Planning Guide
forSpace Experiment Research

September 2007

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
Japan Space ForumHiroo INOKUCHI,1 Keiji FUKUI,2 Kazumi KOGURE,3.Muneo TAKAOKI,4
Kyoichi KINOSHITA,5 Ryutaro IZUMI,6 and Yoshinori FUJIMORI7
1. JAXA, Japan, inokuchi.hiroo@jaxa.jp
2. JSF, Japan, keifukui@jsforum.or.jp
3. JSF, Japan, kkogure@jsforum.or.jp
4. JAXA, Japan, takaoki.muneo@jaxa.jp
5. JAXA, Japan, kinoshita.kyoichi@jaxa.jp
6. JAXA, Japan, izumi.ryutaro@jaxa.jp
7. SED, Japan, fujimori.yoshinori@jaxa.jp

Preface
Space environment, exemplified by microgravity on low-Earth orbit, has many
unique merits and advantages for research, which cannot be realized on Earth.
Achievements based on activities utilizing the space environment weresummarized, compiled, and published in the“Memoir of Japanese Space Experiments – Accomplishments and Lessons
Learned”, JASMA Vol. 22, Supplement 2005. That volume provides valuable
information to scientists and engineers who would like to become involved inspace experiments.
However, a summary of past achievements may not provide adequate
information to potential participants in space environment research.
Common-sense or routine on-the-ground research cannot simply be
extrapolated into space: many preparatory tasks and precautions are necessary
to achieve a scientific goal in space. Therefore, as a second attempt, thebrochure “Planning Guide for Space Environment Research” was conceived andcompiled in Japanese so that potential participants in future space experiments
may understand well in advance what must be done from the submittal of theresearch theme to the actual flight execution of the experiment. That brochure
was published in March 2007 by the Japan Space Forum.
This English brochure is the third version translated from the Japanese text.
As with the Japanese text, the personnel of the Japan Space Forum wereactively involved in preparing the manuscript, because their experience andknow-how obtained from assistance and support tasks in terms of preparing andrefining the space experiment plan and flight experiment operation are valuable
information for this brochure. The inclusion of their experiences and lessons
learned will, I believe, enhance the value of this brochure to the anticipatedreaders, either domestic or abroad.
The scope of space experiments can be divided roughly into two science
disciplines, life science and materials science, this brochure addresses these
two areas of research, considering many common facets of the two disciplines.
For the sake of convenience to prospective readers, a colored page is inserted
between the life science and materials science sections of this brochure, so thatthe readers interested in each discipline can easily access the intended contents.
However, it is recommended that all readers look at the whole text, paying
attention to what is not their area of expertise, and seriously endeavor to pioneerinew fields of science.
The STS returned to flight in July 2006, and we have seen the continuous
success of ISS assembly since then. The launch of JEM module “Kibo” is quickly
nearing the final countdown; following that, we look forward to seeing thefinishing touches on ISS construction. Once the construction is completed, thenext stage will be the utilization of ISS-JEM to the fullest extent. I would like tocall for the vigilance of all the people involved in the ISS-JEM utilization program
to avoid inadequate or insufficient preparation.
It is my sincere hope that this brochure will serve as a proper guide not only
for those who are working on the current space experiment program, but also for
those who will plan and execute space experiments in the future.
Hiroo Inokuchi, Chairman of Board of Trustees, Japan Space Forum
Chief Scientist, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agencyii

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
Merits of Space Environment Utilization ............................................................. 1
Part I Life Science
1-1 Introductory Remarks................................................................................... 3
1-2 Planning Scheme Leading to Success......................................................... 4
1-2-1 Characteristics of the Space Experiment Proposal ................................... 4
1-2-2 Technical Evaluation on Feasibility (Realizability) ..................................... 5
1-3 Uniqueness and Constraints of Space Experiments..................................... 8
1-3-1 Focus of the Technical Evaluation............................................................. 8
1-4 Tasks prior to Execution ............................................................................. 10
1-4-1 Announcement of Opportunity, Review, and Selection ......................... 10
1-4-2 Tasks following Candidate Selection .................................................... 12
1-4-3 Tasks of Proposers ............................................................................... 12
1-4-4 Tasks of Support Workers .................................................................... 14
1-4-5 Experiment Instruments (facilities)........................................................ 14
1-4-6 Preparing the Space Experiment Planning Document.......................... 15
Appendix 1 Current Topics on Biomedical Research and Manned SpaceTechnology Development............................................................ 18
Appendix 2 Information Sources.................................................................... 22
Part II Materials Science
2-1 Introductory Remarks ................................................................................. 23
2-2 Roadmap to Space Experiments ................................................................ 23
2-2-1 Task Flow from Proposal to Execution .................................................... 23
2-2-2 Tasks of Proposers.................................................................................. 25
2-2-3 Tasks of Support Workers ....................................................................... 27
2-2-4 Reminders............................................................................................... 29
2-2-5 Preparing the Space Experiment Planning Document ............................ 29
2-3 Technologies and Instruments (facilities) for Space Experiments ............ 31
2-3-1 Technologies for Space Experiments ...................................................... 31
2-3-2 Instruments (facilities) for Space Experiments ........................................ 34
2-3-3 Development of Specimen Block (cartridge) ........................................... 35
2-3-4 Summary................................................................................................. 35

iii

2-4 Experience and Lessons Learned from Space Experiments ................... 35
2-4-1 During Preparation .................................................................................. 36
2-4-2 Failure Attributed to Lack of Experience.................................................. 38
2-4-3 Team Tasks ............................................................................................. 40
2-4-4 Importance of Numerical Simulation ....................................................... 42
2-4-5 Failure Attributed to Excessive Familiarization and Being Off Guard ...... 42
2-4-6 Regard for even Classical (Low) Technology .......................................... 43
2-4-7 How to Cope with a Long Waiting Time on the Ground........................... 44
2-4-8 Vigilance on Serendipity and Unexpected Happenings in Space ............ 44
Appendix: Valuable Information Sites ............................................................... 45
References ....................................................................................................... 46iv

Introduction
Prior to this brochure, the “Planning Guide for Space Experiment Research:
Memoir of Japanese Space Experiments-Accomplishments and Lessons
Learned“ was published in the form of Vol. 22 Supplement 2005 of the Japan
Society of Microgravity Application (JASMA). The memoir is a compilation ofalmost all space experiments conducted by Japanese scientists and provides
valuable information to scientists, engineers, and others who are considering
becoming involved in space experiments.
This brochure elaborates primarily on the “Lessons Learned” portion of thememoir and is intended to provide further information so that readers may
understand prerequisites to smooth and efficient space experiment planning.
Thus, the authors of this brochure believe that its contents will serve as a guiding
canon for anyone who is interested in space environment utilization for scientificand technological purposes.
The brochure consists of two parts, life science and materials science. Despitesome similarity between life science and materials science in general terms,
these two fields have evolved differently and obviously cannot be handled in thesame way. Thus, they are described in two separate chapters. However, it isrecommended that readers look at the entire brochure so as to enhance theirlevel of preparedness for challenging interdisciplinary research in space.

