an NGO to manage all aspects of research on the ISS and that the NGO should have sufficient authority to carry out its assigned responsibilities. These responsibilities would encompass all ISS research activities, but not the maintenance or upkeep of the facility itself. The report also elucidates some general principles that should govern NASA's specification and selection of the NGO and proposes an implementation plan for a progressive transfer of responsibility to the new entity.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FOREWORD xii

The ISS represents a major financial investment by the United States and its partner nations. It is incumbent on the responsible agencies and on those communities that will make use of it to conduct the highest quality basic and applied research possible. The organizational approach outlined in these pages is a step toward achieving that goal. Claude R. Canizares, Chair Space Studies Board

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

xiii

Preface

This report was prepared by the Task Group to Review Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research, which was formed under the auspices of the Space Studies Board (SSB) and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) of the National Research Council in response to a request from NASA. The charge to the task group called for it to address general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other relevant aspects of alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating the conduct of research on the International Space Station (ISS). One option to be considered was the creation of a nongovernment organization (NGO) to manage research on the ISS. (The complete statement of task for the study is presented in Appendix A; the letter of request from NASA is reproduced in Appendix B.) A task group of 13 members was appointed with expertise in basic and applied science and engineering research from both the academic and commercial sector research communities. In addition to having members with science and engineering expertise, the task group included a number of members who have experience in planning, integrating, and conducting experiments in space laboratories and in the management of large research facilities. (Brief biographies of the task group members are provided in Appendix C.) The task group held three meetings over the course of the study—the first at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, May 18-20, 1999, and the second and third at the National Academies in Washington, D.C., July 26-28, 1999, and September 28-29, 1999—and heard presentations from NASA officials involved in the management of the ISS program, staff from NASA field centers, directors of NASA commercial space centers, representatives of private companies supporting commercial research in space-based facilities, and representatives from international partner space agencies. The task group members also met with the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute and several individuals associated with other research facilities from outside the space station community who could offer fresh perspectives on research management. (Meeting agendas are given in Appendix D.) The following report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the task group. Chapter 1 relates the background of the ISS program and describes the general

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

xiv

conceptual approach employed by the task group. Chapter 2 presents a set of guiding principles and basic attributes for an organizational framework for managing research activities on the ISS. Chapter 3 discusses a number of alternative organizational approaches, including a NASA reference model presented to the task group by NASA (and reprinted as Appendix E). Chapter 4 describes the organizational approach recommended by the task group and addresses implementation actions and milestones. The task group's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are summarized in Chapter 5. This report does not address staffing details or define a specific internal structure for an NGO, nor does it address details of operational logistics or of anticipated cost reductions that might be expected under an NGO. Furthermore, the task group has not examined corollary research management considerations on behalf of the international partners in the ISS. Finally, overall priorities for ISS research and operations are not included in the task group's recommendations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The task group wishes to thank the many individuals who contributed their time and effort to this project by presenting material at task group meetings and by contributing written material or participating in interviews. Representatives of NASA's headquarters and field program offices provided invaluable assistance to the task group and staff. This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's (NRC) Report Review Committee. The purpose of an independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remains confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The task group wishes to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: David C. Black, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Steven H. Flajser, Loral Space and Communications Ltd., Harold K. Forsen, Bechtel Corporation (retired), Martin E. Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, William J. Rutter, Chiron Corporation, Roland W. Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (president emeritus), Roy Schwitters, University of Texas at Austin, and Thomas E. Utsman, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired). While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring task group and the NRC.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xv

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1

INTRODUCTION Managing Research on the ISS, Scope of This Study, Efforts of the Task Group, Approach Employed by the Task Group, Current NASA Structure for Managing Research Aboard the ISS, Allocating U.S. Payloads to Various Research Areas, International Agreements on Utilization Allocations, Summary, References,

8 10 11 11 12 12 15 16 17 17

2

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

18

3

ALTERNATIVE MODELS Minimal Change Model, Independently Chartered Agency or Corporation, NASA Reference Model, References,

21 21 23 24 25

4

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION Mission of the Organization, Organizational Structure and Governance, Structure, Governing Board, Qualifications of the Director, Contract,

26 27 28 28 29 29 30

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xvi

Research Advisory Council, User Group(s), Location and Staffing, Relations with Commercial Users, Budget Authority, Recommended Organizational Roles and Responsibilities, Benefits of the Proposed Organization, Transition and Implementation, References, 5

A B C D E F

30 30 31 31 32 32 35 38 40

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Guiding Principles, Mission of the Organization, Structure and Governance, Location and Staffing, Relations with Commercial Users, Budget Authority, Specific Roles and Responsibilities, Implementation, International Partners, Strengths of the Recommended Approach,

41 41 43 43 44 45 45 45 46 47 47

APPENDIXES Statement of Task, NASA Letter of Request, Biographical Sketches of Task Group Members, Meeting Agendas, NASA Reference Model, Acronyms and Abbreviations,

51 53 54 58 65 82

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

Executive Summary

THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION PROGRAM The International Space Station (ISS) is one of the largest and most complex international technological projects in history. When completed, it will house seven crew members in a habitation and laboratory complex that is expected to be a truly international undertaking. The ISS will be serviced and staffed jointly by participating nations, and its operations will be governed by international agreements. It is expected to have an operational lifetime of 15 to 20 years, that is, until the year 2020. The operation of the ISS and conduct of research on it will involve an array of factors that make the endeavor more complex than previous space-based scientific and engineering endeavors. The ISS is expected to support research activities in such diverse fields as materials and combustion science, biology, biomedical science, space technology, Earth science, and high-energy physics. The research users are expected to come not only from academic and other nonprofit laboratories but also from privately financed industrial R&D organizations. In addition to the basic and applied science and engineering research mission that provides the primary justification for the ISS, NASA anticipates a strong applied commercial research component whose results are expected to be commercialized. This diversity of research gives rise to a range of special policy issues, e.g., the protection of proprietary data, the allocation of research resources among different disciplines, and the conduct of peer reviews and business reviews to permit informed allocation and award decisions. A more fundamental difference between the ISS and previous near-Earth orbital facilities is that the ISS is envisioned as a long-term, space-based research facility that will be occupied and utilized continuously by a changing contingent of operations and research staff. To be as successful as possible, the ISS will operate more like ground-based facilities than did previous orbital facilities. In its plan for the ISS (NASA, 1998), NASA proposed that a special nongovernment organization (NGO) be established outside the agency and its current formal organization to facilitate the recruitment, selection, planning, integration, and implementation of all U.S.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

research on the ISS. It developed a model for the proposed approach that would accomplish “an aggressive science, technology, and commercial development program while simultaneously limiting government functions to policy and oversight” (NASA, 1998, Attachment 3). NASA then sought advice from the National Research Council (NRC) on how to establish an institution (or institutions) that would meet these needs and on how to define the relative roles of NASA, other federal agencies, and any new NGOs that are created. In response to NASA's request, the Task Group to Review Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research was formed under the auspices of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. The task group was charged with examining general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other aspects of alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating the conduct of research on the ISS and with making recommendations to NASA. The task group's deliberations are outlined in Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 through Chapter 4 of this report, and all major conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter 5. According to NASA, a scientific investigation—including selection and manifesting on the flight schedule; technical definition, design, development, and verification; and, finally, flight operations and data collection and analysis—takes 4 to 8 years to complete. The process includes, first, proposal evaluation and selection by NASA headquarters; experiment definition and feasibility analyses and reviews of the requirements by NASA discipline field centers; and a preliminary flight assignment by the ISS program office at the Johnson Space Center (JSC). Once the investigation has been authorized to proceed to full-scale development, the principal investigator, the NASA discipline lead center, or a third party may develop the flight hardware. Detailed plans and requirements are documented (with the assistance of the NASA field center), crew training begins, and the experiment undergoes reviews of preliminary design, critical design, and safety—all conducted by NASA. Prelaunch hardware integration and specimen preparations (if any) are conducted by the principal investigator, assisted by the payload developer, working with the ISS prime contractor and the space station program office at JSC. Following launch, flight operations are supported by the NASA discipline lead center. Data analysis and archiving are the responsibility of the principal investigator working under the oversight of the discipline lead center and NASA headquarters. GUIDING PRINCIPLES On the basis of discussions with NASA officials and its own deliberations, the task group concluded that the principal use of ISS would be for research. While there certainly will be other uses, both early in the program and over its lifetime—examples cited include education, staging for human space exploration expeditions, delivery of certain commercial services, possibly some manufacturing on a limited scale of very high-value products, or even advertising or tourism—none of these other uses appears to be ready to demand or justify a major fraction of ISS resources. Instead, for the foreseeable future they are candidates for secondary uses, or they remain unproven, or it is unclear how they will be handled. Research is the one clearly defined application that is ready to begin immediately and to be sustainable for a long time. For the purposes of this report, “research” includes basic scientific studies, applied research directed toward beneficial applications and commercial interests, engineering research, and advanced technology development. It does not include performance testing or monitoring of

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

operational systems on the ISS or the installation or evaluation of systems to upgrade ISS operational capacity. Nor does it include use of the ISS as an operational site in support of human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. Given that research is the main use of the ISS and recognizing that safety is the highest priority at all times, the following principles should guide the character and operations of any organization charged with facilitating the research use of the ISS: • High-quality basic and applied research should be paramount. • Responsibility for managing and supporting research would not require that the organization manage other ISS activities. • The research user community should have early, substantive, and continuing involvement in all phases of planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating the research use of the ISS. • The organization must be flexible and capable of adapting over time in response to changing needs and lessons learned. • Basic and applied scientific and engineering users should be selected on the basis of their scientific and technical merit, as determined by peer review. The selection processes for space technology development and for commercial R&D would not need to be the same as those for scientific and engineering research, but they would have to meet similar standards. NASA officials indicated, and the task group agrees, that there are important operational objectives for the research support organization. Meeting those objectives would lead to a number of improvements with respect to the space shuttle and Spacelab programs: • • • • •

Enhanced understanding of and sensitivity to research users and uses; Shorter selection-to-flight cycle times; Lower end-to-end investigation costs; Streamlined processes and procedures; and Simpler investigator interfaces for initiation and conduct of research activities.

The task group examined a range of alternative organizational approaches. One model entailed a minimalchange, process-improvement approach inside NASA; another entailed the creation of an independently chartered corporation that would take over the full ISS program. The task group concluded that the guiding principles and objectives noted above called for an intermediate approach: the establishment of an NGO, under the direction of institutions able to represent the broad research community, that would manage the research utilization aspects of the ISS. The task group does not recommend continuing the current arrangements inside NASA, for three reasons. First, NASA's past practice—focusing its efforts on advanced R&D and transferring long-term operations to the private sector—makes good sense for the long-term support of research on the ISS, especially since NASA's own workforce is shrinking. Second, research use of the ISS can be optimized with an organization run by and for researchers. Finally, the interests of the extraordinarily diverse set of research communities need to be coordinated by a single organization. At the other extreme, the concept of an independently chartered corporation that would have full responsibility for the entire ISS program was viewed

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

as too broad and ambitious and too disruptive of some activities that are now being handled satisfactorily to be appropriate for the time scale within which NASA needs to act. The NASA reference model provided an excellent starting point for an intermediate approach. Many of the components of the NASA reference model (Appendix E) would be appropriate for the NGO envisioned by the task group, and they were incorporated into the model recommended in this report. The task group also concluded that an appropriate approach for NASA is to plan an NGO whose role would be rather narrowly focused in the near term but able to expand in the long term to comprise a broader set of tasks. The task group recommended that the following three operational principles guide the establishment of the new organization in the near term: 1. The proposed organization should concentrate its efforts on support of research needs and leave basic systems operations and maintenance activities to NASA. 2. To fulfill its responsibilities, the organization must have clear authority and adequate funding. 3. NASA must act promptly on the recommendations in this report to ensure that the NGO is actively involved before ISS “assembly complete.” STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION To facilitate the broad utilization of the ISS for high-quality basic and applied research and technology development, the organization should be able to fill four key roles: 1. Provide the highest caliber scientific and technical support to enhance research activities; 2. Provide the research community with a single point of contact through which it can utilize the capabilities of the ISS; 3. Promote the infusion of new technology for ISS research; and 4. Stimulate new directions in research, for both established and new user communities. NASA should use a competitive process to select a consortium led by a research institution or group of institutions, governed by an independent board of directors, managed by a strong scientific director, and guided by an advisory process that is broadly representative of the research community. Locating the NGO near a major research facility (for example, near or on a campus) would have many advantages. The NGO should house a cadre of support scientists and engineers who would function in a number of ways: • As points of contact for investigators in dealing with the NGO and other implementing ISS organizations both within and external to the government; • As facilitators for investigators who are new to the complex world of using the ISS as well as for more experienced investigators; and • As advocates who represent the interests of the investigators through the entire process of interface definition, payload development, testing and documentation, flight planning and operations, and postflight processing of results (where required).