Merits of Space Environment Utilization
The space environment of the International Space Station (ISS) orbit ischaracterized by microgravity, high vacuum, space radiation, and a wide field ofview. All should be overcome by the time humans attempt to go and stay there,
but some are definitely scientific parameters that await the scrutiny of scientists
and engineers. Some particular aspects, such as the atomic oxygen-richatmosphere and thermal condition discrepancy between the sun-lit and shaded
surfaces of spacecraft, will challenge the hardware designer to develop
far-advanced technology. The space environment at the altitude of ISS issummarized below.
Characteristics of Space Environment at the Altitude of ISS
Microgravity
VacuumUniqueAtmosphericComposition
Space Radiation

10-6 to 10-4 g
Roughly 10-5 Pa+ (Creation of 10-11 Pa Possible)
85% Atomic Oxygen

Compound Environment of Various Space
Radiation Sources
Wide Field of View
Theoretically 360 degrees
Solar Energy
1.4 kW/m2
ThermalManagement Heat Exchange Control in Vacuum by Radiation,on Orbit
Fluid Motion Control under Microgravity by
Surface Tension, Interfacial Input, and Magnetic
or Electrical Force

1

All phenomena on Earth are subjected to gravity, and apparently no one hasquestioned why they are observed that way. It was a big step in the spacedevelopment activities of the past decades that scientists and engineers realized
the need to observe what is masked by Earth’s gravity. Presumably, criticality ofthe parameter gravity may differ in disciplines such as physics, chemistry, andbiology; however, the gravity-dependent sciences in space that cannot be
pursued rigorously on Earth will play a leading role in solving what cannot be
solved on the ground.
Common sense tells us that water flows from high to low places on the ground,but this type of thinking does not apply in microgravity. A volume of water forms aspherical liquid ball that floats free in space. Fluid phenomena are quite sensitive
to microgravity; thus, the topical problem of fluid dynamics and physics has beena major research subject in space since the 1970s. However, a number ofunanswered questions remain, and repetition of experiments and long-duration
experimentation on board the ISS will enhance the progress of science.
Weightlessness means that buoyancy, sedimentation, static pressure, andthermal convection are all negated. Thus, it becomes possible to observe thecore of reaction, the solidification/aggregation/compounding process, leading togreater accuracy in physical parameter measurements, refined material
composition, and crystal growth without disturbances.
As long as space activity continues to be a human endeavor, life science andspace environment utilization will remain inseparable. Microgravity can beapplied to the analysis of various life and biological problems. Cell cultivation
and refinement/crystal growth of biomolecules have been studied under the
disturbance-free environment, and are expected to result in a breakthrough for anumber of disciplines.
To life born and developed on the ground, microgravity may seem to be anutterly unexpected condition. However, space experiments have revealed thatlife on Earth has a surprising ability to adapt to a new environment, indicatingthat human beings and the rest of the life on the ground possess various
capabilities and a strong potential to evolve that past on-the-groundinvestigations have not yet disclosed.
As mentioned above, the space environment has immeasurable potential for
utilization in both life and materials sciences. In the preparation for spaceexperiments, life science and materials science differ greatly in terms ofexperiment samples, apparatus, devices or tools, and involvement of flight crew.
These apparent differences highlight the influence of the concept design andplanning of the space experiments and the implementation process. Therefore,
this brochure consists of two parts: the first applies to life science, and thesecond applies to materials science. The two parts are independently composed,
but they may share much basic information. For the sake of convenience of thereader interested in either of the two, the text is organized so that the reader may
obtain the adequate or complete information/data base without looking at thewhole brochure.

2Part I Life Science
1-1 Introductory Remarks
One definite goal of life science is to make long space travel come true forordinary citizens on Earth, yet extensive basic research on a variety of topics
must be conducted before this dream becomes a reality.
At this moment, traveling into space is not easy, although it looks as if spacetravel by ordinary citizens is not merely a dream of the distant future, but will bepossible soon. However, the space experiment, although it may appear to beeasy to carry out, cannot be executed by the efforts of the researcher alone.
Considering the expenses, cost, and manpower involved in the spaceexperiment, adequate and precise preparation on the ground is necessary to
alleviate the risks associated with the flight program. This effort must involve thecoordinated teamwork of the flight crew, scientists, engineers, managers, andgovernment officials.
Requirements of experiments in space are manifold. The most importantcriteria for the science solicitation and selection process are that the research
theme must involve proof of a scientifically significant hypothesis; it must involve
proof that is possible only in a space experiment; and the research theme must
foster a technological breakthrough.
Execution of a science mission on board the ISS may be regarded as field
science, not as part of the laboratory sciences on the ground. Upon recognition
as such, proper measures and precise preparations must be taken to reduce thepossibility of failures or accidents.
The two factors that distinguish research in space from research on the
ground are described below.
“Microgravity”
Microgravity in space is a major parameter in biological and medical research.
Here caution needs to be exercised in identifying what is caused and what is notcaused by gravity in biomedical processes. Some phenomena are explained
similarly by physical or chemical principles, but the rest should be addressed bybiomedical reasoning.
In the biological process, gravity information is converted into biosignals, andvarious responses appear in the course of signal transduction; therefore, it is
impossible to describe the biological process by a mathematical formula or othernumerical processes. The responses are totally different from those in physics.
Nevertheless, it is important to eliminate ambiguity in defining the role ofgravity when planning the experiment. The experiment plan should include thehypothesis to be proven. Being accustomed to working in gravity makes it
difficult to switch to proper reasoning without gravity. Sometimes risks areassociated with exercising our imagination (i.e. our imagination might fall short ofour expectation), and we risk failure. Thus, it is necessary to examine theexperiment plan many times and to repeatedly perform preliminary groundexperiments to validate or verify space experiments.

3

“Engineering necessary for space experiments”
Even though the ISS is called an orbit laboratory, it is not possible forresearchers to carry out biological experiments as freely as they do in a groundlaboratory. The facilities and accommodations on board the ISS-JEM are
qualitatively advanced over those of the Spacelab era, but many constraints arestill evident. Thus, it is important to recognize the space experiment as quite
different from its ground counterpart in its nature and in the implementation
process. Space experimentation involves many conditions and situations thatmost researchers on the ground will never encounter or observe.
The total task flow of the medical or biological space experiment can becompared to the management of a stage performance. There, principal
investigators (PIs) are not spectators but promoters who must make the stage
performance a success. On-orbit experiment or launch of the mission that
attracts the eye of the general public may be regarded as one act or one scene.
When planning to make one stage performance a success, necessary tasks
include planning the theme of the performance, selecting actors and actresses,
preparing the playbooks, building large or small stage tools, refining the stage
setting, and arranging the performance hall. Countless jobs must be carried out
beyond the notice of spectators, and repeated practice and exercise are required
to ensure a polished stage performance.
The final practice of flight operation and a dry run of the experiment processes
prior to launch are like a dress rehearsal. Even though the actual spaceexperiment on board the ISS-JEM may look enchanting, prior preparation
activities and post-flight work actually absorb the energy of everyone involved.
The totality of the preparatory tasks should be processed, aiming at the specificday of the launch. Success requires collaboration and work-sharing by many
people who possess various capabilities and carry out numerous functions.
To pursue the scientific goal of the space experiment, proper application ofengineering methods and technological skills in the implementation process isnecessary to overcome a variety of obstacles and to mitigate the risks of failure.

1-2 Planning Scheme Leading to Success
As is well known in all disciplines, the specification of the experiment hardware(i.e. performance of the apparatus) and technologies in the operational stage is amajor factor in the success of scientific research, especially in spaceenvironment utilization experiments. Even with an exceptional objective, it is
impossible to achieve the goal without securing appropriate technologies.

1-2-1 Characteristics of the Space Experiment Proposal
In addition to scientific evaluation, technical evaluation is necessary. Technicalevaluation to determine whether or not the proposed experiment can be flown as
desired is unique to space experiments. Such a question is not an issue on the
ground, because most experiments can be conducted on the ground.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in space.
Even if the scientific merit looks extraordinary, it is possible that theexperiment cannot be conducted for technical reasons (i.e., the space agency
will not fly the experiment to orbit when they cannot accommodate it properly).
4Such a situation may be avoided if caution is exercised in considering thetechnological side during the planning stage. Thus, during the process of theme
selection, science evaluation and technical evaluation are equally important.
Proposers must indicate the type of apparatus or tools they are going to use, andmake a rough sketch of the execution steps, either manual or automatic.