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

This cadre should include ISS crew members, selected by the NGO, who would serve in much the same way as Spacelab payload specialists or mission specialists. The NGO should be responsible for fostering commercial research uses of the ISS as well as research by the academic science and engineering communities. To that end, the organization should • Proactively explore and stimulate potential commercial uses; • Assist the community of NASA commercial space centers (CSCs) in their use of the ISS; • Include commercial representation in user groups and, where appropriate, broker funds between NASA and other sources to advance commercial research; and • Establish clear policies and procedures for the protection of proprietary information and intellectual property. The task group recommends that for the organization to meet its responsibilities and to accomplish its mission effectively, it must have adequate authority and resources. The NGO would need to do the following: • Manage the research utilization budget for experiments conducted by U.S. investigators; • Participate in all decisions regarding the allocation and operational use of resources available for the ISS; • Allocate ISS resources among government-sponsored and privately sponsored users, although it would not administer private-sector research funds; and • Disburse funds not only to research investigators but also to research support organizations such as research hardware developers, payload integration contractors, and operations support organizations. NASA headquarters should continue to set policy, define top-level strategy, advocate and defend budgets in the federal budget process, and allocate overall funding for ISS operation and utilization. For the near term, headquarters also should retain responsibility for the coordination of research planning with other federal agencies and the international partners and should continue to solicit research proposals, conduct peer reviews, and select and prioritize investigations for research payloads for the ISS. The NGO would play a key role in assisting headquarters in these activities. Under the recommended model, the NGO would be responsible to NASA headquarters, through its governing board, for all other functions affecting the utilization of the ISS for U.S. research payloads. The NGO would also assume responsibility for coordinating joint or shared utilization of international payloads for which NASA had accepted any responsibility for development, launch, operations, maintenance, or recovery and would establish and maintain a close working relationship with all non-U.S, organizations approved for research on the ISS. Specifically, the NGO should be responsible for tactical and payload operations planning for all payloads under NASA management, for testing and analytical and physical integration of all NASA-approved payloads, for payload interface development and control, and for training crew to conduct research programs. It should take the lead in identifying new technologies and approaches to enhance the research utilization of the ISS and in planning for maintenance and

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

upgrades of research equipment and ISS support capabilities. It also should play an active role, on behalf of the user community, in areas where other organizations may have the lead, such as payload safety, transportation, station operations and maintenance, crew selection, and education and outreach. IMPLEMENTATION Because planning for the early phases of research use is already under way, it is urgent to bring an NGO on board. In the view of the task group, it will be very important to move expeditiously in FY 2001 to begin the transition and implementation process. NASA should plan on establishing an NGO in three phases: 1. A near-term phase during which the NGO is selected and a director, science support staff, and scientific advisory council are recruited and brought on board; 2. A transition phase during which roles now performed by the government are handed off to the NGO, the NGO takes the lead in planning for research activities that will begin at “assembly complete,” and the NGO begins to restructure and streamline the investigation flow process; and 3. A longer-term phase during which the NGO might take on additional responsibilities and authority as the program reaches a steady state. In the view of the task group, the institutional approach recommended in this report would ensure an effective and efficient program to advance the research capabilities and other objectives of the ISS while preserving capabilities already established within NASA headquarters and field centers. The recommended organization is optimized to provide strong support for research utilization of the ISS because it will be established and run by the research community for the research community. The responsibilities for research support will be integrated in a single organization of critical mass that can attract high-caliber staff and that can integrate and coordinate the activities of a diverse collection of disciplines. The recommended organization would be an entity that is explicitly charged with providing service and advocacy on behalf of ISS research. There would be a clear and logical division of roles and functional responsibilities. First, the recommended approach leaves inherently governmental functions inside NASA and permits the NGO to provide assistance where appropriate. Second, it leaves unchanged other activities that are already being carried out effectively and that do not elicit any pressing arguments for reassignment. The recommended approach also has well-focused sets of responsibilities. Long-term research operations are placed in the private sector, leaving NASA free to pursue its traditional high-technology R&D roles. The recommended NGO is given the responsibility and authority to restructure and streamline the process of developing and integrating the scientific investigations. Finally, the recommended approach offers the flexibility for the organization to evolve as the ISS program itself evolves and matures. The recommended approach to implementation is incremental and anticipates transitions through immediate, mid-term, and long-term phases. By concentrating first on certain critical tasks and functions rather than trying to assume a large set

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

of responsibilities all at once, the NGO can gain experience and assume other duties if and when this is warranted. REFERENCE

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1998. Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station. November 16.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

8

1 Introduction

The implementation of the International Space Station (ISS) began with the launch, in November 1998, of a U.S. element procured from Russia, the Zarya module, followed by the launch of the U.S. Unity (node 1) in December 1998. With the launch of these two elements began the realization of one of the largest and most complex international technological projects in history. When completed, the ISS will house seven crew members from different countries in a habitation and laboratory complex with a mass of over 450,000 kilograms (1 million pounds) and a volume of 1,220 cubic meters (43,000 cubic feet) at sea-level atmospheric pressure. The station will be 108 meters (356 feet) long and will orbit at an altitude of about 400 kilometers (220 nautical miles), depending on the interval between servicing and the level of solar activity. The ISS orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees will make it visible to the majority of the world's population. Over 46 assembly flights will be required to put ISS together on orbit and to reach “assembly complete,” planned for 2004. Following the launch of the Russian element Zvedzda (service module), the ISS will be capable of permanent habitation by a crew of three in 2000, a crew of six in 2004, and, finally, a crew of seven following the development and deployment of a crew return vehicle sometime after 2004. ISS will begin to be used for research in 2001, and its research capability will grow as the infrastructure matures. The ISS is a truly international undertaking. Canada is providing a mobile servicing system. The six pressurized laboratories are being provided by the United States (a laboratory module and a centrifuge accommodation module), the European Space Agency (the Columbus orbiting facility), Japan (the Kibo module), and Russia (two research modules). The pressurized modules will provide a total of 33 international standard payload racks (ISPR), each of which will provide about 1 cubic meter in pressurized payload volume. In addition, the United States is providing a habitation module and three pressurized nodes. There are also a significant number of unpressurized access locations for research at external attachment points on the ISS. Japan's module has an exposed facility to accommodate 10 instruments of about 1 cubic meter each, the U.S. truss has four sites that can accommodate up to six experiments each, and the European Space Agency (ESA) may provide an additional research site. The use of these pressurized and

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

9

unpressurized research sites is allocated among the ISS partners based on their continuing contributions to the total ISS infrastructure. During the construction phase of the ISS, the delivery to orbit and installation of key international modules, as presently planned (NASA, 1999), is as shown in Table 1.1. The ISS is expected to have an operational lifetime of 15-20 years, that is, until the year 2020. Throughout this period, space shuttle flights will be available for crew rotation, delivery of experiments, and return of experiment products, specimens, etc. at the rate of five per year. These shuttle flights will be supplemented by four Soyuz/Progress logistics resupply flights per year. Crew will typically stay aboard the ISS three to four months.1 NASA is planning to use two categories of crew for the ISS. The first, “commander,” is the equivalent of the commander and pilot in the current shuttle program. The second category, “crew member,” is the equivalent of “mission specialist” (shuttle). The mission specialists, who were career astronauts, performed most of the hands-on research in the shuttle program and conducted operations and maintenance on the systems that were not primarily concerned with the flight of the shuttle itself. Career astronauts also performed all of the research on the Mir missions. The concept of dedicated flight researchers for the ISS, similar to the payload specialists for the shuttle program, has not been accepted by the agency. TABLE 1.1 Schedule for Key ISS Modules Month/Year

Item Launched and Delivered into Orbit

April 2000

U.S. laboratory module Destiny (five systems racks and ISS control moment gyros)

June 2000

Italian module Leonardo (multipurpose logistics module) and U.S. equipment racks

July 2000

Canadian space station remote manipulation system (SSRMS)

November 2000

U.S. multipurpose logistics module (MPLM) for delivery of ISPRs

January 2001

U.S. MPLM (delivery of experiment racks for U.S. laboratory)

November 2001

Russian science power platform (SPP) and European robotic arm (ERA)

October 2002

Japanese experiment logistics module (systems, stowage, and experiment racks)

January 2003

Japanese experiment module (JEM) Kibo with robotic arm for exterior experiment platform

February 2003

U.S. express pallet (exterior experiment platform)

February 2004

ESA Columbus orbital facility (ESA's laboratory)

March 2004

Russian research module 1 (first of two experiment and research facilities)

May 2004

U.S. crew return vehicle (CRV), a “lifeboat” for full seven-member crew

August 2004

Russian research module 2 (second experiment and research module)

August 2004

U.S. centrifuge accommodations module (CAM), the final ISS laboratory component

November 2004

U.S. habitation module that supports up to seven crew members. Final ISS construction flight marking “assembly complete.”

1

For a more detailed description of the ISS, see the Web pages at < http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/reference/ factbook/index.html > and < http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/index.html >.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

10

MANAGING RESEARCH ON THE ISS As construction on the International Space Station (ISS) approaches the stage where research experiments will be launched, NASA and the space research community have engaged in discussions aimed at ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place for managing scientific and engineering research on the orbiting space laboratory.2 In 1998, NASA published a plan, Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station (NASA, 1998). The plan included an attachment describing a reference model for a nongovernment organization (NGO) for managing and utilizing the ISS (NASA, 1998, Attachment 3; also see Appendix E of this report). The motivation for the discussions now taking place stems from experiences with research on earlier space-based, crew-tended facilities, particularly the space shuttle and its Spacelab laboratory module. Of particular interest to NASA and the research community is the desire to minimize investigation costs, improve efficiency and scientific throughput, provide opportunities for reflights to repeat experiments, and ensure the highest quality of research activities. The operations and use of the ISS will involve an array of factors more complex than those associated with previous space-based scientific and engineering endeavors. All large multidisciplinary research facilities are faced with ensuring balanced access for competing scientific and engineering disciplines. In the case of the ISS, the research users are expected to come not only from academic and other nonprofit laboratories but also from privately financed industrial R&D organizations. Further, as its name implies, the ISS is an international facility in which the United States, although dominant in terms of both financial contributions and ISS facility operations, is only one of many participating nations. As such, the ISS will be serviced and staffed jointly by participating nations, and its operations will be governed by international agreements. In addition to the basic and applied science and engineering research component that provides the primary justification for the ISS, there is expected to be a strong commercial applied research component, leading to the commercialization of results, in the form of terrestrial industrial processes and products of commercial operations in space. NASA seeks, in the long term, “to establish the foundation for a marketplace and stimulate a national economy for space products and services in low-Earth orbit, where both demand and supply are dominated by the private sector” (NASA, 1998). The envisaged diversity of research uses gives rise to a range of special policy issues, e.g. the protection of proprietary data, the allocation of research resources among different disciplines, and the conduct of peer reviews and business reviews in connection with allocation and award decisions. A more fundamental difference between the ISS and previous near-Earth orbital facilities is that the ISS is envisioned as a long-term, space-based research facility, to be occupied and utilized continuously by a changing contingent of operations and research staff. To be as successful as possible, the operational mode will more closely resemble that of ground-based facilities than of orbital facilities. Even Mir was not designed to operate to this extent as a long-term orbital research laboratory. In its plan for the ISS, NASA has proposed that a special NGO be established outside the agency and its current formal organizations to facilitate the recruitment, selection, planning,

2

For a detailed description of the research programs envisioned for the ISS, see “Improving Life on Earth and in Space: The NASA Research Plan.” These can be found at < http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/olmsa/iss/index.htm >. A description of ISS research plans and objectives can also be found on the ISS home page at < http:// spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/index.html >.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

11

integration, and implementation of all U.S. research on the ISS (NASA, 1998). NASA staff developed a model of a new management approach for the ISS that would entail the creation of an NGO “for accomplishing an aggressive science, technology, and commercial development program while simultaneously limiting government functions to policy and oversight” (NASA, 1998, Attachment 3). NASA then sought advice from the National Research Council (NRC) on establishing an institution (or institutions) to meet these needs and on defining the relative roles of NASA, other federal agencies, commercial entities interested in using the ISS, and any new NGOs that are created. SCOPE OF THIS STUDY A task group was appointed under the auspices of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board to examine general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other relevant aspects of alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating the conduct of research on the ISS and to make recommendations to NASA. Efforts of the Task Group In addressing these issues, the task group agreed to undertake the following tasks: • Review current plans for developing and operating the ISS, the anticipated scope of planned R&D activities on the ISS, current and planned ISS ground and flight infrastructure, experience with relevant spaceflight or ground-based analogs or precursors to the ISS, and plans for international participation in the program; • Develop basic principles to guide the definition and implementation of appropriate institutional arrangements for facilitating research aboard the ISS; • Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the NASA reference model and other relevant models; and • Identify, to the extent feasible, the most important issues to be considered in selecting an institutional approach in areas such as the following: —The relationship of an institute to the host organization and to funding organizations; —Governance, oversight, and research community input; —Roles and responsibilities for planning, research prioritization, and investigation selection and funding; —Roles and responsibilities for hardware design, development, and integration; —Roles and responsibilities for data management, archiving, and distribution; —Scope and location of facilities and infrastructure operated by an institute; and —Capacity to evolve over the long term to support the main goals of the ISS.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

12

Approach Employed by the Task Group Early in the study process, the task group concluded that it would be important to start without preconceptions about either the utility of any alternative management entity or the structure and functions of such an entity. It therefore began its study by asking the following questions: 1. What are the guiding principles for space-based research activities? 2. Learning from past experience with space-based, crew-tended research, in what ways can the management of this research be modified to better implement the guiding principles? 3. Can such improvements be made within the existing NASA framework? If not, what kind of organizational framework is needed? 4. What are the chief attributes and characteristics of the organizational framework recommended? 5. What are the functions and roles of this organization? CURRENT NASA STRUCTURE FOR MANAGING RESEARCH ABOARD THE ISS The current model for research on the ISS has three components: 1. Scientific research, conducted primarily at universities; 2. Applied research, sponsored by commercial entities; and 3. Engineering research conducted at NASA centers or by their contractors. NASA historically has managed these three components in quite different ways, in part because the goals are different and in part because they were administered by different programs within NASA. The current roles and responsibilities during the life cycle of a scientific investigation can be visualized with the aid of Figure 1.1. The figure illustrates the principal stages for a generic experiment—selection and manifesting on the flight schedule; technical definition, design, and development and verification; and, finally, flight operations and data collection and analysis. NASA officials indicated that in the past this full sequence took from 4 to 8 years. In the life sciences, for example, the process begins when the relevant NASA headquarters program office prepares a call for proposals (the NASA Research Announcement, or NRA). Calls usually do not specify the research platform, and in some of the program offices most calls include the opportunity for ground-based research, which may or may not lead to the opportunity to use a space-based platform. After the principal investigator (PI) or PI team prepares and submits a proposal, an independent peer review process is organized and administered by NASA headquarters to evaluate the scientific and technical merits of the proposal. In the case of life science proposals, the process includes coordinating flight investigation selections across the space agencies of all international partners to optimize the use of the research equipment provided by the different partners and to identify potentially complementary or duplicative proposals. NASA preliminary technical assessments are supported by the field center

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

13

responsible for the discipline. Based on those preliminary assessments and the scientific peer reviews, the multiagency International Space Life Science Working Group (ISLSWG) recommends experiments to be selected for further technical definition and feasibility study.

FIGURE 1.1 Generic Experiment/Project Life Cycle (ISLSWG = International Space Life Sciences Working Group, IRB = Institutional Review Board, ACUC = Animal Care and Use Committee). SOURCE: NASA. Experiments selected for definition are handed off to a designated NASA field center for the definition and feasibility analysis effort. During this phase, NASA field center specialists assist the PI with development of experimental science requirements, hardware conceptual designs, and ground-based breadboarding and/or technology verification. Following NASA's review of the science concepts and requirements, the ISS program office at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) makes a preliminary flight assignment, and the investigation is authorized to proceed to fullscale development. During this phase the flight hardware may be developed by the PI, the NASA discipline lead center, or a third party. Detailed plans and support requirements are documented (with the assistance of the NASA field center), crew training begins, and the experiment undergoes preliminary design review (PDR), critical design review (CDR), and safety reviews—all conducted by NASA. Prelaunch hardware integration and specimen preparations (if any) are conducted by the PI, assisted by the payload developer, working with the ISS prime contractor and the JSC space station program office. Following launch, flight operations are supported by the lead NASA center for the particular discipline. Data analysis and archiving are the responsibility of the PI working under the oversight of the discipline lead center and NASA headquarters. The above description applies to life sciences payloads specifically, but similar processes apply to other research areas (see Box 1.1). In particular, the Office of Life and Microgravity

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

14

BOX 1.1 NASA'S APPROACHES TO EXPERIMENT SELECTION Space and Earth Sciences Variant The Office of Space Science and the Office of Earth Science generally do not issue calls specifically for research on the ISS. Rather, they solicit research proposals, and after full peer review and evaluation decide if the research requires implementation on the ISS. These offices coordinate with other U.S. agencies and with international agencies within and beyond the group of partners in the ISS. They have participated in international research coordination forums for decades, although the international groups are not confined to a specific space platform such as the ISS. Engineering Technology Variant Engineering technology flight experiments for the ISS are part of the “other” category in Table 1.2 and are selected and managed for the Office of Aero-Space Technology by the Johnson Space Center. Experiments are usually the proof-of-concept type and are proposed in the natural course of the particular technology program. In briefings to the task group, NASA representatives indicated that the technology areas most often in need of flight verification are space structures (deployment and control), fluid management (energy storage, thermal control, and life support), and materials exposure. Some form of peer review is usually applied to the selection of the experiments. They are usually NASA-funded, although private commitment (mostly in kind) is occasionally applicable. The Johnson Space Center solicits and selects engineering technology experiments based on technical excellence and maturity, budgets, and enterprise requirements. It then manages the development of the flight experiment, conducts nonadvocate reviews, and takes care of the manifesting as well as integration, training, safety, and related processes. Commercial Programs Variant Most commercial entities having an interest in flight research investigations are affiliated at present with NASA-sponsored commercial space centers (CSCs). The CSCs define the experiment based on the commercial selection criteria in five areas: • • • • •

Technical: Is there a need for space? Is the approach feasible? Is the technical approach clearly defined? Business: Is the business plan associated with the expected results of the experiment a good one? Space access: Is the required flight opportunity available? Will it meet the research requirements? Funding: Have adequate funds been committed? International collaboration: Will the research be of benefit to the U.S. taxpayer? The flight manifest priority is determined by NASA based on the following:

• Compatibility of the research requirements with the mission capabilities;

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

• • • • • •

15

Flight performance record of the CSC; Level of commitment (cash or in kind) of the commercial entity; Quality of the product development plan utilizing the flight opportunity; Record of the commercial entity in utilizing flight results to market competitive products; Acknowledgment of the entity's association with NASA in its annual report; and Publication of research results in the open scientific, technical, and/or business literature once the intellectual property rights have been satisfied. In addition to meeting the criteria above, experiments involving animal research must have documented approval from an animal care and use committee of the entity sponsoring the research activity and, before the flight, the approval of the NASA Animal Care and Use Committee.

Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) has developed a series of controlled procedures as part of the ISO9000 certification of NASA headquarters.3 Allocating U.S. Payloads to Various Research Areas In June 1998, the NASA Space Station Utilization Board (SSUB), a committee composed of NASA associate administrators, established guidelines for accommodating U.S. payloads on the ISS. The allocations summarized in Table 1.2 and Table 1.3 are for the first five-year strategic planning process; the NASA headquarters research program offices can use them to plan for the development and flight of their sponsored payloads on the ISS. They are described by NASA as guidelines for planning, not rigid entitlements, since the actual strategic plans are developed and approved annually by the SSUB. Commercial payloads could acquire additional accommodation by providing more infrastructure for attached payloads to increase the capability available to the United States. NASA plans to encourage its research program offices to release any underutilized capacity as early as possible to allow reassignment to other users within the strategic time frame. The task group has not independently assessed whether these numbers represent an appropriate allocation. It recognizes, however, that they are initial planning numbers that will go through iterations as the ISS research program matures and as flight assignment manifests evolve.

3

The procedures for research solicitation, evaluation, and selection are contained in document HOWI 8000U003 REV A and can be found on the Web at < http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/olmsa/iso9k/iso9k.htm >. Procedures for commercial payloads under OLMSA are similar and are defined in detail in HOWI 8000-U008 REV A, at the same Web address.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

16

TABLE 1.2 Allocations for Pressurized Volume Area

Share (%)

Microgravity sciences

30

Life sciences

30

Commercial

30

Other (Office of Space Flight, student programs, and Office of the Administrator)

10

TABLE 1.3 NASA Allocations for External Attached Payloads Following “Assembly Complete” Sponsor

Share (%)

Office of Space Science

25

Office of Earth Science

25

Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

5

Office of Space Flight

25

Commercial cooperative/reimbursable

20

International Agreements on Utilization Allocations4 Each of the partners in the ISS program has agreed to an allocation of user accommodations in the pressurized volume of the ISS and for attached, external payload accommodations in accordance with its contribution to the ISS infrastructure (Table 1.4). Each of the partners is entitled to a similar share of allocated user resources (currently only average annual power and non-Russian crew time) and to purchase a share of supporting services such as pressurized launch and return mass, unpressurized launch and return mass, pressurized launch and return volume, and communications data transmission capacity. Russia's utilization resources are not included in the numbers above. The Russian Space Agency (RSA) retains access to 100 percent of utilization resources that it provides to the ISS. It also has the rights to the onorbit crew time of three crew members when there is a crew of seven (crew rights before reaching a sevenperson crew capability are not yet settled) to be used for utilization and operations in its own segments.

4

The allocated accommodations and resources for each of the partners are denoted in the Memoranda of Understanding for each partner. Sections 8.3a and 8.3b of the Canadian agreement are referenced at < ftp:// ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/nasa_csa.html >. All of the MOUs are equivalent in form and content.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

17

TABLE 1.4 Allocation among ISS Partners Partner

Share (%)

Canada

2.3% of all racks and attached sites

ESA

51% of the ESA Columbus rack sites and 51% of the attach points on the Columbus module

Japan

51% of the Japanese module rack sites and 51% of the attach sites on the Japanese external facility

United States

97.6% of U.S. laboratory racks 97.6% of racks in the centrifuge module 97.6% of NASA truss attach points 46.7% of rack locations and attach points in/on Columbus 46.7% of rack locations and attach points in/on the Japanese module

SUMMARY Briefings and documentation from NASA, from which the preceding information about the ISS program is abstracted, provided the starting point for the task group's deliberations on the context and principles that would have to underlie an entity charged with managing the utilization of the ISS research capability. Some guiding principles are recommended in Chapter 2. REFERENCES National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1999. International Space Station Assembly Sequence, IS-1999-06-ISS011JSC. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1998. Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station. November 16.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

18

2 Guiding Principles

Based on discussions with NASA officials and its own deliberations, the task group concluded that the principal use of ISS will be for research. However, there certainly will be other uses of it, both early on and over its lifetime, such as education, staging for human space exploration expeditions, delivery of certain commercial services, possibly some limited-scale manufacturing of very high-value products, and even advertising or tourism, although none of these other uses appears to be ready to demand or justify a large fraction of ISS resources. Instead, for the foreseeable future, they are secondary candidates for using ISS, they remain unproven, or there is no clear policy on how they will be handled. Research, by contrast, is the one clearly defined potential use that can begin immediately and be sustained for a long time. The task group's statement of task calls for assessing institutional arrangements to facilitate research on the ISS, and for its work the group adopted a broad definition of research that included basic scientific studies, applied research directed towards beneficial applications and commercial interests, engineering research, and the development of advanced technology. It did not, however, include performance testing or the monitoring of operational systems on the ISS or the installation or evaluation of systems to upgrade the operational capacity of the ISS. Nor did this definition cover the use of ISS as an operational site to support human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. The task group agrees with NASA officials on important operational objectives for the organization that will support research utilization of the ISS. Based on prior experience with the space shuttle and Spacelab and current plans for ISS, there should be opportunities for improving the research potential along several lines, including the following: • Enhanced understanding of and sensitivity to research users and uses; • Shorter selection-to-flight cycle times; • Lower end-to-end investigation costs;

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

19

• Streamlined processes and procedures; and • Simpler investigator interfaces for initiation and conduct of research activities. Recognizing that research is the principal use of the ISS and that safety is always the highest priority, the task group examined what guiding principles would be needed for any organization charged with optimizing the use of ISS for research. The following principles emerged from this examination: • Ensuring high-quality basic and applied research should be paramount. Given that the principal purpose of the ISS is to provide a research platform in the space environment, the primary mission of the organization that will be set up should be to foster, facilitate, and enhance the conduct of the highest quality research. • The responsibility for managing and supporting research does not require similar involvement in all other ISS activities. While the unique aspects of serving a research user community will lead to a unique role for a research support organization, other aspects of the overall ISS operation and other potential users of the facility (e.g. commercial operations, human exploration systems testing, public education) can be accommodated separately. The management approaches that are needed for effective research utilization are not necessarily the same as those needed for effective maintenance and operation of the ISS. Furthermore, while the research support organization needs to be cognizant of other ISS (nonresearch) operations, it does not necessarily need to execute all those activities. • The research user community should have early, substantive, and continued involvement in all phases of planning, designing, and implementing research utilization of the ISS. The research support organization will be expected to minimize the separation between the research community and the ISS program and serve as an advocate for research. The proposed organization must provide a faster, simpler, user-friendly interface between investigators and the steps they must take to access the resources available for the research mission. • The organization will need to be flexible and capable of adapting over time in response to changing needs and lessons learned. The guiding philosophy of the organization should incorporate the notion that structure and processes will need to evolve from the very beginning, reflecting, among other things, changes in the composition of the research user community. Just as importantly, such flexibility should keep the organization from becoming just another bureaucratic layer on top of existing processes. That is, the ISS will need to be supported by an organization that can enhance its performance by increasing productivity and efficiency without adding to the number or cost of the transactions required to accomplish the work. • Basic and applied scientific and engineering research users should be selected for scientific and technical merit, as determined by external peer review. The selection processes for space technology R&D and for commercial R&D, which tend to be

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

20

mission-driven and product-driven, respectively, need not be the same as the processes for selecting scientific and engineering research, but they should meet similarly well-defined standards. Other relevant criteria might include compatibility with the ISS, ability of the research team to carry out the proposed project, technical and financial feasibility, the need for a spaceflight environment (e.g. microgravity, vacuum), and high standards of technical execution. In Chapter 3, the task group describes alternative management models and tests them against the guiding principles elucidated.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

21

3 Alternative Models

The task group considered a number of models. These ranged from suggesting minimal organizational changes to the present NASA structure and focusing instead on internal process improvements (the minimal change model) to establishing an independently chartered nongovernment entity that would be responsible for all aspects of ISS operation and utilization (an independently chartered corporation model). These two models bracket the spectrum of changes and responsibilities to be considered and provide a starting point for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches. The task group was aware of the fact that other federal agencies also have dealt with the issue of acquiring support for R&D activities through a variety of approaches. These have ranged from the use of in-house federal laboratories (e.g. National Institute of Standards and Technology), to government-owned, contractor-operated facilities (e.g. at the Department of Energy and the National Sciences Foundation), to the use of captive contractors (e.g. at the Department of Defense). Cognizance of those approaches also helped inform the deliberations. The principal features of the two extreme cases are outlined below. MINIMAL CHANGE MODEL Under this approach, the NASA organization already in place for planning ISS utilization and implementing a research program during ISS assembly would be largely unchanged, and each element of the organization would continue to pursue responsibilities more or less as they are now assigned. (It is actually a network of organizations spanning a number of NASA installations and contractor sites.) The responsibilities of the current organization are identified in Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

22

In the minimal change model, the emphasis would be on enhanced attention to process improvements. Such efforts would be aimed at changes within the existing structure to streamline the handling of ISS research investigations by identifying the following: • • • •

Documentation requirements that could be simplified; Activities that could be eliminated or combined; Activities that could be accelerated or conducted in parallel; and Staffing actions that could enhance the support of and responsiveness to investigators during the end-toend flow of research investigations.

One of the advantages of this model is that it would probably be the least disruptive approach, because it builds on the current assignments and plans already in place inside NASA. There would be few requirements to hand over responsibilities between major organizational units, and there would be no need for a major procurement activity to select an outside replacement organization. There are, however, at least three considerations that weigh against pursuit of the minimal change model. The first relates to the distinction between NASA's traditional high-technology R&D role and the much different challenge of handling long-term facility operations. Ever since its inception, NASA has distinguished itself by undertaking and successfully achieving large, complex engineering challenges. NASA has led the world in developing and applying engineering and project management disciplines for such endeavors. At the same time, it has sought to hand off the operational management of established, long-term undertakings, viewing itself primarily as an R&D organization. Examples include the transitioning to NOAA of weather satellites, to COMSAT of communications satellites, and more recently to the United Space Alliance for space shuttle launch processing. The assignment of scientific operation of some long-term research facilities—high-altitude balloons; the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory; and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy aircraft—is another example of the hand-off to outside operators. This practice of transferring work from NASA to the private sector has made it possible for NASA to keep its attention focused on cutting-edge R&D. The practice has enabled the development of advanced technology for the next generation of space systems and has freed the agency from responsibility for operating current systems. Handing off the research utilization of the ISS to an outside organization has become even more important in the current environment of constrained size of government operations. Over the past several years, the size of the NASA workforce, like that of many federal agencies, has shrunk considerably. Given the likelihood that this trend will not be reversed in the foreseeable future, NASA will not have the staff resources and technical skills to sustain both a major R&D role and an operational role. A second consideration that is pertinent to transferring research use of the ISS relates to the need to bring the research community close to the operation and to make it an integral part of the process. In NASA's most important scientific missions, one success factor has been a close working relationship between the engineering communities and the research user communities.1

1

See, for example, NRC, 1995; NRC, 1997; NRC, 1998a; and NRC, 1998b.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

23

Examples include the Skylab/Apollo Telescope Mount, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Voyager missions to the outer planets, and the Cosmic Background Explorer, to name just a few. Time and again, missions in which the scientific community has been integrally involved in early definition and planning and in which the selected science team has remained involved throughout the detailed planning and operational phases have proven to be highly productive. Design trade-offs and solutions to unexpected problems have been resolved in ways that have preserved maximum scientific value in the face of technical and resource constraints. The experience with notably successful science missions is relevant to deciding how to implement the guiding principles for ISS research utilization. A third, equally important consideration relates to the scope and character of ISS operations. The ISS is arguably one of the largest and most complex space engineering efforts ever undertaken. It will rely upon and utilize the hands-on involvement of up to seven full-time crew members, who will be expected to function in the unique environment of space. The identified research community is especially heterogeneous because of the mix of disciplines, basic and applied research objectives, and funding institutions. This diversity demands that a single entity be specifically empowered to integrate the needs and interests of research users and to facilitate access to research resources. After having considered all three arguments—namely, the conflict between responsibility for advanced R&D and responsibility for long-term operations; the need for an organization run by and for researchers; and the need to integrate the diverse set of research communities and requirements in a single organization—the task group concluded that the minimal change approach is not a suitable option. INDEPENDENTLY CHARTERED AGENCY OR CORPORATION At the other extreme of the range of potential organizational approaches is a model in which a nongovernment organization (NGO) becomes a full and independent public agency or corporation, chartered and authorized to receive and expend direct congressional appropriations and commercial funding. Such an organization would become the U.S. entity for managing the entire ISS program, including research supported by both public and private funds, and would be a coordinating mechanism for the research supported by the international partners. In this model, NASA essentially would hand over to the NGO all major responsibilities for the long-term management of the ISS. Technical matters relating to the operation and maintenance of the ISS itself, including launch services, would be contracted by the NGO to a commercial subsidiary, subject to continuing insight by NASA. The corporate-style NGO would solicit, select, and fund research from the academic, technical, and commercial sectors (although commercial proprietary research would be supported by the commercial sponsors). The corporate NGO would be governed by a board of directors nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and composed of representatives of academia and the public and private sectors. The NGO would strive over the long term to become a profitable, self-supporting entity with respect to commercial research conducted aboard the ISS, but academic research would continue to be largely supported through appropriations. This approach might be viewed as advantageous because it would involve the complete privatization of the ISS program and would substantially reduce the number of interfaces between NASA and outside organizations. Further,