1-2-2 Technical Evaluation on Feasibility (Realizability)
Technical evaluation addresses the uniqueness of the space experiment andmirrors its constraints. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify potential
problems, explore the possibility of countering these problems, and assess thelevel of difficulty in countering these problems.
1) Experiment Requirements
The technical evaluation determines whether or not all the operational
processes are doable (i.e. feasible to carry out).
Proposers are required to complete the experiment proposal form in terms ofwhen, where, who, what, why, and how (5W1H). This description is termed“Experiment Requirements” and is intended to outline the details for thereviewer.
2) Uniqueness and Constraints as the Focus of Technical Evaluation
When a problem appears in the description, a certain number of points are
deducted from the original budget, depending on criticality. When the total
number of deducted points exceeds a specified level, the proposal is rejected.
Thus, it is recommended that the proposer try to minimize the potential loss ofpoints, although it is not necessary to try to achieve the 100% mark!
Comments on countering the problems will be fed back to the proposer. The
proposer should work on those comments, once the theme is selected.
3) Uniqueness of the Space Experiment
The entire space experiment may be cast into a sequence of operations, and
5W1H should be delineated as required. Here, some comments are made tohelp the proposer be aware of the importance of completing the form accurately
and thoroughly. The following comments are taken from the experiences andlessons learned from past space experiments, and hopefully will serve as an
appropriate reference to potential proposers.
(1) WHEN: Schedule of flight and time slot of execution
Unlike ground experiment execution, it is not possible to fix the date oflaunching and carrying out the mission even ten years in advance because
the space transportation system is subject to so much preparatory work prior
to launch. No one can guarantee the date or time of departure from the launch
pad far in advance. The operation of the space flight remains quite different
from that of international and domestic airliners.
Nonetheless, the flight program operator wants the scientists to be ready at
any time of the year, and the researchers should be able to prepare live
samples at any time requested, even if the acquisition of live samples in5

wildlife seems seasonal and not possible throughout the year.
In principle, the schedule is always “to be determined” (TBD). The date oflaunch is usually announced one year ahead, but it is always possible to have
48-hour, one-week, or two-week delays. Researchers are required to prepare
five or six times more samples than are needed in one experiment on the
ground. Sometimes efforts will end up in total disaster because of a one-year
postponement of launch, which heavily disrupts the daily, weekly, monthly,
and annual timeline of businesses at the home universities or research
institutions. It is necessary to have a large team consisting of manysurrogates for lectures, ground preparations, and ground control operations.
The sequence from the ground to the initiation of the experiment is asfollows.
 Completion of the final preparations tasks of live samples on the
ground Delivery to the launch operator,
 Installation on the space transportation system (i.e., Space Shuttle or
Soyuz)
 Delivery to the ISS Mounting on the proper experiment apparatus of the ISS Switching on.
This sequence takes a minimum of three days. Thus, a bio-phenomenon
with a cycle of less than three days cannot be accommodated, and acapability to initiate the process after three days (e.g. maintaining the samples
in lower temperatures throughout the transportation period) should beincorporated.
The three-month ISS visitation cycle is a dominant factor for researchers inchoosing the experiment duration and the time length in which the effects of
microgravity or space radiation can be detected. For example, if theexperiment comes to a conclusion within one or two weeks, chemical fixation
or refrigeration up to the time of recovery to the ground is recommended. In
addition, it is necessary to verify the method in advance so that the fixedsamples will not degrade during the storage period.
Live samples are constantly subject to change: they may look very active
on one day but sleep on another day. However, impromptu adjustment of thehandling sequence or procedures is not possible in space as it is on the
ground. Some lead time to change is necessary. Thus, it is preferable toclarify the time margins of handling of each critical operation before the flight.
(2) WHERE: Location of the laboratory
Obviously, the proposer cannot intervene in the actual experiment operation,
unless the proposer is a flight crew member. However, the researcher or
proposer can monitor the progress of the flight experiment at the groundcontrol center and can suggest changes in operational steps, but not muchcan be expected of ground activities. Consequently, the experiment planshould address a variety of paths throughout the experiment, and operationaltasks should be as simple and automated as possible.
Procurement sites must be well-studied. Live samples and reagents may be

6purchased near the launch site (Kennedy Space Center), but obtaining thenecessary items overseas is not as easy as it is domestically. Thus, caution
should be exercised not to waste time carrying out routine errands.
When launch and recovery of samples are conducted in a foreign land, thesamples go through packaging and transportation, necessitating application
for quarantine at the airports, tax waver, exemption of X-ray inspection, andmany other tasks. Those tasks may be completed by the support workers andwill not bother the scientists, except for preparing precise requirements for the
support workers.
(3) WHOThe flight crew includes an experiment operator on orbit. All flight crew
members will be trained in experiment operation before the actual flight, butthey are not experts on the subject. Thus, it is not appropriate to burden themwith difficult or time-consuming training.
Responsibilities are delegated diversely to scientists, support engineers,
ground crew, flight crew, and managerial personnel as appropriate.
Nevertheless, the PI (i.e., proposer or scientist) is a major player in the flight
mission.
(4) WHATThe flight samples should be able to live in the anticipated instrument orapparatus. Because the available storage room on board the ISS-JEM islimited, types and number or volume should be carefully chosen so that theexperiment results will be statistically significant.
Experiment instruments and apparatuses on board the ISS-JEM are listed
in the Announcement of Opportunity (AO), and experiments requiring other
instruments or apparatuses are not selected. This information is available on
the JAXA website. Since it is not possible to mount the samples directly onto
the apparatus, first it is necessary to prepare the container or canister for the
sample. If the sample is in a fluid state, the container or canister should fully
contain the fluid, since no free fluid surface is allowed in the experiment. An
experiment-specific container or canister may be prepared either by thescientists or support workers, depending on the characteristics orrequirements of the experiment.
A vessel for cultivating cells (i.e. the canister containing the sample cells)
should be operational under microgravity. Obviously, it should be an enclosed
container without a gas-liquid interface. The compatibility between thecontainer wall and the samples must be verified. Sometimes the surface
coating of the container’s internal wall can harm the live samples.
The ISS-JEM is a closed space as well as a microgravity laboratory. Thus,
the leakage of reagent (e.g. formalin) can be devastating to the flight crew andthe interior equipment. Reagents easily handled in the laboratory on the
ground must be strictly controlled when utilized in space. It is a common
practice to prepare a special container to prevent spilling-over of the working
reagents, in an effort to pass regulations. Sometimes a proposed reagent
cannot be used. In such a case, it is necessary to seek possible substitutes

7that could serve the same purpose.
Once on orbit, it will be too late to replenish supplies or replace missing
items.. Therefore, it is necessary to list all items, big or small, to be utilized onorbit, and to make sure that they are complete and in perfect condition.
In every step of operation, it is necessary to specify the purpose of theoperation, the sample that is to be picked up next, and the apparatus that is tobe switched on or off. For example, the proposer may designate “Switch off
A-1” and “Pick up sample of C-3.”(5) WHY: Basis of experiment requirement: Scientific requirement
The reason that a procedure is to be performed in a certain way is termed
the “scientific requirement.” The proposer should clarify this scientificrequirement to ensure that operators and agency personnel understandadequately. Once the people involved understand the scientific requirement,
they do their best to complete the tasks. When the requirement is not 100%
satisfactory, the proposer is asked to reduce the requirement to theacceptable level without sacrificing the scientific significance of the mission.
This is a negotiating process between the scientists and engineers.
(6) HOW
Here, 5W1H is to be summarized and cast into the practical implementation
process. All engineering problems, however minor, must be approached fromthe technical point of view with the same level of enthusiasm as the scientificproblems. Otherwise, the space experiment mission will not be successful.
The tasks at this stage (i.e., the joint tasks after the theme is selected) arebasically carried out by support workers. Nonetheless, while completing the
proposal, the proposers must pay due attention to 5W1H from the beginningof the process.

1-3 Uniqueness and Constraints of the Space Experiments
When all the measures and schemes meet the experiment requirements, theexperiment mission may possibly fly. The available options for methodologies,
hardware, and software may seem quite limited. Thus, it is wise to design theexperiment with the limitations and constraints in mind.
When the AO is released, it will contain information on the available
experiment apparatus and factors that may affect feasibility . If the measures tomeet the requirements are beyond the scope of the provisions, an entirely new
apparatus, tool, device, or technology may be necessary. If it does not seementirely possible to develop brand new facilities, the feasibility of the proposal is
rated low, and eventually the proposal is likely to be rejected. Section 1-4-5
explains how the space mission facilities are to be developed. They require
much time and manpower, and a substantial monetary investment.