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

24

the process for funding the operation and use of the ISS would become independent of NASA's budget process. The task group concluded that an NGO need not be expected to manage all the operations of the ISS and that an all-encompassing organization would unnecessarily disrupt parts of NASA that are functioning effectively now with the broad support of the external user community. Furthermore, some activities are best carried out by the highly experienced aerospace entities that have been deeply involved in the design and construction of the ISS. These organizations can call upon substantial technical knowledge and experience, engineering resources, and infrastructure that cannot or need not be replicated within a new NGO. Examples include compliance with safety procedures and safeguards, launch services, ISS operations, systems engineering and maintenance, some supporting ground-based research and validation, and some research hardware design, development, and validation. Finally, some aspects of the overall process are being handled well now and can be left in NASA, at least for the short term, including NASA headquarters' solicitation, peer review, and selection of proposals for investigation. Abruptly transferring responsibility for activities that are running effectively would be unnecessarily disruptive and counterproductive. Furthermore, as noted earlier, most program offices support ground-based programs and use other platforms in addition to the ISS. The independently chartered option would mean dividing responsibility for these programs between NASA and the NGO. There are still other activities for which responsibility must always remain at the policy-making level of government, for example, the negotiation of government-to-government or agency-to-agency international agreements, strategic decision-making, and budget advocacy (within the executive branch). In addition to these considerations, NASA probably does not have the authority to establish an entity with a scope of responsibilities as broad as an independently chartered corporation model would be expected to have. The task group therefore concluded that this end of the spectrum of options is also not suitable. NASA REFERENCE MODEL The task group also examined the NASA reference model (see Appendix E). This model for an NGO for space station utilization management describes a very broad scope of activities that could be all-inclusive. It would deal with all classes of users—science, engineering, and commercial—and would serve as the management interface, or “transaction node,” between the principal investigator (PI) community, the ISS program office, NASA headquarters, facility-class hardware developers, and the ISS operator. Its roles could include proposal solicitation, review, and selection; disbursement of funding to some (or all) PIs; strategic and shorter-term utilization planning; coordination with international partners; management of experiment design, development, testing, and integration; and data processing and archiving. The reference model allows for a resident staff housed at a dedicated site that could include the capacity for operation of ground-based facilities and construction of flight hardware. The anticipated entity could be either a nonprofit organization (e.g. a university or consortium of universities), a for-profit concern (e.g. an aerospace firm), or some hybrid combination of nonprofit and for-profit organizations. The mechanism for establishing the NGO is left open but could be a contract, a cooperative agreement, or some other mechanism.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

25

The task group felt some aspects of the NASA model were more comprehensive than they needed to be. For example, the model would move the science program management functions (research proposal solicitation, evaluation, and selection), which are viewed as being effectively conducted by NASA headquarters, to the NGO. In all of NASA's science programs the ISS is expected to be just one element in an ensemble of platforms or settings that together constitute a research program. Other elements would include a range of complementary ground-based and suborbital research activities, theoretical and modeling studies, and research using robotic satellites or space probes, especially in the Earth and space sciences. The task group felt that such a broad range of activities should not be conducted under the auspices of an organization charged to facilitate research use of the ISS. After consideration of these models, the task group concluded that the objectives and guiding principles described in Chapter 2 could best be achieved by establishing an NGO under the direction of institutions capable of representing the research community as a whole. Many of the elements in the NASA reference model would be appropriate for the NGO envisioned by the task group and were incorporated into the model the task group recommended, which is described in Chapter 4 along with the attributes and functions of the NGO. Also discussed there is the concept of an NGO whose role is rather narrowly focused in the near term but could expand in the long term. REFERENCES National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Managing the Space Sciences. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press , pp. 46 and 63 . National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press , pp. 15 , 20 , and 32 . National Research Council (NRC). 1998a. U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press , pp. 98 , 104 , and 107 . National Research Council (NRC). 1998b. A Strategy for Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press , p. 242

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

26

4 The Recommended Organization

The task group examined NASA's current plans for the ISS, defined guiding principles for a research management entity, and evaluated a range of options, including the NASA reference model. It ended up by developing a model for an NGO that would manage the research utilization of the ISS. The model, which is described in the following pages, represents an approach that is intermediate in scope between the minimal change model and the independently chartered corporation model that were described in Chapter 3. Many of the components of the NASA reference model were incorporated into the recommended model. NASA officials emphasized that they remained open to all alternative approaches as long as they would support NASA's vision to “develop the low Earth orbit environment for all users in order to more efficiently advance scientific knowledge, technological capability, and commerce on Earth” (NASA, 1998). NASA cited a number of performance objectives for the proposed NGO: • • • • • •

Optimal utilization of space and ground assets; Maximum range of productive uses; Minimum cost and schedule demands for users; Responsiveness to the user community; Long-term management stability; and Government functions limited to policy and oversight and international transactions.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

27

In the description of the organization that follows, the task group outlined a number of salient features of the recommended approach to an NGO that would satisfy the guiding principles described in Chapter 2 and that should be able to achieve the objectives cited above. First, the outline reiterates the core mission and its implications for the organization. Next, it addresses the most important aspects of organizational and governance structure. Then, it delineates the recommended roles and responsibilities of the NGO and NASA. Finally, the outline addresses implementation issues. There are three important principles to bear in mind when reviewing the organizational description outlined in this chapter: 1. The proposed organization should concentrate its efforts on supporting ISS utilization and leave basic ISS systems operations and maintenance activities to NASA. 2. To fulfill the responsibilities that are described below, the organization must have clear authority and adequate funding. 3. NASA must act in a timely manner to ensure that the NGO is actively involved before the “assembly complete” stage. MISSION OF THE ORGANIZATION The structure and functions of the organization need to be linked to its core mission, which is to optimize utilization of the ISS for high-quality basic and applied research and technology development. The organization would therefore need to be able to do four things: 1. Provide the highest caliber scientific and technical support to enhance research activities. This will require that the organization have a highly competent scientific and technical staff and access to facilities that can help it fulfill its technical responsibilities and help its staff members maintain their technical currency. 2. Provide the research community with a single point of contact through which to utilize the capabilities of the ISS. This will require that the organization be able to coordinate and consolidate, on behalf of the research community, the processes and interactions with all other NASA offices necessary for the implementation of research activities, including research conducted by NASA's international partners and commercial, private-sector sponsors. It will also require that the organization have access to other key participants in the ISS program and appropriate authority and sufficient funding to interact with them and to represent the research community in the end-to-end process of ISS research activities. The NGO will serve as an advocate for research on the ISS. 3. Promote the infusion of new technology for ISS research. This will require that the organization have the capacity to recognize and nurture the evolution of research uses and users and to anticipate what growth in technical capability may be needed over time. 4. Stimulate new directions in research. This will require that the organization be able to sustain outreach efforts so as to maintain an awareness of developments in established user communities and to provide opportunities for new communities to be identified and evaluated.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

28

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE Structure NASA would prepare the charter for the NGO and formally solicit proposals from sponsoring organizations. These might be academic or research institutions, commercial enterprises, or engineering organizations that collaborate in forming a consortium, or they may represent an existing consortium. However, the dominant partner should be a research institution or a consortium of research institutions (see Box 4.1). Other criteria for selection of NGO candidates could include experience in managing a complex organization on a costeffective basis. It could be important to include individuals with commercial and aerospace program experience on the executive team, along with individuals having an academic or government background. The proposal should address the resources to be provided by host organizations, including funds, facilities, and in-kind assistance. .

BOX 4.1 THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT OF THE NGO The task group envisions an entity in which the director and core sustaining staff are drawn from the ranks of the very best in the scientific community and can command the respect of that community. Their responsibilities would focus on assisting in the design of experiments and the integration of payloads for investigators external to the NGO. They can do so only if they are in full intellectual command of the work being conducted on the ISS. In addition, they would need research-level competence for most of the fields of microgravity inquiry to be pursued. The task group would expect staff members to compete occasionally for experiments on the ISS. The staff would also provide the leadership for periodic upgrading of the research facilities on the ISS and perhaps have a role in the design of any follow-on facility. The task group expects the NGO to be a locus of intellectual leadership for ISS research. That leadership should involve review and analysis of pending and completed missions and of the scientific content of experiments. The NGO should be host to a stream of visitors, seminars, postdoctoral fellows, and Ph.D. candidates. Some shared appointments with science and engineering departments of major research universities could considerably enhance the size and impact of the permanent staff. The overriding rationale for the NGO is to have a very strong presence for the research community in the planning, integration, and execution of research performed on the ISS. In the view of the task group, it would be much easier to recruit and retain first-class individuals if they know they are moving to a location that is associated with an active research institution. Also, it would be easier to jump-start the NGO if a major campus could lend infrastructure and intellectual leverage.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

29

In responding to the request for proposals, the proposers would specify the form and place of incorporation. This corporation is not envisaged as a federal corporation along the lines of Amtrak, TVA, or the U.S. Postal Service. However, two basic attributes of an NGO must be established. First, it should be structured to ensure an overarching commitment to research. Second, it should be able to support potentially profit-making commercial functions as well as academic research. The NGO should report to NASA at a level that allows it to play a strong advocacy role on behalf of research users of the ISS. The task group recommends that this should be at a high headquarters level, such as the associate administrator for space flight. Governing Board A governing board should direct the corporation. The specific composition of the governing board would be part of any proposal submitted in response to the NASA request for proposals. The composition would more than likely reflect the nature and interests of the principal parties to the proposal. The proposing academic institution(s) and companies should determine the method of the governing board's selection, the terms of office, the precise scope of duties, and so forth. NASA should assume no responsibility for the appointment or approval of governing board members or the director. The governing board would play a number of roles. It would • • • • • •

Appoint the director of the NGO; Maintain fiduciary responsibility for the corporation's assets; Ensure the safety and security of facilities under the management of the NGO, as negotiated with NASA; Negotiate the NASA contract and other contracts; Ensure that contract commitments are effectively executed; and Provide a forum for coordinating international utilization issues. Qualifications of the Director

The management challenges associated with leadership of the NGO will be significant. Accordingly, the director will need to have the following qualifications: • • • •

Be an internationally recognized, energetic leader in the research community; Possess the skills to recruit a first-rate staff; Be able to manage a large scientific enterprise; and Be able to work effectively with leaders in NASA, the executive branch, and Congress and with the media, the international partners, and the general public.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

30

Contract contract 1 duration

The should be finite, with opportunities for renewal competitions at appropriate intervals, e.g., every 5 to 7 years. The contract could include performance incentives based on criteria of management excellence such as cycle time for experiments, integration costs and cost management, and process improvements.2 Award fees based on these criteria could be established. Goals on which these award fees are based should relate to maximizing access to and utility of the ISS as a research facility. If the NGO is a nonprofit entity, it will be expected to reinvest these award fees in ways that strengthen ISS utilization. Research Advisory Council The members of this multidisciplinary council should be appointed by the governing board to fixed-length, staggered terms, thereby guaranteeing turnover of membership. The chair of the research advisory council should be an ex-officio member of the governing board. Among the council's duties would be the following: • • • • •

Provide general advice to the director and, through the director, to the governing board; Provide advice on the NGO's strategy, plans, international activities, facilities, and staffing; Monitor the balance between in-house work and support for outside research organizations; Review the NGO's research program; and Establish appropriate links with NASA's disciplinary scientific advisory groups and the NASA Advisory Council. For example, some overlap in membership between the NGO and NASA advisory groups might be advantageous. User Group(s)

The director should establish one or more user groups to focus on the operational concerns of ISS users. Members are anticipated to be drawn principally from experienced investigators, including researchers from the international user community. The user group(s) would meet regularly to apply lessons learned and identify utilization improvement opportunities. The user

1

The term “contract” is used here to mean whatever form of formal agreement and funding vehicle NASA chooses to use, be it a contract, a cooperative agreement, or some other mechanism. 2 Current perceived high investigation costs are one of the motivating factors for creating an NGO. In the short term there would probably be start-up costs (transition costs) that increase total program cost. Especially given that any new NGO would have to commence operations while the evolving ISS continues to be built and put into operation, there may be some net cost increase in early years. Over the long term, however, one should be able to count on an improvement in cost effectiveness. Whether this leads to a long-term cost reduction will depend, in part, on whether it is decided to take cost savings out of the program or reinvest them in capacity to support additional research.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

31

group(s) would report to the director. The chair(s) would be members (perhaps ex officio) of the research advisory council. Location and Staffing It would be advantageous for the NGO to be located near a major research facility, for example, near or on a university campus. Because the NGO staff is envisaged as including world-class researchers, technical and laboratory facilities, including hardware validation capability, would have to be provided. The organization should strive to optimize the use of facilities and expertise available through existing NASA programs, centers, and contractors. If a needed facility or capability is not available or if an existing facility is not cost-effective, it would be appropriate for the organization to provide the scientific and technical services and facilities needed to support top-quality research. The proposal is expected to outline how the NGO would meet the needs of specified research disciplines, including how it would reach make-or-buy decisions on specific facilities. Relations with Commercial Users An important task of the NGO would be to seek out and develop relationships with commercial users of the ISS as a research platform. To that end the organization would have to do the following: • • • •

Proactively explore and stimulate potential commercial uses of the ISS; Assist the community of commercial space centers (CSCs) in using the ISS; Include commercial representation in user groups; and, where appropriate, Leverage funds between NASA and other sources to advance commercial research.

The organization would need sufficient flexibility to deal with a wide range of commercial users and funding arrangements. It should be prepared to accommodate commercial involvement in which (a) the government pays all costs, (b) the private sector partially funds the activity, (c) the commercial user is represented by a CSC, (d) the commercial user pays all costs, or (e) there are other split funding arrangements. An area that would probably to be of concern to all users, but especially to commercial users, is the handling of proprietary information and intellectual property. The task group recognizes that this would require a delicate balance in order to protect the interests of the investigators and the interests of the larger public. To create incentives and to encourage academic and commercial researchers to use the ISS, the organization would need to establish a clear policy for the protection of proprietary information and intellectual property. This policy would need to recognize the diversity of users and uses. There should be a common policy for all publicly funded research. In the view of the task group, that policy should require the publication of results as soon as possible consistent with

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

32

good scientific practice. The task group recommends that NASA, in framing a policy that would serve the public interest while minimizing the risk of improper or premature release of research data, should take the following into consideration: • • • •

Freedom of Information Act (as amended); International agreements and treaties; International Traffic in Arms Regulation limitations on foreign release of information; and Special circumstances such as the extended cycle times between initial experimental results and the opportunity to repeat the experiment on a later flight. Budget Authority

The NGO would require adequate authority and resources to achieve its objectives. The task group expects that formulation of the overall ISS program budget would remain a NASA headquarters responsibility. Working with input and assistance from the NGO on behalf of the research utilization community and with other organizations that have comparable responsibilities in areas such as nonresearch utilization and ISS operations and maintenance, NASA headquarters would play its traditional role in the federal budgeting process. It would also make top-level policy decisions about the allocation of resources among research, other uses, ISS operations, system upgrades, etc. As happens in the budget formulation process, decisions about the allocation of other ISS resources should be based on consultation and coordination with the NGO and the other relevant organizations. Once the overall budget for ISS research is set, the portion for experiments conducted by U.S. investigators should be managed by the NGO, which in turn should allocate the resources (budget, crew time, experiment equipment, and support services) for ISS research. As noted above, allocation of overall ISS resources and scheduling of other (nonresearch) operations and activities would be coordinated with the NGO. Private-sector funding for commercial research would augment research funds appropriated by Congress. While the privatesector funding need not be administered by the organization, the organization would need authority to allocate ISS resources among government-sponsored and privately sponsored users. It would disburse funds not only to research investigators but also to support organizations such as research payload hardware developers, payload integration contractors, and operations support organizations. Recommended Organizational Roles and Responsibilities The task group categorized the totality of activities and responsibilities into three broad groups. First, certain key functions should remain within NASA. These functions—such as negotiation of government-togovernment or agency-to-agency international agreements, strategic decision-making, and budget advocacy within the executive branch—must remain at policy levels within the government.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

33

Second, there are other functions that could be implemented either within existing NASA organizations or contractors or within the NGO. For example, designated NASA field centers or non-NASA centers of excellence now often assist investigators in bringing conceptual designs to maturity for flight, performing feasibility studies and ground-based performance validations, developing flight hardware, and conducting ground-based measurements in support of flight experiments. Where those functions are needed and if they are unique and are being provided cost-effectively, the task group sees no urgency in moving them elsewhere. Furthermore, some functions are best carried out by highly experienced aerospace entities that have been deeply involved in the design and construction of the ISS. These organizations can call upon substantial technical knowledge and experience, engineering resources, and infrastructure that cannot or need not be replicated within a new NGO. Examples of such functions include compliance with ISS and launch system safety procedures and safeguards, ISS systems integration and validation, launch services, ISS operations, crew health maintenance, systems engineering and maintenance, some supporting ground-based research and validation, and some research hardware design, development, and validation. Finally, there is a suite of key functions for which an NGO could assume responsibility, significantly improving the current system. Continuing Roles of NASA NASA headquarters should continue to set policy, define top-level strategy, advocate and defend its budget in the federal budget process, and allocate overall funding for ISS operation and use. NASA headquarters would also monitor fiscal, programmatic, and operational aspects of the NGO, as agreed to under the contract. NASA headquarters would retain responsibility for the policy-level coordination of research planning with the international partners and for any other intergovernmental arrangements affecting utilization. It also would retain responsibility for approving strategic utilization plans and coordination with the international partners. Headquarters would develop cooperative programs with other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation, that use the ISS and would continue to ensure that there is a sponsoring program office to represent each payload to the NASA Space Station Utilization Board. Headquarters should engage the NGO for support in these areas and should give it the lead in implementing the strategy for research utilization and for all tactical planning. NASA headquarters program offices (Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Earth Science, Space Science, Aero-Space Technology, and Space Flight) should continue to solicit research proposals, conduct peer reviews, and select and prioritize investigations for research payloads for the ISS. The headquarters research offices would acquire funding for the implementation of research investigations and the development of associated principal investigator and facility hardware and would transfer those funds to the NGO for management and disbursement. The NGO, working within policy-level guidance from headquarters and in consultation with the ISS operating organization, would assign flights and allocate resources for individual research investigations. The NGO research advisory council, drawing on its access to senior leaders of all the relevant research communities, would provide guidance and oversight in

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

34

allocating resources and ensuring balance among competing investigator demands. An appropriate final forum for conflict resolution would be the NASA senior-level Space Station Utilization Board. Roles of the NGO Because there will never be more than seven crew members aboard the ISS and crew time will therefore be at a premium, the NGO will have an important role during flight planning and operations in helping to make the best use of available crew skills and time. While NASA would continue to be responsible for the operation of the ISS and the training of all astronauts in areas such as ISS systems operations, maintenance, and safety procedures and would select the commander and crew responsible for the maintenance of the station, the NGO should select the crew members who will support research activities on the ISS, subject to NASA concurrence. This approach would follow the highly effective payload specialist model employed during the 15-year Spacelab program. All crew training related to the operation of research equipment and support for research should be the responsibility of the NGO (see Box 4.2). Under the recommended model, the NGO would be responsible to NASA headquarters for other functions affecting the utilization of the ISS for U.S. research payloads. It would also assume responsibility for coordinating joint or shared utilization of international payloads for which NASA has accepted responsibility for development, launch, operations, maintenance, or recovery, and it would establish and maintain a close working relationship with all non-U.S. organizations approved for research on the ISS. Specifically, the NGO would do the following: • Support NASA headquarters in the development and analysis of strategic planning for ISS and conduct tactical planning (including specific manifest planning) and • Provide technical assistance to NASA headquarters in the solicitation and selection of investigation proposals. The NGO would also • Determine, in coordination with NASA headquarters, assignments to organizations responsible for research payload development. NASA headquarters would provide the financial resources to the selected organizational element when a NASA center is designated, but there would be close coordination through the NGO to ensure consistency of schedule, interfaces, and performance specifications and requirements; • Develop a coordinated payload operations plan for all ISS payloads under NASA management; • Manage testing and the analytical and physical integration of all NASA-approved payloads; • Manage payload interface development and control; • Manage the selection of crew to support research and assume responsibility for training them in the conduct and support of research programs;

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

35

• Identify areas where new technologies and approaches would enhance the continuing utilization of the ISS; • Plan for maintenance and upgrades of all research equipment and ISS supporting capabilities in order to keep the ISS as a vital and current research facility within the normal bounds of reliability and budget constraints; and • Support the education and outreach activities of NASA. The NGO would ensure continuing interaction with technical and commercial organizations in order to achieve the following: • Encourage their participation in the ISS program; • Develop cost-effective public or private partnerships in higher risk research with commercial potential; and, ultimately, • Encourage support from nongovernmental sources for ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the program. The task group recommends that the NGO must play an active role on behalf of the user community in areas where other organizations have the lead. These include payload safety, transportation, station operations and maintenance, and crew selection and training. Figure 4.1 is a modified version of the investigation life-cycle diagram presented in Figure 1.1. The NGO would play either a supporting or a lead role in some aspects of the experiment selection and manifesting process. It would have the principal responsibility for facilitating the definition, design, development, and sustaining operations phase and for the details of how those portions of the process are streamlined and restructured. It would also play a role in sustaining research operations, and it would have latitude to reengineer those activities where there are opportunities for improvements and cost reductions. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ORGANIZATION The task group concludes that the functions and characteristics of the NGO as described above constitute an arrangement that could ensure an effective and efficient program to advance the research capabilities and other objectives of the ISS while preserving the capabilities already established within NASA headquarters and field centers. The benefits of the recommended approach fall in four areas—its strong support for research, the logical division of roles, the well-focused responsibilities, and flexibility for evolution. The recommended organization has been optimized to provide strong support for research utilization of the ISS, because it would be established and run by the research community for the research community. Elements such as governance by academic and private research organizations, a strong scientific director, a representative research advisory council, user committees made up of active investigators, and a strong cadre of support scientists and engineers on the NGO staff would combine to build this capability. Equally important, the responsibilities for research support would be integrated in a single, critical-mass-size organization that would be able to attract high-caliber staff and to integrate the activities of the

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

36

BOX 4.2 NGO SUPPORT OF RESEARCH USERS The NGO would provide direct support to ISS research users for science, technology, and commercial payloads. This is a pivotal function. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of highly successful NGOs such as the Space Telescope Science Institute (operated by Associated Universities for Research in Astronomy for NASA), the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (operated by Associated Universities Incorporated for the NSF), the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System of the NSF, * the National Center for Atmospheric Research (operated by the University Consortium for Atmospheric Research for the NSF), and the Advanced Light Source at the Argonne National Laboratory (operated by the University of Chicago for the Department of Energy). The task group identified the three key aspects of this support role: 1.

2.

3.

Single point of contact. An NGO support scientist (use of the word “scientist” is not meant to preclude primarily technical or commercial expertise where appropriate) would be designated as the principal contact for an investigator in dealing with the NGO and other implementing ISS organizations both within and external to the government. The NGO support scientist would provide an effective and knowledgeable interface with the investigator. NASA crew members not currently on flight assignment to the ISS could be excellent candidates for these positions; the experience could refresh and renew the crew members' research credentials and become a vital element in their selection for future flight opportunities. Mentoring. The support scientists would facilitate the introduction of new investigators to the complex world of the ISS and smooth the continuing interaction of more experienced investigators throughout their program. Representation. The support scientists would represent the interests of the investigator throughout the entire process of interface definition; payload development, testing and documentation; flight planning and operations; and postflight processing of results where required.

The support scientist staff becomes a crucial resource of the NGO. The positions must attract and retain capable career researchers. Support scientists would be encouraged to propose their own investigations to be evaluated competitively using the same standards as are applied for extramural researchers, but with no more than 5 to 10 percent of ISS utilization resources allocated to internal NGO investigators. This policy would help retain the service organization character of the NGO while permitting and encouraging active research by staff scientists. Funds for research by NGO staff should be tracked separately from funds for the larger service role of the NGO. The performance of the support scientists and, indeed, the whole NGO will rest on the perceived effectiveness of its value-added service function to the broad user communities.

* The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOL) is a consortium of some 57 academic institutions that coordinates the planning and allocation of resources of academic research ships for the National Science Foundation. Individual investigators' research proposals are peer reviewed and funded by the NSF; the UNOL ensures community-wide ship access, cooperative ship scheduling, and standards for operations and safety. Individual member institutions provide full-time ship captains and crews and operate their own vessels. The crews, who are highly skilled scientific and technical professionals, work alongside other members of the oceanographic research community, who are selected for field efforts aboard the research vessels (NSF, 1999)

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

Flight crew members who support research activities on the ISS should be considered as integral members of the science and engineering staff upon which the NGO will draw. These astronauts play essential roles in the conduct of research on the ISS, and their qualifications, technical currency, continuing training and education, and flight increment utilization are essential ingredients of a successful research program. Therefore, they need to be viewed by the research community (and need to view themselves) as key members of the NGO staff. The approach used on Spacelab missions—having a small number of working-scientist (“payload specialist”) crew members drawn from the research community for flights on which the career astronaut corps could not adequately provide the necessary expertise for a mission—was extremely productive and successful. The task group recommends that NASA employ the Spacelab payload specialist model for ISS in which research crew members are selected by the research community, in adherence to rigorous procedures, and whose primary responsibilities are support of on-orbit research operations. The NGO should be responsible for recruitment, selection, and flight assignments of such ISS payload specialists.

FIGURE 4.1 Recommended NGO roles and responsibilities.

37

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

38

diverse disciplines from which ISS researchers are expected to come. The recommended organization would also be an entity that is explicitly charged to provide service and advocacy on behalf of ISS research. There would be a clear and logical division of roles and functional responsibilities in at least two ways. First, the recommended approach leaves inherently governmental functions (e.g., policy decisions, international and intergovernmental agreements, the federal government budgeting process) inside NASA and permits the NGO to provide assistance where appropriate. Second, it leaves unchanged other activities that are working effectively and for which there are no pressing arguments for reassignment. Examples of such activities include the NASA headquarters' leadership of proposal solicitation, review, and selection as well as its leadership of strategic planning to ensure the integration of spaceflight and ground-based elements of research programs. The recommended approach incorporates well-focused sets of responsibilities. Long-term research operations would be placed in the private sector, leaving NASA free to pursue its traditional high-technology R&D roles. The NGO would be given the responsibility and authority to restructure and streamline the investigation development and integration process (see discussion of Figure 4.1 above). Furthermore, by leaving activities in support of less-well-defined, nonresearch utilization areas to others, the NGO would be able to focus on research, which is the one area that is now confidently expected to be fully subscribed immediately and sustainable over the lifetime of the ISS. Finally, the recommended approach offers the flexibility to reflect experience as the ISS program evolves and matures. As described below, it is incremental and anticipates immediate, medium-term, and long-term phases. No matter how well organized and managed the NGO may be, it would have to pass through a learning curve as it assumes its responsibilities. By concentrating first on certain critical tasks and functions rather than trying to assume a larger range of responsibilities all at once, the NGO could gain experience and assume other duties, if and when doing so is warranted, over a period of years. By selecting the managing organization for the NGO competitively, providing for performance-based fees, and planning for new competitions at appropriate intervals, NASA would retain its ability to select the strongest possible organization and to make major changes if needed. TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION The task group recommends that NASA concentrate on defining the expectations for the NGO and give the organization latitude to work out the details of the processes necessary for their fulfillment. Some general aspects of the implementation process nevertheless warrant discussion at this point. The timetable for implementing the task group's recommendations would be affected by three factors: 1. There would need to be a transition period during which the NGO is established and staffed and during which organizations transfer certain roles and responsibilities to the NGO. 2. The ISS is already under construction on a schedule that plans for reaching “assembly complete” in 2004. Consequently, planning for the early phases of research utilization is already under way, and there is an urgency to bringing an NGO on board.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION

39

3. Implementation could be accomplished most effectively in an incremental manner in which there are (a) specific near-term activities and roles for the NGO, (b) additional tasks to be included in the medium term (2002-2004), and (c) a post-“assembly complete,” long-term stage when the NGO might appropriately take on a broader set of responsibilities. The proposers' response to the request for proposals should set forth in detail a plan for transition and implementation of the NGO's responsibilities. Given the long lead times associated with utilization of the ISS for research (now about three years), two important milestones can be identified: 1. The director of the NGO should be in place by January 2001. 2. The NGO should assume responsibility no later than November 2002 for ISS increments in the post-“assembly complete” period. Other early transition and implementation tasks would include the following: • Recruiting personnel; • Establishing the research advisory council and user group(s); • Working with NASA field centers that are currently managing ISS research experiments to develop a transition strategy; • Developing the specifics of transferring duties (Figure 4.1 would serve as a transition template) from field centers to the NGO, working towards the goal of a “solid line” encompassing NGO responsibilities. Once the transition process is complete, the NGO's authority must extend to all elements of the ISS research utilization process, including utilization and facility upgrades of ISS research facilities and control of the funding necessary for such upgrades; and • Ensuring sufficient resources to allow the NGO to carry out its responsibilities as the transition proceeds. The NGO will not necessarily execute these various tasks directly, but it must have the resources to see that the work is done by the appropriate entity. Initial funding will be needed in 2000 to begin early tasks, such as the recruitment of a director and key staff. Other important near-term activities would include the development of ISS manifesting criteria and selecting and manifesting experiments for the first flight increment after “assembly complete.” The NGO would develop the payload and experiment manifesting criteria, including the standard services that would be available to a researcher (for example, allowable weight and volume, quantity and quality of electrical power, heat rejection and cooling, data management, and crew support). It would also have to specify the optional services that could be provided (for example, robotic servicing, sample return, experimental equipment change-out or upgrading, crew support, and EVA). Pricing policies for these various support services would need to be developed. The first complement of ISS experiments (along with all succeeding complements) would be selected with the help of the research advisory committee, since that action would establish precedents for subsequent selection processes.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION 40

REFERENCES

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1998. Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station. November 16. National Science Foundation. The Academic Research Fleet: A Report to the Assistant Director for Geosciences by the Fleet Review Committee. 1999.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

41

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES In the course of this study, the task group received information about current plans for developing and operating the ISS, the anticipated scope of planned R&D activities on the ISS, and plans for international participation in the program. Based on discussions with NASA officials and other stakeholders and its own deliberations, the task group concluded that the principal use of the ISS will be to conduct research. While there certainly will be other uses of the ISS over its lifetime, including both traditional and novel applications for a space facility, none of these other uses appears to be ready to demand or justify a major fraction of ISS resources. Instead, for the foreseeable future, they are candidates for secondary uses, or they remain unproven, or it is unclear how they will be handled. Research is the one clearly defined potential application that is ready to begin immediately and to be sustainable for the projected life of the ISS. For the purposes of this report, “research” includes basic scientific studies, applied research, engineering research, and advanced technology development. It does not include performance testing or monitoring of operational systems on the ISS or the installation or evaluation of systems to upgrade the operational capacity of the ISS. Nor does it include use of the ISS as an operational site in support of human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. Having established that research is the central driving use of the ISS and recognizing that safety is the highest priority, the task group articulated principles to guide NASA in creating the organization.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

42

Recommendation 1. NASA should let the following principles guide the definition and operation of an organization to facilitate research on the ISS: • High-quality basic and applied research should be paramount. The primary mission of the chosen organization should be to foster, facilitate, and enhance the conduct of that research. • The responsibility for managing and supporting research would not require the NGO to manage other ISS activities as well. While the unique aspects of serving the research user community lead to a unique role for a research support organization, other aspects of the overall ISS operation (e.g., maintenance and operations, nonresearch uses) could be accommodated separately. • The research user community should have early, substantive, and continued involvement in all phases of the planning, design, and implementation of research. utilization of the ISS. The research support organization must be able to minimize the separation between the research community and the ISS program and to provide a user-friendly environment that enables faster, simpler access to the resources available to accomplish the research mission. • The NGO must be flexible and capable of adapting over time in response to changing needs and lessons learned. It should anticipate change in its own structure and processes and in the composition of the research user community. The ISS would need to be supported by an organization that can learn and change, enhancing its performance by increasing productivity and efficiency without adding to the number or cost of transactions required to accomplish its work. • Basic and applied scientific and engineering research users should be selected on the basis of scientific and technical merit, as determined by peer review. The selection processes for space technology development and for commercial R&D (which tend to be mission-driven and productdriven, respectively) need not be the same as those for scientific and engineering research. The task group examined alternative organizational approaches that ranged from a minimal change, processimprovement approach inside NASA to the creation of an independently chartered corporation that would take over the entire ISS program. It concluded that the objectives and principles discussed above would necessitate the establishment of a nongovernment organization (NGO) led by an institution or institutions capable of representing the broad research community and managing the research utilization of the ISS. Many of the components of the NASA reference model, which is attached as Appendix E and summarized in Chapter 3, are appropriate for the NGO envisioned by the task group and have been incorporated in the model recommended in this report. The task group also concluded that an appropriate approach for NASA would be to plan an NGO whose size and scope of responsibility grow over several years.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

43

Recommendation 2. Three operational principles should guide the establishment of the new organization in the near term: 1. The proposed organization should concentrate on support of research needs and leave basic operations and maintenance activities to NASA. 2. To fulfill its responsibilities, the organization must have clear authority and adequate funding. 3. NASA must act promptly on the recommendations in this report to ensure that the NGO is actively involved before ISS “assembly complete.” MISSION OF THE ORGANIZATION The basic structure and principal functions of the recommended organization need to be linked to its core mission, which would be to facilitate broad use of the ISS for high-quality basic and applied research and technology development. Recommendation 3. The principal roles of the organization should be the following: • To provide the highest caliber scientific and technical support to enhance research activities; • To provide the research community with a user-friendly single point of contact through which it can access the capabilities of the ISS; and • To promote the infusion of new technology for ISS research and stimulate new directions in research. STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE Recommendation 4. NASA should use a competitive process to select a consortium led by a research institution or group of institutions, governed by an independent board of directors, managed by a strong scientific director, guided by an advisory process that is broadly representative of the research community, and reporting to the NASA structure at the highest level. More specifically, the task group suggested the following: • The most appropriate organization would be an existing or new consortium comprising academic institutions, commercial enterprises, and engineering organizations. A research institution or consortium of research institutions should lead the effort, but it should be able to support potentially profit-making commercial functions as well as academic research. • The organization should have a governing board whose responsibilities would include appointing the director of the NGO, fiduciary responsibility for the institution's assets, and ensuring that contract commitments are effectively executed. • The director should be an internationally recognized leader in the research community who possesses the skills to recruit a first-rate staff, the competence to manage a large scientific

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

44

enterprise, and the ability to work effectively with leaders in the executive branch, Congress, and the media, and with the general public. • The contract should be of finite duration and should specify renewal competitions at appropriate intervals. • The organization should have a research advisory council whose members are appointed by the governing board to fixed-length, staggered terms. The main duty of the council should be to provide general advice to the director—and, through the director, to the governing board—on strategy, plans, international participation, facilities, staffing, and the overall scientific program. • The director also should establish one or more user groups to focus on the operational concerns of ISS users, to apply lessons learned, and to identify utilization improvement opportunities. User group members should be drawn principally from the cadre of investigators who will have just completed experiments or who will be about to conduct them. LOCATION AND STAFFING Recommendation 5. It would be advantageous for the NGO to be physically located near a major research facility, for example, near or on a university campus. There should be provisions for technical and laboratory facilities to accommodate both the research support role of the organization and the needs of its technical staff. The organization should maximize the use of facilities and expertise that already exist within NASA programs, centers, and contractors. Recommendation 6. The NGO should have an in-house cadre of support scientists and engineers who serve as points of contact for an investigator in dealing with the NGO and other implementing ISS organizations both within and external to the government. The members of this cadre should act as facilitators for investigators who are new to the complex world of using the ISS as well as for investigators who are more experienced. They should represent the interests of the investigators throughout the process of interface definition, payload development, testing and documentation, flight planning and operations, and postflight processing of results. The cadre of support scientists would be a crucial resource of the NGO. The positions must attract and retain capable career researchers. Support scientists would be encouraged to propose their own investigations to be evaluated using the same standards as are used for extramural investigators. Some of the support scientists could be full-time employees of the NGO and others could be on temporary assignment from their home institutions; the cadre should include those astronauts whose primary on-orbit responsibilities were for support of research. Recommendation 7. NASA should consider adopting the Spacelab payload specialist model for the ISS. In this model, research crew members selected by the research community, in adherence to rigorous procedures, have primary responsibility for the support of on-orbit research operations. The NGO should be responsible for the recruitment, selection, and flight assignments of the ISS payload specialists.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

45

The astronauts will play an essential role in the conduct of research on the ISS. Because their qualifications, technical currency, general training in the use of research facilities, and training peculiar to a specific set of experiments are essential ingredients of a successful research program, crew members need to be viewed by the research community (and need to view themselves) as key members of the NGO staff. RELATIONS WITH COMMERCIAL USERS Recommendation 8. The NGO should foster use of the ISS for research not only by the academic science and engineering communities but also by commercial entities. To this end, the organization should • • • • •

Proactively explore and stimulate potential commercial uses; Assist the community of NASA commercial space centers (CSCs) in using the ISS; Develop well-defined criteria for commercial research activities; Include commercial representation in user groups, where appropriate; and Broker funds between NASA and other sources to advance commercial research.

To create incentives and to encourage academic and commercial researchers to use the ISS, the organization would need to establish a clear policy for the protection of proprietary information and intellectual property. This policy would need to recognize the diversity of users and uses involved and provide a common policy for all publicly funded research. BUDGET AUTHORITY The organization would require adequate authority and resources to achieve its objectives. Recommendation 9. To be able to meet its responsibilities and to accomplish its mission, the organization should have the authority to do the following: • Manage the research utilization budget for experiments conducted by U.S. investigators; • Allocate ISS resources such as operational resources and services between government-sponsored and privately sponsored users; • Disburse funds not only to research investigators but also to support organizations such as payload hardware developers, payload integration contractors, and operations support organizations; and • Participate in the process by which overall resources are allocated for the ISS.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

46

SPECIFIC ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The task group considered all the necessary activities and responsibilities and grouped them as follows: (a) those that should remain inside NASA, (b) those that could be implemented either within existing NASA organizations and contractors or by an NGO, and (c) those that could best be handled by an NGO. Recommendation 10. NASA headquarters should continue to set policy, define toplevel strategy, advocate and defend budgets in the federal budget process, and allocate overall funding for ISS operation and utilization. For the near term, it should retain responsibility for coordinating strategic planning with other federal agencies and the international partners and should continue to solicit research proposals, conduct peer reviews, and select and prioritize investigations for research payloads for the ISS. The NGO would play a key support role in strategic planning and in the solicitation and review of research proposals. NASA headquarters research offices would obtain funding for the implementation of research investigations and the development of associated investigator and facility hardware and would transfer the funds to the NGO for management and disbursement. The transfer of some of these responsibilities to the NGO at a later time should be an option. Under the recommended model, the NGO would be responsible to NASA headquarters for all other functions affecting the use of the ISS for U.S. research payloads. The NGO would also be responsible for coordinating joint or shared utilization for international payloads for which NASA accepts responsibility for development, launch, operations, maintenance, or recovery and would establish and maintain a close working relationship with all non-U.S. organizations approved for research on the ISS. Recommendation 11. The NGO should be responsible for tactical planning (including specific payload manifest planning), payload operations planning for all ISS payloads under NASA management, testing and analytical and physical integration of all NASA-approved payloads, payload interface development and control, and training the crew to conduct research programs. It should take the lead in identifying new technologies and approaches that would enhance the research use of the ISS and in planning for maintenance and upgrading of research equipment and of ISS support capabilities. It should also play an active role, on behalf of the user community, in areas where other organizations may have the lead: payload safety, transportation, station operations and maintenance, crew selection, and education and outreach. IMPLEMENTATION The ISS is already under construction on a schedule that calls for reaching “assembly complete” in 2004. Consequently, planning for the early phases of research utilization is already under way, and there is an urgency to bringing an NGO on board. In the view of the task group, it will be very important to move expeditiously in FY 2001 to begin the transition and implementation process.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

47

Recommendation 12. NASA should plan on establishing an NGO in three phases: 1. A near-term phase during which the NGO is selected and a director, science support staff, and scientific advisory council are recruited and brought on board; 2. A transition phase during which roles now performed by the government are handed off to the NGO, the NGO takes the lead in planning for research activities that will begin at “assembly complete,” and the NGO begins to restructure and streamline the investigation flow process; and 3. A longer-term phase during which the NGO might take on additional responsibilities and authority as the program reaches a steady state and the skills, expertise, and performance of the NGO staff evolve. INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS Given the complexities of the existing management agreements among the international partners of the ISS, it would be premature for the task group to suggest specific guidelines for establishing productive relationships between the NGO and the international user communities. The agreement between the United States and the ISS international partners makes NASA the U.S. agency responsible for implementing ISS cooperation. Determining the extent to which NASA can legally delegate international cooperation activities to third parties exceeds the task group's abilities and charge. However, the international character of the ISS must be explicitly recognized and accepted, and the NGO's operations must reflect this reality. The task group recommends that the NGO be permitted to participate in international planning and coordination activities to the maximum extent that is consistent with the formal international agreements. To this end, having a senior official for international activities on the NGO staff who reports to the director might be appropriate. The NGO, working collaboratively with the international partners, must also strive to have all experiments, whatever their origin, follow a common pathway when it comes to ISS utilization. The task group expects that the intellectual excitement and ferment at the NGO would make it a desirable place to visit and one to which international users of the ISS would wish to attach themselves for extended stays. STRENGTHS OF THE RECOMMENDED APPROACH In the view of the task group, the model for an NGO outlined in this and earlier chapters would go far in meeting NASA's objectives. The strengths of the recommended approach include its strong support for research, logical division of roles, well-focused responsibilities, and flexibility for evolution.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

48

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

49

APPENDIXES

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

50

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STATEMENT OF TASK

51

A Statement of Task

This study will address general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other relevant aspects of alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating the conduct of research on the International Space Station (ISS). Anticipated research uses include both basic and applied science in biology, chemistry, and physics; environmental science; medicine; engineering; and advanced technology development. Research investigations are expected to be sponsored not only by NASA but also by other public sector entities and the private sector. The study will be directed primarily towards consideration of the U.S. share of the ISS, but within the context of the existing global partnership encompassing Canada, Europe, Japan, and Russia. NASA will provide a detailed description of the ISS program to form basic reference material for the study. Items covered will include the current basic design and development concept, the current plan for utilization management during the assembly phase, and the current approach to construction of research facilities and equipment for the ISS. NASA will also provide a reference model for a non-government organization that could take on the responsibilities for ISS research utilization management and integration. This model, which will address the goals, principal purposes, and working principles of a such a non-government organization, will serve as a point of departure for the study. The study will undertake the following tasks: 1. Review current plans for development and operation of the ISS, anticipated scope of planned R&D activities on the ISS, current and planned NASA ISS ground and flight infrastructure, experience with relevant space-flight or ground-based analogs or precursors to the ISS, and plans for international participation in the ISS program; 2. Develop basic principles to guide the definition and implementation of appropriate institutional arrangements for facilitating research on the ISS; 3. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the NASA reference model and other relevant models; and 4. Identify, to the extent feasible, the most important issues to be considered in selecting an institutional approach in such areas as: —the relationship of an institute to a host organization and to funding organizations, —governance, oversight and research community input, —roles and responsibilities for planning, research prioritization, and investigation selection and funding, —roles and responsibilities for hardware design, development, and integration,