1-3-1 Focus of the Technical Evaluation
Technical evaluation considers which experiment requirements impinge on theconstraints.

81) Experiment requirements versus apparatus in space
The checkpoints include the following.
 Will the experiment be possible with the available apparatus?
 When a new apparatus is necessary, will it be possible to develop the
hardware by the time of the flight experiment?
 Will it be possible to raise the funds to develop a new apparatus?
It is generally assumed that the hardware is already installed on orbit, andthe proposers should understand those facilities well as they design the
mission.
2) Experiment operational procedures
The checkpoints include the following.
 Are the requirements of the crew excessive?
 Is the operational time line described in detail?
Crew time and crew tasks
No crew member is professionally assigned to a specific piece of spaceexperiment. The flight crew members spend most of their time maintaining theISS; thus, they can spare only a few hours per week for experiment operations.
Crew time is not dedicated to any single experiment, but to a number ofexperiments. Thus, the available hours are divided into minutes and arescattered throughout the week. Also, the flight crew cannot do anything related
to the experiment on the day of shuttle docking to or undocking from the ISS.
Since the flight crew members are busy all day, it is advisable to ask them tocarry out certain operational work within a window of a few hours. It is difficult forthem to do a job at an exactly specified moment of the day or hour. They need afew hours’ margin to process requirements of all kinds.
50% more time allocation required
Flight crew members train on experiment operations before a flight. Roughly
speaking, it takes 50% longer to do a task on orbit than it does to do the sametask on the ground. Work (performance) in space is not as efficient as that on the
ground. Furthermore, it is generally not acceptable for a crewmember to work
continuously on one experiment for more than 30 minutes.
Late access and early removal
Live samples should be prepared and handed to the launch operator 90 hours
before the launch. Any requirement to handle the samples less than 90 hours inadvance is called “late access.” It is common practice for the operator to returnthe flight samples to the investigator within 24 hours after recovery or landing of
the space transportation system. The requirement to receive the flight sample inless than 24 hours is called “early removal.” These requirements could besatisfied theoretically, but sometimes severe restraints or restrictions prevent
early removal.
Storage in a refrigerator and freezer
The space transportation system is not always equipped with a refrigerator or9freezer. Experiments that require such facilities during launch and recovery will
be possible only when the transportation system possess them. Obviously, theflight opportunity of such an experiment is limited.
Experiment duration
In the current operational planning, there is a ferry flight to the ISS every threemonths. The space shuttle or other transportation system is docked to the ISS
for about two weeks.
An experiment requiring animals to live three weeks on orbit and then return toEarth alive is not possible due to the lack of an available recovery flight. In
planning those experiments, the investigators should consider a substitute plan,such as euthanizing the animals and keeping them in the freezer.
Additional evaluated items are as follows.
 Are the resource requirements for mass, weight, volume, power, andstorage at a lower temperature within the proper limits?
 Does the experiment have a negative effect on any other experimentcarried out in the same time frame?
3) Environmental health and safety
Another consideration is whether any element in the proposed experiment
may harm the surrounding environment or the flight crew.

1-4 Tasks prior to Execution
The first step in carrying out a space experiment is to apply for “Space
Experiment Solicitation.” Planning and designing the space experimentconstitute the necessary preparatory tasks in the application process.

1-4-1 Announcement of Opportunity, Review, and Selection
The sequence is: AO issue, proposal submittal, science evaluation, technicalevaluation, program evaluation, and candidate selection (Fig. 1-4-1).

Announcement ofResearch
Solictitation

Research
Proposal

Selection of
Candidates

Science
Review

Technical
Review

Programmatic
Review

Fig. 1-4-1 Review Process from Solicitation to Selection

101) Announcement of Research Solicitation
Letters of announcement are sent to major universities and research
institutions. The information is also posted on the homepages of JAXA, JSF, andassociated academic or professional organizations. The solicitation is open for
two months.
2) Science Review
The science review is conducted by setting up a science panel organized andmanaged by the responsible agency. Two or more specialists are assigned tolook at the proposal document and return their evaluation results to the sciencepanel. The science panel employs a grading system similar to that used incollege and assigns a grade of A to D to each proposal. .
The science evaluation criteria are listed in Table 1-4-1.
Table 1-4-1

Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Significance・ Does the study address an important problem?
If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or technology beenhanced?
・ What will be the effect of the study on the concepts, methods, or products that drive thisfield of science?

Approach・ Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed,
coherently integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project?
・ Is the proposed approach likely to yield the desired results?
・ Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

Originality and ・ Are the aims original and innovative?
・ Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods?
Innovation
・ Does the project challenge existing paradigms, or develop new methodologies ortechnologies?
Capability of
Execution

・ Is the investigator appropriately trained and well-suited to carry out this work?
・ Is the proposed work appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator andany co-investigators?
・ Is the evidence of the investigators’ productivity satisfactory?
・ Does the scientific environment in which the work will be performed contribute to theprobability of success?
・ Does the proposed experiment take advantage of unique features of the scientificenvironment or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
・ Does evidence of institutional support exist?

3) Technical Review
Proposals that pass the science review are evaluated in a technical review.
The practical system of evaluation looks similar to that of the science review. A
professional panel consists of members of a primarily engineering background(e.g., expertise in operation, hardware development, technology development,
and multiple coordination).
The evaluation is conducted mechanically, and points are deducted for items
that infringe on the contour of restrictions, restraints, and constraints. The
number of points deducted is judged by the criticality of the situation. If thededucted points exceed a certain level, the proposal is rejected.
4) Program Review
Proposals that pass the science review and the technical review undergo a11

program review. The responsible agency decides which flight experiment
proposal is to be selected. Primary evaluation points may be clarified at the timeof the AO (e.g., strategic emphasis on a certain research area or desirable
topics). In addition, evaluation depends on the budget of the flight program (i.e.,
how many science themes they can afford to fly).
5) Selection of Candidates
Through the above processes, some space experiment themes (i.e. potentiallyflyable themes) are selected as candidates.

1-4-2 Tasks after Candidate Selection
The tasks from definition and development phases to post-flight analysis span
three to four years. These tasks include documentation of ground preparationand flight operation, preparatory experiments on the ground to meet safety
requirements, post-flight analysis, and report submittal (Fig. 1-4-2).
Preparation involves two phases, the definition phase and the development
phase. The two phases are slightly different in nature: the former is oriented toscience content, and the latter to actual flight preparation tasks.
▽Selection As A
Candidate▽Re-evaluation(Baselining)▽Launch▽Recovery

Flight Experimant

Post Flight
Activities▽Final Selection
Definition Phase
Elaboration ofExperiment Plan

Development
Phase
Preparation of
Flight Experimant

1~2 years

1~2 years

9Refinement of experimentrequirements

9Examination/Revision ofexperiment plan

9Examination of experimentapparatuses

9Development of experimentapparatus/tools

9Model development/Testingof Elements

9Compatibility validation test

▽Post
FlightReview

About 1 year

About 1 year

9Examination of experiment
operation requirement

9Compilation of theexperiment operation
requirements document

9Examination of Safety

9Evaluation of toxicity

9Baselining of theexperiment plan document

9Flight/Launch site safety
review

Ground Control
Experiment90~120 days
9Examination/Revision ofexperiment plan
9Operational tasks

9Analysis
9Compilation of experimentresults

9Preparation of experiment
operation
9Finalizing the experimentplan document
9Training of flight crew

Fig. 1-4-2 Work Flow After Being Selected As A Candidate

1-4-3 Tasks of Proposers
Various tasks (Fig.1-4-2) such as elaboration of planning, preparation of flight
experiments, flight operation, and post-flight analysis are shared by scientists
and support workers. Work-sharing and joint tasks are summarized in Table
1-4-3. This table presents only general terms; each proposer should construct a12specific table so that everyone involved in the experiment execution has acommon understanding as to what each person’s assignment is.
Table 1-4-3 Definition and Development Phase Tasks (Life Science)
Phases or Action
Decision ofExperimentContents

Definition Phase

Establishmentof precise
experimentplan for flight

Re-evaluation

Verification of
Installability/Compatibility

Development Phase

Final selection

Preparation of
GroundreferenceexperimentPre-flight
preparation

FlightExperiment
Post-Flight
Activities

Flightexperimentexecution
Groundreferenceexperiment
Post-Flightactivities

Investigators’ Tasks
Clarification of A/Is posed
through the selection process
Identification of validation
items and experiment condition
Establishment of the validation/verification processes
Re-evaluation or optimization ofexperiment conditions for flight
Trial manufacture ofsample breadboard model.
Validation of safety /maintainabilityof sample Material.
Participation in Re-evaluation
Review
Preparation of the statement note
to testify about the scientificbackgroundPreparation of sample material
Verification of sample compatibility
Re-evaluation of Experiment Plan
Document based uponcompatibility verification test

Joint Tasks
Examination ofexperimentapparatus/sample
suitability versus
experimentrequirements
Examination ofsample development
process, applicableapparatus or devices,
operational
requirements.
Drafting Experiment
Plan Document
Re-evaluation(Base-lining) Review

Support Workers’ Tasks
Provision of technical data andappropriate information

Revision ofExperiment Plan
Document,
Laboratory test
execution to verify
compatibility

Development of samples,
devices, and tools.
Verification of sample
compatibility including toxicity
examination
Flight/Launch Site Safety Review
Preparation of Operation
Requirement Document
Final scheduling of flight
experiment execution
Compilation of technical reportand presentation
Manufacture of samples

Provision of technical data andappropriate information

Compilation of Experiment Plan
Document (initial version)
Preparation of technicaldocuments

Compilation of the report on
scientific backgroundand its public announcement(presentation)
Preparation of sample material

Final Selection
Review

Preparation of sample materials
Mission-specific crew training
Preparation of mission-specificground support equipment

Finalizing
Experiment Plan
Document including
the contingency plan

Monitoring telemetry data at the
Operation Center or home office

Experiment Operation

Data Analysis

Ground reference
experiment execution

Provision of ground reference
experiment apparatus

Analysis and evaluation ofexperiment results
Presentation of achievements at
Flight Science Conference
Provision of flight data to Data
Archive Center (where all flightdata are accumulated in JAXA)

Analysis andevaluation ofexperiment resultsCompilation of themission report

Support of analysis andevaluation of experiment results
Host and manage the post-flightscience conference
Support of Data Archive Center
Host and manage the scienceevaluation board

Manufacture of samples
Compilation of Operation Plan
Document
Flight crew training
Compilation of Operation Manual
Launch and recovery of samples
Acquisition of experiment data

Compatibility verification test: The test to demonstrate the function and performance of the apparatus under operation
with predetermined experimental conditions and control parameters, using the real live specimen as planned.

13

Table 1-4-3 includes one column to describe the support group. However, thesupport group members may be engineers from an engineering company or
hardware developing company, or a JAXA manager or other personnel.
Regardless of status or position, all involved in the program are team members
sharing the same objectives and mission. The total effort assembling all thetasks listed in Table 1-4-3 is termed “Experiment Integration.”

1-4-4 Tasks of Support workers
Support workers provide engineering assistance, such as collecting
information on hardware and its operation, as well as overall managerial andclerical matters associated with planning and execution.

1-4-5 Experiment Instruments
1) Experiment Instruments and Apparatus to be Utilized on the ISS
Experiment instruments and apparatus on board the ISS are composed of
the Multi-user Experiment Facility (MEF) and the Biological Experiment Unit
(BEU). The MEF is manufactured and provided by JAXA (or other partner
agency). The BEU does not contain live biological samples but containers orcanisters to house bio-samples internally. It is equipped with biosensors andassociated electronics. This BEU is usually installed in the MEF, but sometimes
it is a complex independent experiment facility.
The MEF specifications are fixed, and nobody can change them. In contrast,
the BEU can be employed in various applications as long as it can be used while
mounted in the MEF. It may generally be designed or modified as the proposer
wishes.
Examples of MEFs and BEUs developed thus far by JAXA may befound at http://iss.sfo.jaxa.jp/kibo/kobomefc/
2) How Space Experiment Instruments and Apparatuses Are Developed
Usually, the space agency provides the experiment instruments andapparatuses, and the AO clearly indicates the types of apparatuses that will beavailable in the specified period on orbit. It is possible for scientists to develop
and bring apparatus to the space agency; but in that case, development must be
carried out in accordance with the pre-set regulated procedure of the space
agency.
When instruments or apparatuses are under development, the scientists must
follow the specific requirements on hardware performance, hopefully in terms ofspecified digits.
No matter who develops the hardware, the routinely adopted procedure is tofollow the specifications of the providers of the satellites or launchers. The
process starts with the Conceptual Design, then goes to the Preliminary Design,and finally arrives at the Critical Design. The following section explains whatneeds to be done throughout the three phases in sequence, so that scientists
may understand how to develop their own specific hardware. The series ofactivities culminates with the design review that takes place at the end of eachphase. A review board conducts an evaluation and decides whether or not thedevelopment tasks may proceed to the next stage.

14

Conceptual Design
The breadboard model (BBM) for the experiment instrument or apparatus,
plus necessary peripherals, is developed and examined in this phase. It isessential to validate the proposed hypothesis, or at least part of hypothesis, bylaboratory experiments or numerical simulations. The scientists and support
group, including the hardware manufacturer, must come to a unanimousconclusion as to the type of hardware to be developed in terms of specific digits.
Preliminary Design
In the Preliminary Design phase, the engineering model (EM) is manufactured
and its performance is examined and/or verified in the space-simulated
environment of the ground laboratory. The purpose of this activity is to confirm
that the instrument will work in space as expected.
Critical Design
The Critical Design phase is the final stage, which involves checking
everything with the manufacturing proto flight model (PFM) and the flight model(FM). The PFM and the FM are identical, except for the fact that the PFM is forground use and the FM is for flight. Recently, the PFM has rarely been
manufactured due to budget concerns. Also, the reliability of space hardware
has improved, so that it is not so crucial to look at exactly the same model on the
ground to analyze problems on orbit, when malfunctions occur on the FM (while
flying on orbit). Ways to fix the problem exist without using a PFM.
Design Reviews
The Design Review process, a unique practice in the space community atlarge, was introduced in the era of the Apollo Program by NASA. Usually, a
review board is organized at conceptual, preliminary and critical design phases.
This board typically consists of experts on various technical problems,engineers/senior members of hardware manufacturing companies, mission
coordination contractors, and space agency personnel and managers, to nameonly a few.
The engineers, scientists, and others working on the project present theirdesign before the review board. A Q and A session follows, along with general
discussions. The review board then summarizes the reports/activities and comesto a conclusion. The meeting, which is called a workshop or forum, is more like ahearing than a presentation, and it allows for little variation as to how to organize
this type of conference.
The Design Review is intended to improve the overall reliability of the project.
It is unlikely that the people in charge of implementing and developing the
project will give incorrect or false information to the review board. They are more
prone to present problems, issues, and concerns. Thus, the review board
meeting provides a great opportunity to engage the collective wisdom of
everyone involved, resulting in higher reliability of the mission.