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

STATEMENT OF TASK

52

—roles and responsibilities for data management, archival, and distribution, —scope and location of facilities and infrastructure operated by an institute, and —capacity to evolve over the long term to support the major goals of the ISS. The study will be performed by an ad hoc task group of 13 individuals whose collective expertise brings knowledge of the kinds of research being planned, the perspectives of the expected research communities involved, and the most likely relevant analogs to an ISS institute. Three three-day meetings will be held. A short report (20-30 pages) will be prepared for delivery to NASA.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA LETTER OF REQUEST

53

B NASA Letter of Request

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters Washington, DC 20546-0001

Reply to Ann of: U NOV 13 1998 Dr. Claude R. Canizares Chair, Space Studies Board Center for Space Research, Room 37-241 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139

As we embark on the great adventure of constructing the International Space Station (ISS) next month, I believe that it is important to look at the operation of this great engineering feat and to assure that the research to be carried out is done in the optimum way. In looking at successes in other disciplines, I have been impressed by the operation of the Hubble Space Institute. While the data management is clearly different and the desire to integrate research, commercial ventures and technology efforts will offer different challenges, I believe some sort of institute could be very useful. As a result, the assistance of the Space Studies Board is requested to establish an ad hoc team to study various options, to make recommendations to the Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise, and to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the various possibilities. I request a “Study of Institutional Arrangements for Utilization of the International Space Station” be undertaken immediately. I would like the study to accomplish to the degree possible: 1) a critical review of current plans for development and operation of the ISS, anticipated scope of planned R&D activities on the ISS, current and planned NASA ISS ground and flight infrastructure, experience with relevant space-flight or ground-based analogs or precursors to the ISS, and plans for international participation in the ISS program; 2) develop basic principles to guide the definition and implementation of appropriate institutional arrangements for facilitating research on the ISS; and 3) identify, as recognized by the team, the most important issues to be considered in selecting an institutional approach. To be most useful to NASA, I would like to have a report from the team in late May 1999, as rationale for budgetary input for the FY 2001 budget. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request and your help in its implementation. Sincerely,

Arnauld E, Nicogossian, M.D. Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications cc: National Research Council/Mr. Joseph Alexander

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF TASK GROUP MEMBERS

54

C Biographical Sketches of Task Group Members

CORNELIUS (NEAL) J. PINGS, Chair Dr. Pings is president emeritus of the Association of American Universities (AAU). He served as president of AAU from 1993 to 1998 and as provost of the University of Southern California from 1981 to 1993. A member of the National Academy of Engineering, Dr. Pings previously served as professor of chemical engineering and chemical physics, vice provost, and dean of Graduate Studies at Caltech, from which he received a B.S. in applied chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. He has been elected as a fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineering and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and is the recipient of numerous awards from organizations such as the American Society for Engineering Education. He served in 1988-1992 as chair of the NRC Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. JUDITH H. AMBRUS Dr. Ambrus is consultant, Space Technology Management Services, with prior experience in the commercial uses of space stations, space station policy, and space technology. As a research chemist at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, she conducted basic and applied research in electrochemistry and led the Electrochemistry Branch, which became the Navy's center of excellence in battery research and technology. At NASA, Dr. Ambrus served as a program manager for chemical and thermal energy conversion in the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology. In this capacity she managed all NASA-sponsored research and technology activities, including the initiation and management of the triagency (NASA/DOD/DOE) space nuclear reactor program (SP-100). As assistant director for Space Technology, she managed planning for the utilization of ISS for technology development and later for commercial research and development. ROBERT J. BAYUZICK Dr. Bayuzick is a professor of Materials Science and the director of Materials Science at Vanderbilt University. His research for the last several years has been directed towards materials processing under microgravity conditions, with a particular emphasis on the structure and properties of alloys resulting from deep undercooling through containerless solidification. Dr. Bayuzick served on the lead team working on TEMPUS, an electromagnetic levitation facility for the containerless processing of metallic samples in microgravity aboard the space shuttle Columbia. He was a member of the NRC Committee on Microgravity Research.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF TASK GROUP MEMBERS

55

ANTHONY W. ENGLAND Dr. England is a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science at the University of Michigan. His research interests are radar studies of glaciers and microwave radiometric studies of snow, ice, freezing soils, and planetary regoliths. Dr. England was a mission scientist for Apollo 13 and 16, flew as a mission specialist on Challenger's Spacelab 2 mission in 1985, and was program scientist for the Space Station during 1986 and 1987. He is a science advisor to the EROS Data Center and to the Alaska SAR Facility. Dr. England was a member of the Space Studies Board and chair of its Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs. CHARLES A. FULLER Dr. Fuller is professor of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior at the University of California at Davis. His research interests include mechanisms of physiological regulation and adaptation. He teaches in the areas of systemic physiology, biological rhythms and sleep, gravitational physiology, and environmental physiology. He has participated in several U.S. and Russian spaceflight programs. Dr. Fuller was a chair of the NASA Space Station Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee (1991-1996) and member of the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee (1993-1996). He is currently on the governing board of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology and the International Society for Gravitational Physiology. RICHARD H. HOPKINS Dr. Hopkins retired in 1999 from the position of senior consultant, Microelectronics, Northrop Grumman Science & Technology Center. He has 30 years of experience in materials and device research, including program management and senior line management positions, most recently as head of the Microelectronics Department at the Northrop Grumman Science and Technology Center. His technical expertise includes crystal growth methods for inorganic, organic, and metallic materials and the application of unique semiconductor, optical, and metal alloys to device fabrication. Dr. Hopkins has published extensively in scientific and technical journals and holds U.S. patents in materials and materials processing. He is president of the Eastern Region of the American Association for Crystal Growth and a fellow of ASM International. ERNEST G. JAWORSKI Dr. Jaworski was a distinguished science fellow of Monsanto Company (retired) and Director of Biological Sciences, with long experience as a scientist and research leader in an industry R&D laboratory. Dr. Jaworski's service at Monsanto included positions as research biochemist (1952-1954), research group leader (1954-1960), scientist (1960-1962), and senior scientist (1962-1970). His research and expertise are in the areas of biological chemistry and molecular biology, including plant cell and tissue culture and genetic engineering biotechnology. Dr. Jaworski has served on three NRC bodies: the Panel on Science and Technology Centers, the Board on Biology, and the Commission on Life Sciences.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF TASK GROUP MEMBERS

56

MICHAEL J. KATOVICH Dr. Katovich is a professor in the Department of Pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida. His research focuses on hypertension, diabetes (with emphasis on gene therapy approaches), temperature regulation, and the renin-angiotens system, specifically dealing with blood pressure measurements (direct and indirect), vascular smooth muscle preparations, metabolic measurements, and in vivo and in vitro assessment of adrenergic function. He is a member of numerous professional societies, including the International Society for Gravitational Physiology, of which he is currently serving as president (1999-2000). SAMUEL KRAMER Mr. Kramer is the principal of Kramer Associates, Government Operations and Management Consultants. He has extensive experience in management, organization of technical and research operations, evaluations, feedback mechanisms, quality control, and monitoring of programs. Mr. Kramer is a former deputy director and associate director at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He served on the NRC GovernmentUniversity-Industry Research Roundtable, the select blue ribbon panel for the evaluation of Air Force laboratories, statutory panels for evaluation of state and regional manufacturing extension partnership centers, the BIRD Foundation board of directors (chairman and U.S. representative), and on the staff of the Executive Office of the President. In the Corps of Engineers, he was chief of Air Force Projects and assistant chief of Military Works. He is a registered professional engineer and holds the rank of professorial lecturer in the Department of Engineering Management, the George Washington University. G. PAUL NEITZEL Dr. Neitzel is a professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. His research interests include hydrodynamic stability of steady and unsteady flows, fluid mechanics of materials processing, flow control, vortex breakdown, and bioreactor fluid mechanics. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and associate fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is a former member of the NASA Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee. LYLE H. SCHWARTZ Dr. Schwartz is director of Aerospace and Materials Sciences at the Air Force Research Laboratory. A member of the National Academy of Engineering, he has broad leadership experience in materials research and in coordinating industry and government collaboration in materials engineering. His interests and expertise include government policy for R&D, especially materials R&D. Dr. Schwartz is a former interim director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, a former director of the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and a former director of the Materials Research Center at Northwestern University.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF TASK GROUP MEMBERS

57

JOHN G. STEWART Dr. Stewart, a partner in Stewart, Wright and Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, has long experience and expertise in public policy and legislative affairs. He has been a Fulbright professor and director of the GeorgianAmerican Institute of Public Administration, Republic of Georgia. He is a former staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space and vice president and senior planning officer of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and a member of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. JOHN C. TOOLE Mr. Toole is deputy director for Alliance Programs of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he developed experience and expertise in facilitating collaboration between academic, industrial, and government partners in the use of advanced computing and communications infrastructure. At NCSA, Mr. Toole serves as one of the Deputy Directors focusing on NSF's National Computational Science Alliance program. He manages the technical operation and coordination of Alliance teams throughout the United States. NORMA M. ALLEWELL, Ex Officio Member Dr. Allewell is associate vice president for Sponsored Program and Technology Transfer at Harvard University. She has expertise in molecular biophysics, structural biology, and biochemistry. Her research interests include protein structure, function, and design; macromolecular interactions; and computer modeling. She is a member of the Biophysical Society (president, 1993-1994), American Association for the Advancement of Science (fellow), American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Sigma Xi. Dr. Allewell received a B.Sc. (honors) from McMaster University and a Ph.D. (molecular biophysics) from Yale University. She currently serves on the NRC Committee on Space Biology and Medicine.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS

58

D Meeting Agendas

TASK GROUP TO REVIEW ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH Meeting, May 18-20, 1999 TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1999 Open Sessions Opening 8:30 a.m.

Introductions and Opening Remarks

C. Pings, Chair

9:00 a.m.

Overview of Study Scope and Objectives

A. Nicogossian, NASA

Station Program Overview 9:30 a.m.

ISS: Over all Program Description Program Office Organization Space and Ground Infrastructure Assembly Schedule International Commitments Involvement of User Communities

10:30 a.m.

Break

J-D. Bartoe, NASA

U.S. Utilization Program 10:45 a.m.

ISS: Payload Office Program Description Payload Office Organization Research Budget Content Utilization Schedule Major Challenges

N. Penley, NASA

11:45 a.m.

Research Mission Management Function

N. Penley, NASA

12:15 p.m.

Lunch

1:15 p.m.

Research Mission Integration and Planning Function

V. Feng, NASA

1:45 p.m.

Hardware and Software Engineering Integration Function

D. Hartman, NASA

Research Overview 2:15 p.m.

Life Sciences Program Research Scope Research Facilities and Experiment Unique Equipment Selection Process Investigation Buildup

J. Vernikos, NASA

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS

59

2:45 p.m.

Break

3:00 p.m.

Microgravity Research Program

M. Wargo, NASA

3:30 p.m.

Commercial Development Program

M. Uhran, NASA

4:00 p.m.

Engineering Research Program

C. Parra, NASA

4:30 p.m.

Committee Questions and Answers

5:30 p.m.

Adjourn

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 Closed Session 8:30 a.m.

Committee Work (Bias Discussions)

10:00 a.m.

Break

Open Sessions Potential Models 10:15 a.m.

NASA Nongovernment Organization (NGO) Reference Model

M. Uhran, NASA

11:30 a.m.

Boeing Perspective on Operations and Utilization

R. Golden, Boeing

12:00 p.m.

Lunch

International Program Overview 1:00 p.m.

Earth and Space Science Programs

E. Park, NASA

1:30 p.m.

International Program Overview

M. Saunders, NASA

2:30 p.m.

International Partner Perspectives (Opportunity for Statements by Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency, National Space Development Agency)

3:00 p.m.

Break

Closed Sessions Discussion of Overviews and Models 3:15 p.m.

Committee Discussion

4:45 p.m.

Chairman's Summary

5:00 p.m.

Adjourn

C. Pings

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS

60

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999 Closed Sessions Formulation of NGO Characteristics 9:00 a.m.

Committee Discussion of NGO Parameters

10:00 a.m.

Topics for Future Meetings Initial Identification of Key Issues Briefing and White Paper Requests Assignment of Work Areas and Topics Meeting Schedules

10:30 a.m.

Committee Discussion and Adjourn

12:00 p.m.

Adjourn

C. Pings, Chair

TASK GROUP TO REVIEW ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH Meeting, July 26-28, 1999 MONDAY, JULY 26, 1999 Closed Session 8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m.

Closed Session for Task Group Discussion (recap of activities to date, objectives of this meeting)

Open Sessions 10:15 a.m.

Comments by NASA Officials on Policy Implications of IASSR (M. Hawes, M. Uhran)

11:00 a.m.

Comments by Congressional and OMB Staff (D. Comstock, F. Deschamps, J. Muncy, R. Obermann, J. Toal-Eisen)

12:00 p.m.

Lunch

1:00 p.m.

Panel Discussion with Commercial Space Center Representatives (M. Jacox, G. Morganthaler, A. Sacco)

2:00 p.m.

Discussion with SPACEHAB, Inc., Representative (R. Bardos)

2:45 p.m.

Break

3:00 p.m.

Panel Discussion with Payload Developer Representatives (M. Harrington, R. Henderson, G. Jahns, J. Salzman)

4:30 p.m.

General Discussion

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS

61

5:00 p.m.

Adjourn

5:15 p.m.

Reception

6:00 p.m.

Dinner

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999 Open Sessions 8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m.

NASA Follow-up on Task Group Information Requests (M. Uhran)

10:00 a.m.

NIST, DOE, Other Agency Policies on Proprietary Use of Facilities (S. Kramer, W. Oosterhuis)

10:30 a.m.

Break

10:45 a.m.

Panel Discussion on Experiences with Other NGOs (W. Huntress, K. Schmoll, L. Walter)

12:00 p.m.

Lunch

Closed Session 1.00 p.m.

Work Session (Findings, Report Outline, Additional Information Requirements, Assignments, Milestone Schedule)

5:30 p.m.

Adjourn

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1999 Closed Session 8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m.

Work Session (continued)

12:00 p.m.

Adjourn

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS

62

TASK GROUP TO REVIEW ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPACE STATION RESEARCH Meeting, September 28-29, 1999 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 Closed Sessions 8:00 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

8:30 a.m.

Chair's Introduction and Group Discussion Activities to Date Review of the Statement of Task Strategy and Objectives for This Meeting

9:00 a.m.

Review of Major Issues (Pings and Alexander)

9:30 a.m.

Discussion Rationale Authority of an NGO

11:45 a.m.

Lunch

12:30 p.m.