1-4-6 Preparing the Space Experiment Planning Document
Usually the scientists (proposers), engineers, and managers from all15

organizations involved work jointly on the Space Experiment Plan, which is neverrequired in ground research. This document serves as a manifestation of theagreement of all people involved.
1) Framework of the document
As delineated many times, here the keywords are once again summarized.
①Purpose/Objective of the research, significance of experiment②Working hypothesis③Necessity or grounds for carrying out the experiment in space④ Experiment facility, instrument or apparatus, biological experiment unit,
device and tools, bio-samples or animals to be used, reagents⑤Experiment operational procedures, monitoring, measurement of bio-samples
Scrapping/transportation/storage plan
⑥Anticipated results or achievements, predominant effect on science or society2) The composition of the document
The table of contents includes the following.
1)
2)
2-1
2-2
2-3

2-4
2-5
3)
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
4)
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-5

Principal Investigator and team, affiliations of team members and tasks
Experiment
Title of the Experiment
Objective of the Experiment
Description of the Experiment
The description includes the working hypothesis and its grounds,
originality and new knowledge to be acquired in the experiment,
references to past research related to the experiment, reasons forcoming up with the experiment, overall scientific background of theexperiment, anticipated influence or propagating nature expected fromthe results of the experiment, and the necessity of carrying out theexperiment on board the ISS-JEM.
Description of on-orbit experiment Instruments, specimens, tools,
operational steps
Special requirements for operation, if any
Instruments, Apparatuses, Specimens, subjects, tools, and devices
Instruments and Apparatuses
Specimens
Specimen holder or container
Devices or tools prepared by the proposer
Transportation and storage of specimens and/or reagents
Experiment Procedures
Operational steps
Measuring and observation techniques
Commanding uplink
Requirements of the crew

16

5)
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
6)
6-1
6-2
6-3

Ground Reference Experiment
Facilities, instruments or apparatus, location
Date, month, year
Operational procedures
Experiment conditions
Post-Flight Analysis
Monitoring and observation items
Data analysis and output
Expected results and their extension

17

Appendix 1 Current Topics on Biomedical Research andHuman Space Technology Development
1. Past Circumstances and Present Status
Since the first space flight by Gagarin in 1959, 500 human beings have
traveled in space, and those who have stayed in space more than one month
now number 100. However, the space environment remains severe for humans
and still raises many medical issues and problems.
Space medical research has two interrelated and inseparable facets, thehealth care of the flight crew and scientific medical investigation.
JAXA has eight commissioned astronauts and has participated in eight spaceflights. However, all missions have been short-term, and Japan has virtually no
experience with long-term stays in space. Thus, JAXA is well behind other ISS
partners in terms of medical research and development of medical devices, andour space activities thus far have been limited. We have flown a high-definition
camera for medical examination on orbit and have obtained medical data when aJapanese astronaut flew. As part of our ground research, we have conducted
bed-rest experiments, isolation experiments, and studies with an artificial gravity
generator for humans.
Long-duration stays on board the ISS began in 2000. As of September 2007,
the 15th increment (called expedition #15) crew is staying on the ISS. Astronauts
from US, Russia, and Europe have already participated in a long-duration stay.
These three partners are forerunners in medical research and the developmentof medical devices. Currently, the crew members on board the ISS are utilizing
instruments and devices for medical treatment, experiment facilities for medical
research, and physical training devices developed by the above-mentioned
partners. However, such medical instruments and devices are not adequate forreal treatment. Moreover, some such facilities are becoming aged and obsolete.
The medical research conducted on board the ISS up to present issummarized sequentially in the table of ISS Space Medicine Experiments.

18

19

ISS Space Medicine Experiments

2. Topics in space medicine researcha. JAXA medical research plan
The JAXA Space Biomedical Research Office is systematically carrying out
research activities in an effort to mitigate the risks of a long-duration stay inspace for Japanese astronauts. The risks are categorized into five sub-risks:physiological countermeasures, psychological support, cosmic radiation
management, on-orbit medical treatment system, and inner vehicle environment.
Assessment and analysis have been performed for those sub-risks, and we haveextracted several important subjects with high priority to be pursued from 2005 to
2009. The subjects under study are summarized in Table “Current Status of
JAXA Clinical Space Medicine Research.”

To conduct such research, JAXA is calling for collaboration with scientists or
researchers outside JAXA, and is planning to out-source part of the research
work to appropriate organizations. The scheme and schedule of these activities
will be reviewed periodically, and feedback will be made accordingly.

b. Obstacles presented by experiments using human subjects
Experiments requiring human subjects confront many constraints. Like
experiments without human subjects, they include restrictions on weight, volume,and power requirements of the facility as well as crew time. It is far from realistic
to perform experiments with highly invasive requirements. The medical data of
the crew during the launch period and immediately after the return are valuable,
but few examinations have been made at those times because of the many tasks
assigned to the crew. Consequently, it is difficult to collect significant data or
samples for research use at those times. Medical data for medical operations
are collected periodically prior to launch, during flight, and post-flight formonitoring the health status of the crew.
Research studies requiring crew subjects undergo reviews regarding theirsafety and scientific significance (merits). Thus, the few experiments that are
selected are very limited. The process of pharmaceutical validation/verificationfrom clinical trials (i.e. ground validation) is similar to its real clinical application(i.e. space experiment). For example, research proposals for establishing20physiological countermeasures are validated by bed-rest experiments on the
ground, simulating weightlessness in space, prior to flight experiments. Only
hardware and software verified on the ground are brought to space. Proposals
must also be evaluated from the ethical perspective. If subjects are crew
members, the investigator must not only obtain consent from the crew to carryout the experiment, but also inform crew members of the experiment results at avery early stage. Since astronauts tend to dislike the idea of their data being
assessed, many considerations are necessary to foresee probableconsequences. Investigators should be aware that they may spend much timeand effort, even if their requirement is simply to sample one drop of blood in a
simple procedure, to obtain non-invasive physiological data, or to provide
medical data obtained in the past.

3. Future plan
The progress of innovation in medical treatment devices is remarkable on the
ground. These devices are becoming smaller and more automated with higher
performance on a daily basis. Furthermore, telemedicine has developed
dramatically. JAXA intends to pursue the possibility of developing methods forcollecting medical data with unrestraining/wireless and noninvasive means, thus
resolving many of the constraints associated with flight experiments andcontributing to the development of space medicine.
JEM launch and assembly to the ISS is currently scheduled to start at the
beginning of 2008, and Japanese astronauts will eventually participate inlong-duration stays on board the ISS. JAXA long-range vision statements include
human space flight activity and exploration on the Moon’s surface. To realize
future missions, space medicine research activities must be promoted andemphasized.

21

Appendix 2

Information Sources

Although the history of space biology experiments is short compared to thoseof other categories in life and biological research areas, many references andpublications on the subject are sufficient to initiate the conceptual study of thespace experiment. Neglecting to analyze past experiments will result in “there-invention of the wheel.”
Judging from the fact that publications or journals dealing with the spaceexperiments are not easily purchased or obtained, it is sometimes preferable to
make direct contact with the scientists who were involved in past spaceexperiments.
All reports published in academic journals are included in Medline. Also, theEnglish abstract of Japanese publications can be retrieved. With retrieval
through Medline, it is useful to use keywords like gravity, microgravity, space,flight, and NASA, in addition to professional/disciplinary terms, and then narrow
down the topic to what is needed. Information on space experiments may also
be retrieved from the following websites.
Space Experiment Information Sites (Life Sciences)
JAXA
International Space Environment
http://idb.exst.jaxa.jp/
Utilization Research DatabaseNASA
Microgravity Research Database

http://edmp.grc.nasa.gov/idea_search.cfm

ISS Research Information Sites

http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/

Life Science Database

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/

ISS Medical Projects

http://hrf.jsc.nasa.gov/

ESA
Space Experiment Database

http://spaceflight.esa.int/eea/

Academic Journals
Japanese Society for Biological
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/bss/-char/ja/
Sciences in Space, Journal
American Society of Gravitational
http://asgsb.indstate.edu/publications.html
Space Biology, Journal

22

Part II: Materials Science
2-1 Introductory Remarks
The first microgravity experiment by a Japanese researcher was conductedduring the flight of the Apollo-Soyuz in 1973. Since that time, more than 120
experiments in the materials science field have been conducted through suchflight programs as FMPT, IML-1 & 2, SFU, MSL-1, and TR-1 Sounding Rockets.
Lessons have been learned from the successes and failures of theseexperiments. They are summarized here and will hopefully serve as valuableguidance for experiment planning and performance of experiment facilities, toenable technologies and whatever else is deemed necessary from conceptual
study to actual flight.
Unlike research on the ground, space experiments face severe constraints
regarding repetition and budget. Therefore, ground preparation must be carriedout perfectly, so that the possibility of space experiment failure is close to zero.
This level of perfection can be achieved only by making use of other scientists’experience and knowledge.
Unfortunately, Japanese scientists have not enjoyed flight opportunities in the
recent past because of ISS construction delays. The transmission of theexperience and lessons learned to the newcomers is challenging. The JEM
module is to be attached to the ISS next year (in 2008). According to the current
schedule, the ISS-JEM will be fully operational very soon, and we will see theactual experiment execution shortly. This text is intended for mission operators,
scientists of many disciplines, engineers, and agency personnel and managers,
so that they can remain on track to achieve success by applying the information
provided.