Break into Two Splinter Groups Working Group A Handling of Proprietary Information Commercial Users Working Group B Governance Structure Implementation

3:45 p.m.

Break

Open Session 4:00 p.m.

Comments by Steve Beckwith, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute

5:00 p.m.

Adjourn

6:00 p.m.

Dinner

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS

63

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 Open Session 8:00 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

8:30 a.m.

Comments by Joseph Rothenberg, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Flight

9:30 a.m.

Break

Closed Sessions 9:45 a.m.

Discussion International Roles and Relationships

10:45 a.m.

Summary of Findings on Issues by Working Groups

12:15 p.m.

Lunch

1:00 p.m.

Discussion and Concurrence: Plans for Completing Report Strategy and Schedule for Completing Writing Tasks, Concurrence on Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Review Process

3:00 p.m.

Work on Writing Tasks in Small Groups

5:00 p.m.

Adjourn

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MEETING AGENDAS 64

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

1

65

E

NASA Reference Model1

This material has been reproduced directly from the NASA document.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL 66

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL 67

REFERENCE MODEL A NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION (NGO) FOR SPACE STATION UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT Discussion Draft October 1998 NASA Headquarters Point-of-Contact Mark Uhran phone: 202-358-2233 fax: 202-358-4166 [email protected]

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

68

“K.E. Tsiolkovsky once wrote: ‘The idea, fantasy, or fairy tale invariably comes first. Following this is the stage of scientific investigation. Last comes the crowning achievement of the idea'. From this undoubtedly accurate summarization we need to extract the concept of ‘scientific investigation' and examine it more carefully. It is not as easy as it would first appear. Regarding the first step -- the idea, fantasy, or fairy tale – everything is clear. Man has always dreamed of achieving the unattainable (and still does today). Without dreams and the efforts made to attain them progress would be unthinkable. Even if the dream is initially unattainable, this does not mean that it may never be realized. Although harsh reality may intervene repeatedly to prove the impossibility of realizing the dream as yet, reality cannot force people to forget or discard it. Instead the dream is transferred to an original data bank: the fairy tale. There it lives on, continually reminding people of its existence, seeming to await the time when its realization will no longer be impossible. A more complicated matter is that which Tsiolkovsky called ‘scientific investigation.' This stage begins when the general development of scientific knowledge has reached a level of sophistication sufficient to allow someone to appear who is able to envision a way of realizing the dream (very often it is several people who live far apart and who work independently of one another). During this stage the dream begins to move towards reality, but it does not go beyond the discovery that what everyone has heretofore considered an unattainable -and therefore empty -- dream is in fact possible after all.” from Herman Oberth: The Father of Space Flight Boris V. Rauschenbach, 1994

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

69

Contents

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v)

VISION

4

GOALS

4

PRINCIPAL PURPOSES

4

WORKING PRINCIPLES Scope of R&D Programs Scope of Commercial Projects Role in Space Exploration Program and Project Funding Program and Project Opportunities Program Integrity and Project Selection Notification of Project Awards Distribution of R&D Project Awards R&D Results Research Staff Project Scientists and Project Engineers Research Facilities Laboratory Assets Payload Physical, Analytical, and Operations Integration Organizational Interfaces Instruments of Agreement Program Planning Board of Directors Accountability Advisory Committees Educational Responsibilities Criteria for Site Selection

5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11

APPENDIX Terminology Transactions Organization Functions Responsibilities Stakeholder Vetting

13 13 14 14 15 15

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

70

The purpose of this reference model is to initiate a discussion of a new management approach to R&D in low-earth orbit consistent with the present and future constrained budget challenges. The objective is to create a non-government organization (NGO) for accomplishing an aggressive science, technology and commercial development program while simultaneously limiting government functions to policy and oversight. The ultimate success of the orbital R&D program depends equally on the efficient operation of the space and ground assets (laboratories, spacecraft, space station...) and on the optimal utilization of the assets by the R&D and business communities. The utilization component must be managed in a manner which ensures productivity of the space station and other future ground and space assets. As depicted below, a NGO would serve as the interface between users and operators, in order to maximize the range of productive uses, as well as minimize the cost and schedule associated with conducting user operations in low-Earth orbit The framework for a NGO should be based on a management structure that is representative of, and responsive to, a broad base within the utilization community. This management structure must possess a high degree of stability that will permit it to undertake and complete an integrated program over the expected life of the space station and associated assets.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

71

VISION • A dedicated NGO that will develop the low Earth orbit environment for all users (scientific, technological, and commercial), in order to more efficiently advance scientific knowledge, technological capability, and commerce on Earth as a gateway to 21st Century exploration and development of space. GOALS 1. Complete an operational concept and establish a NGO in the United States by FY 2000. 2. Employ the NGO to reduce the cost and schedule associated with payload operations in space. 3. Employ the NGO to revolutionize the approach to research, exploration and development of space through increased academic cooperation and industrial collaboration. 4. Offer to expand the initial organization to accommodate international aspects in conjunction with completion of the International Space Station. PRINCIPAL PURPOSES 1. Engage the science community in a cooperative endeavor to aggressively expand the scientific foundation for human exploration and development of space. 2. Engage the engineering community in a collaborative endeavor to aggressively expand the technological capability of the International Space Station and enable future human exploration and development of space. 3. Engage the space operations community in a revolutionary transition toward cheaper, better and quicker access to space for the conduct of R&D and commercial endeavors. 4. Disperse information on the resulting scientific and technological achievements for the benefit of life on Earth, while stimulating the commercial community to expand the global economy in space products and services. WORKING PRINCIPLES (a) Scope of R&D Program Management • The scope could include all R&D projects which utilize a US share of the International Space Station. • Collaborating and supporting research using other NASA ground, air, and space assets could be included by written agreement. • Basic and applied, flight and ground, research in science and technology could be pursued with strategic direction in selected areas such as, but not limited to: • - biology, chemistry and physics • - medical research and applications

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

• • • • • •

72

- environmental sciences and life support technologies - spacecraft system, subsystem and component engineering - space processing of materials - biotechnology - remote sensing - communications

• The scientific research program could be managed by the NGO and the research projects could be conducted by distributed laboratories, institutes, and research and development facilities in the academic, industrial, and government sectors. • The technology development program could be managed by the NGO and the development projects could be conducted by distributed laboratories, institutes, and research and development facilities in the academic, industrial, and government sectors. (b) Scope of Commercial Program Development • Proof-of-concept or full-scale private commercial projects could be administered by the NGO in accordance with national policy. • The policy could include specific provisions to address totally subsidized, partially subsidized, and non-subsidized entrepreneurial endeavors. • A value-based pricing schedule could be established during the early operations period, with a transition to cost recovery when commercial enterprises become profitable. • In the event recovery of public operating costs prohibits profitable operations, or the supply of station accommodations is exhausted, commercial enterprises could relocate to privately owned and operated space platforms. (c) Role in Space Exploration • The NGO could undertake R&D projects, sponsored by NASA, with applications to the human exploration and development of space enterprise. (d) Program and Project Funding • Funds could be provided by both public and private sources. • Public sources could include government agencies which serve as catalysts, such as, but not limited to, NASA. • Private sources could include philanthropies, industrial organizations, university/industrial consortia, financial institutions, and venture capitalists.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

73

• A privately managed space trust corporation could be created to operate in close association with the NGO, in order to assist in the evaluation and financing of entrepreneurial ventures. (e) Program and Project Opportunities • Scientific and technological R&D opportunities, which are funded through public monies could be announced on a regular periodic basis and could be open to competition among academic, industrial and government scientists and engineers world-wide. • Commercial opportunities could be open on a continuous basis for proposals by private organizations. • Since the magnitude of opportunity will be constrained by available station resources and accommodations, an allocation policy could be established by the NGO Board of Directors. (f) Program Integrity and Project Selection Scientific Research: • Projects could be externally peer reviewed to the highest standards and rated, prior to selection by the NGO Science Program Office based on scientific merit. • The selections would conform to the programmatic objectives and funding levels of the respective sponsors. Technology Development: • Projects could be internally reviewed by the NGO Technology Program Office and selected based on engineering feasibility. • The selections would conform to the programmatic objectives and funding levels of the respective sponsors. Commercial Ventures: • Projects could be administered by bonded personnel in the NGO Commercial Program Office. • Selection criteria could vary with the level of public subsidization. • Non-subsidized ventures could be selected on the basis of the magnitude of private capital at risk; partially subsidized ventures could be rated by the ratio of private-to-public funding, and; fully subsidized ventures could be selected at the discretion of the government sponsor.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

74

• The NGO could be required by the Board of Dirctors to administer a portfolio with minimum shares in each of these categories. (g) Notification of Project Awards • The NGO could issue formal notifications of award, subject to the principles on program integrity and project selection. • In cases of commercial ventures, with private funding, notifications could be confidential by prior request. (h) Distribution of R&D Project Awards • Funds could be allocated for award to both NGO-resident (e.g., 10%) and non-resident (e.g., 90%) scientists and engineers on a competitive basis. Open Item: do the advantages associated with some degree of resident R&D outweigh the disadvantages? Advantages include: (1) the ability to attract a high-quality, professionally recognized science and engineering staff; (2) the ability of the resident NGO staff to work at a peer level with the non-resident R&D community and to serve a “smart buyers”; (3) the increased professional credibility of the NGO; and (4) the incentive created by broadening the NGO's scope of operations to include resident R&D. Disadvantages include: (1)

the potential appearance, or actual existence, of a conflict of interest in the resident and nonresident R&D award process.

(i) R&D Results Proprietary Results: • All R&D results and information could be the property of the funding source and handled without public disclosure, as addressed through binding agreement among the parties. Non-Proprietary Results: • All research results could be treated as within the public domain. • Every research project awarded would be required to conform to the data policy of the funding source. • All reports could be archived at the NGO and available on-line through international telecommunications networks.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

75

(j) Resident Staff • Resident staff could be representative of the core science and engineering disciplines with visiting senior scientists and engineers in selected specialties. • All visiting staff could be fully authorized to make decisions and enter into agreements on the behalf of their home institutions. • Options for a government presence could include a liaison office limited to on-site representatives of the program sponsors, or visiting Senior Scientists and Engineers. (k) Project Scientists and Project Engineers • Every R&D project could include the designation of a resident NGO staff member as Project Scientist or Project Engineer. • The role of the NGO Project Scientists and Engineers could be to assist non-resident flight research projects through the steps associated with physical, analytical, and operations integration of flight research projects. (l) Research Facilities • The NGO could be based in a physical facility (public or private) with either on-site, or geographically dispersed, laboratory assets, or both. • It could employ state-of-the-art international telecommunications networks for communications with associated organizations from either the public or private sectors. (m) Laboratory Assets • Existing government assets could be transferred to the NGO for management or made available through negotiated agreement. • These assets could include both space and ground-based facilities. • Development of new assets, including flight instruments and facilities, could be performed by the NGO or placed under NGO management. (n) Payload Physical, Analytical, & Operations Integration • Functions could be performed by the NGO, or a mission support contractor to the NGO. • Orbital real-time operations replanning could be performed by the space station operator in cooperation with a Mission Director and R&D Working Group assigned by the NGO. • The NGO could perform all tactical planning for R&D operations on flight and ground systems.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

76

(o) Organizational Interfaces • The NGO could interface with public and private funding sources for space station related policy, oversight and strategic direction; • with the space station operator (public or private) for payload accommodations and system operations integration; • with world-wide academic, industrial and government organizations for space station R&D project performance; • with private organizations for commercial ventures, and; • with an external advisory committee for independent annual review. (p) Instruments of Agreement • Agreements between the NGO and associated organizations could be established through a variety of instruments and would be limited only by public law. • These instruments could be tailored on a case-by-case basis to best protect the interests of the parties. • The instruments could include, but would not be limited to: • • • • • • • • • •

memoranda of agreement terms of reference contracts grants joint endeavor agreements memoranda of understanding cooperative R & D agreements space system development agreements industrial guest investigator agreements intergovernmental personnel agreements

(q) Program Planning • The NGO could develop projections of available orbital accommodations and resources based on information supplied by the space station operator. • The NGO could formulate options for accommodating research requirements, maintain a dynamic Mission Model, and produce an annual one-year R&D Program Plan and an annual oneyear Commercial Prospectus. • The Plan and Prospectus could be reviewed and approved by the NGO Board of Directors at an annual meeting. • The annual Plan and Prospectus could be formulated within the broader context of the funding sponsors' long-term strategic plans and commitments. (r) Board of Directors • The NGO board could include academic, industrial, and government directors.

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

77

• Voting shares on the board could correspond to annual funding commitments of the sponsoring directors. • The Board could ensure the NGO operates in accordance with its charter and within the policy established by the sponsoring directors. (s) Accountability • The NGO could produce quarterly reports on cost, schedule and performance status for every active R&D project and an annual report on achievements for every active R&D program. • All reporting could be subject to proprietary information restrictions. • The quarterly and annual reports could be the primary products delivered to the funding sponsors (e.g., NASA, or other public and private program sponsors). (t) Advisory Committees • An independent external advisory committee could perform periodic independent reviews of NGO progress and achievements. • In the case of the United States, independent advice and guidance could also be provided by the standing boards and committees of the National Research Council. • The NASA Advisory Council, and its standing committees and subcommittees, could perform periodic reviews at the request of the NASA program sponsoring offices. (u) Educational Responsibilities • The NGO could include a dedicated Education Office with responsibility for communicating the beneficial attributes of the orbital environment and the progress of the R&D program to public and private audiences at all levels in the academic, government and industrial sectors. • The costs associated with this function could be funded by the space station owners and operators. (v) Criteria for Institute Site Selection • Criteria could include, • availability of existing facilities and skilled personnel; • geographic attractiveness for personnel relocation; • easy access for program sponsors and project managers;

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL

• • • • potential for evolution to international operations; association with an internationally recognized university; support of the local and state governments; and proximity to advanced telecommunications resources.

78

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL 79

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL 80

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

NASA REFERENCE MODEL 81

Copyright © 1999. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

82

F Acronyms and Abbreviations ACUC ASEB ATM CAM CDR COMSAT CRV CSC ERA ESA EVA IRB ISLSWG ISPR ISS JEM JSC MPLM NASA NGO NOAA NRA NRC NSF OLMSA PDR PI R&D RFP RSA SPP SSB SSRMS SSUB

Animal Care and Use Committee Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Apollo Telescope Mount centrifuge accommodations module critical design review Commercial Satellite Corporation crew return vehicle commercial space center European robotic arm European Space Agency extravehicular activity Institutional Review Board International Space Life Sciences Working Group international standard payload rack International Space Station Japanese experiment module Johnson Space Center multipurpose logistics module National Aeronautics and Space Administration nongovernment organization National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA research announcement National Research Council National Science Foundation Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences preliminary design review principal investigator research and development request for proposal Russian Space Agency science power platform Space Studies Board space station remote manipulation system Space Station Utilization Board