2-2 Roadmap to Space Experiments
This section primarily targets scientists who are writing space experiment
proposals.

2-2-1 Task Flow from Proposal to Execution
As a space agency, JAXA encourages scientists and nurtures potential spaceexperiment themes through the following three schemes.
1) Application for the ground research award by JAXA-JSF
2) Participation in science working group (SWG) activity in the specificdiscipline of the scientist/engineer. Ninety SWGs (more than 900 members)
are currently actively discussing potential science experiments on board the
ISS-JEM.
3) Application for the Space Partnership Program.
Participants in the Space Open Laboratory Program are eligible to apply
for this award.
In addition to the above public award schemes, HASTIC, an NPO in
Hokkaido, provides flight opportunities for sounding rockets on acommercial basis.
Once a proposal is accepted as a flight experiment candidate, the candidate

23

undergoes a definition phase study and a development phase study spanning
two to five years, depending on the progress of the necessary tasks. The
definition phase study involves precise experiment planning, while thedevelopment phase study involves preparing the flight experiment operation.
During the second study, a final decision is made regarding which candidates
will actually fly. The flight experiment itself takes 90 to 120 days, and thepost-flight analysis should be completed within one year after the flight samples(specimens) are returned to the scientists. The work flow is illustrated in Fig.
2-1-1 Work Flow From Being Selected As A Candidate To Post Flight Tasks.
▽Selection As A
Candidate▽Re-evaluation(Baselining)▽Launch▽Recovery

Flight Experiment

Post Flight
Activities▽Final Selection
Definition Phase
Elaboration ofExperiment Plan

Development
Phase
Preparation of
Flight Experiment

1~2 years

1~2 years▽Post
FlightReview

About 1 year

About 1 year
Refinement of experimentrequirements
Examination of specimen’s
feasibility
Model development/Testingof Elements
Examination of experiment
operation requirement
Examination of Safety
Baselining of theexperiment plan document

Examination/Revision ofexperiment plan
Development of specimen’sEM
Compatibility validation
test
Compilation of theexperiment operation
requirements document
Evaluation of toxicity
Flight/Launch site safety
review
Design and Manufacture of
specimen’s FM
Preparation of experiment
operation
Finalizing the experimentplan document
Training of flight crew
Practice of operational
exercise

Ground Control
Experiment90~120 days
Examination/Revision ofexperiment plan
Operational tasks

Analysis
Compilation of experimentresults

Fig. 2-1-1 Work Flow From Being Selected As A CandidateTo Post Flight Tasks

Experiment Requirements stipulate the number of specimen blocks, theamount of specimen bare material, the storage condition, and the concrete
process to decide the experiment parameters. These requirements are
summarized in the Experiment Planning Document.
Operation Requirements stipulate the precise operational procedures:transporting specimen blocks and sample materials to the launch site, mounting
these items on the space transportation system, launching them to the ISS andinstalling them there, and recovering them to the ground. In the case of groundresearch, the scientists themselves usually become the operators, and it is notnecessary to define the experiment requirements and operation requirements forreal execution. In the case of flight experiments, the entire work package isdivided into small chunks of work for personnel and workers. Thus, it is essential

24that all the people involved in the project share the same level of understanding
about the experiment and operation requirements and fulfill their tasks to attainthe common goal.

2-2-2 Tasks of Proposers
When completing the space experiment proposal forms, the proposer comesup with the basic concept of a working hypothesis for the space experiment,
building the validation/verification model, validation/verification items, andvalidation/verification of tuning parameters. Still incomplete are the preparationand trial manufacture of specimen block and specimen materials, theperformance validation test, the list of experiment parameters, and the dataacquisition test for safety verification on board the ISS. These tasks must be
done eventually through the definition and development phases. They are not
the responsibility of the proposer alone; rather, they are shared by all the people
involved. Task distribution is presented in Table 2-2-1 Tasks of Definition andDevelopment Phases. The totality of these tasks is called Experiment Integration
Work.

25

Tab.2-2-1 Tasks of Definition and Development Phases (Materials Science)
Investigators’ Tasks

Joint Tasks

Support Workers’ Tasks

Decision ofExperimentContents

Identification of validation items,
hypothesis/validation models, andexperiment parameters
Establishment of the validation/verification processes
Clarification of effectiveness of
microgravity (utilization ofdroptube/airplane experiments,
acquisition of physical properties,
numerical simulation)
Validation of safety /maintainabilityof sample material
Re-evaluation/Optimization ofexperiment parameters for flight
Trial manufacture of specimen’s
breadboard model ,Examination ofcorrespondence
between experimentapparatus/samples
versus experimentrequirements

Provision of the technical data
and appropriate
information

Examination of thefeasibility of specimen
development andoperational
requirements.
Drafting Experiment
Plan Document
Re-evaluation(Baselining)Review

Provision of the technical data
and appropriate information

Development of specimen,
devices and tools
Verification of specimen’s
compatibility, including toxicity
examination
Flight/Launch Site Safety
Review
Preparation of Operation
Requirement Document
Final scheduling of flight
experiment execution
Compilation of Technical reportand presentation
Manufacture of specimens

Definition Phase

Phases/Action

Establishmentof precise
experimentplan for flight

Development Phase
FlightExperimentRe-evaluation(Baselining)
Selection of
FlightExperiment
Theme
Verification of
Installability/Compatibility

Participation in Re-evaluation
Review
Preparation of the statement toestablish scientific backgroundPreparation/Compounding ofsample material (bare specimen)
Verification of specimen’sCompatibility
Re-evaluation of Experiment Plan
Document based upon compatibility
verification test

Revision ofExperiment Plan
Document
Laboratory test
execution to verify
compatibility

Final selection

Compilation of the report on
scientific backgroundand its public announcement(presentation)
Preparation/Compounding ofsample material (bare specimen)

Final Selection
Review

Preparation/Compounding ofsample materials
Mission-specific crew training
Preparation of mission-specificground support equipment

Finalizing Experiment
Plan Document,
includingthe contingency plan

Monitoring telemetry data at the
Operation Center or home office

Experiment Operation

Data Analysis

Ground reference
experiment execution

Preparation of
GroundreferenceexperimentPre-flight
preparation

Flightexperimentexecution
Groundreferenceexperiment
Post-Flightactivities

Compilation of Experiment Plan
Document (initial version)
Preparation of technicaldocuments

Manufacture of specimens
Compilation of Operation Plan
Document
Flight crew training
Compilation of Operation
ManualLaunch and Recovery of
specimens
Acquisition of experiment data
Provision of ground reference
experiment apparatus

Post-Flight
Activities

Analysis and evaluation of
Analysis andSupport of analysis andexperiment result
evaluation ofevaluation of experiment results
Presentation of achievements at
experiment results
Host and manage the post-flight
Flight Science Conference
Compilation of thescience conference
Submission of the results tomission report
Support of Data Archive Center
International conferences andHost and manage the science
academic journals
evaluation board
Provision of flight data to Data
Archive Center (where all the flightdata are accumulated in JAXA)
Bare specimen (sample): The part that is to be installed in the container or the cartridge. This portion is to beprepared by the scientist, or principal investigator.
Compatibility verification test: The test to demonstrate the function and performance of the apparatus underoperation with predetermined experiment conditions and control parameters, using the real specimen as planned.

26

2-2-3 Tasks of Support Workers
As is seen in the process of space experiment implementation tasks
presented in Table 2-2-1, some tasks (e.g. evaluating the specimen’s
adaptability to the flight hardware and flight operation, and characterization ofphysical material properties by various tests to satisfy safety requirements onboard the SS/JEM) may not be categorized as part of research for the scientists.
Thus, technical assistance by support workers from space agencies and contract
companies comes into play to alleviate the burden on the scientist (proposer)
and to carry out the total flight mission more effectively.
For further clarification of the tasks of support workers, two block charts arepresented in Figs. 2-2-1 and 2-2-2. Support workers include many players, notone company or one organization. They may be space agencies, engineering/coordination support companies, or hardware developers (manufacturers). This
fact does not matter to the scientists, but it is advisable to know how many
players will be involved. Figure 2-2-1 reveals the task distribution during thedefinition phase, for the purpose of refining the experimentation plan. Figure
2-2-2 indicates the task distribution during the development phase, for the
purpose of preparing the flight experiment. The breakdown of these structures indiagrams is called “Experiment Integration.”
The support workers work on optimization of a series of tasks, and hand theresult to the flight operator. Therefore, they need to understand the contents ofthe experiment very well, cooperate with the scientists to overcome various
obstacles, and propose a concrete experiment plan following the requirements ofthe scientists as much as possible.

27

Specimen Development
Manufacturer

Principal Investigator/Coorperative
Investigators

Development of Technology
Elements

Experiment Plan Document Preparation
Preliminary Test and Analysis
Design of Bare Specimen
Examination of Specimen’s Feasibility(Design of Specimen, Trial Manufactureof Elements and Test)
Acquisition of Physical Properties

Engineering
Coordination Support
Contractor

Experiment Plan
Coordination Support
Contractor

JAXA

Examination of specimen’s
Feasibility

Integration and Coordination

Program Control

Support of Experiment Plan
Document Preparation

Examination of ExperimentOperation Requirements
Examination of Safety
Requirements

Contract Works
Work Sharing

Fig. 2-2-1 Executive Organizations of Experiment Plan Integration in Definition Phase

Principal Investigator/Coorperative
Investigators

JAXA
Program Control

Review of Experiment Requirements

Development & Test of Specimen

Manufacture of Specimens for Test andFlightSupportors Group Management

Training of Flight Crew
Practice of Ground Control Operation by
Cadre

Engineering
Coordination Support
Contractor
Specimens Development
SupportSetting Fright Parameters

Specimen
Development
Manufacturer
Manufacture of Specimen’s EM
Design of Speciment’s FM

Compatibility Verification Test

Experiment Plan
Coordination Support
Contractor
Experiment Plan Preperation
SupportAssisting Researches ofInvestigator

Preparation of Operation
Requirement Document
Management of Safety Review
Contract Works
Work Sharing

Fig. 2-2-2 Executive Organizations of Experiment Plan Integration in Development Phase28

2-2-4 Reminders(1) The experiment apparatus should be designed to meet safety requirements
consisting of several tiers. The specific requirement is set depending on thespecific risk. Scientists and engineers should be vigilant in rigorously
predicting the level of risk, and developing ways to counter anticipated risks.
(2) Parameters for real flight experiments should be finalized during the earlier
development phase of flight preparation. Thus, ground experiments should be
carried out as planned, and flight experiment conditions should be fixed by theend of the definition phase. The ground experiment may be arranged,
depending on the progress of the hardware development.
(3) Usually the specifications of the hardware (i.e., experiment apparatus) aredetermined beforehand, since the requirements for installing instruments on
the ISS-JEM do not allow many choices of design. Thus, it is difficult tochange the specifications, and the experimental plan must be adjustable topreset specifications. In addition, the number and type of data to be acquired,
the acquisition processes, and the downlink or data media recovery should be
optimized within the various constraints of flight operation.
(4) The schedule for preparation tasks, especially those spanning a few fiscal
years, does not fit the normal sequence of researchers’ monthly and annual
rhythm in terms of the budget/schooling cycle. Thus, caution must be
exercised to ensure that the biorhythm is not excessively disturbed by the
space business in which the researcher becomes involved.

2-2-5 Preparing the Space Experiment Planning Document
1) Purpose of the Experiment Planning Document
It is required for all people involved (e.g. scientists, operators, engineering
support personnel, and hardware manufacturers) to prepare the Experiment
Planning Document and submit it to the responsible flight program office. Thus,
preparation of this document calls for participation and cooperation of everyone
involved. Presumably, this type of document may not be familiar to mostscientists and proposers.
Such a document is never requested or compiled for ground research, and itfeatures the unique aspects of space experiment research. All the necessary
information, data, and articles/comments are to be included in this document.
The space agency and the participating scientists and engineers involved in
hardware manufacture and operation must agree on the contents of thisdocument.
This Experiment Planning Document is the baseline document for all activities
associated with the space experiment project, manifesting the unanimous
consensus of all people working for the project.

292) Composition of the Experiment Planning Document
The contents list is as follows.
1) User Group (Organization)
Principal Investigator, Co-Investigators (names, positions, affiliations,sharing tasks)
2) Experiment Outline
2-1 Title of the experiment theme
2-2 Objectives of the experiment
2-3 General background
This section concretely describes the working hypothesis for setting
the research objective/target, the rationale for creating the hypothesis(e.g. past experiments or observational facts), information on the
research related to the proposal, the originality of the anticipated resultof the proposed research, the impact on science and engineering atlarge, and the necessity for long-duration microgravity on board theISS.
2-4 Outline of the experiment on orbit
2-5 Special comments on the experiment on orbit, if any3) Experiment Apparatus, Tools, Devices, Specimens
3-1 Experiment Apparatus
3-2 Specimens
3-3 Specimen Block (often called Cartridge)
The specimen block, or cartridge, consists of the core specimen(bare sample material), ampoule, and canister or outside container of
the ampoule in which the core specimen is charged. This section
primarily presents the design chart or figure indicating the generallayout and the operational functions of parts and devices.
3-4 Devices and Tools prepared by the Proposers.
3-5 Transportation/Storage Requirements of Specimens/Reagents4) Experiment Processes
4-1 Sequence of operations
4-2 Sequence of operational conditions (such as temperature profile)
4-3 Measurement and observation methods
4-4 Command uplink
4-5 Requirements of the crew5) Preparatory Ground Test with comparable flight model
5-1 Primary facility, instruments, and location
5-2 Schedule
5-3 Operation
5-4 Conditions
6) Post-Flight Analysis
6-1 Measurement and Observation Items
6-2 Data Analysis and Information Acquired
6-3 Results Expected
6-4 Analysis for Further Scrutiny
6-5 Conclusion30

2-3 Technologies and Instruments for Space Experiments
Space experiment technologies and experiment facilities should be able toaccomplish the objectives of the experiment. Nevertheless, the spaceexperiment will face severe constraints in power, experiment time, size andvolume of the specimen block, and safety. In addition, it is necessary to pay
attention to space-environment-specific phenomena such as difficulty ofremoving bubbles, characteristic change of heat transfer, and manifestation of
Marangoni flow. A variety of problems will not yet be resolved by the time ofexperiment execution. This section is intended for experiment proposers, facility
developers, experiment support engineers, and others who are interested inspace experiments.

2-3-1 Technologies for Space Experiments(1) Accumulated space experiment technologies
First, space experiment technologies acquired through past spaceexperiments are overviewed. We hope that these technologies will be thoroughly
utilized and that new technologies will be created.
Some technological bases have been acquired and accumulated, thanks topast space experiments. Examples include evaluation of wettability, evaluation of
micro-g on fluid, bubble translation, telescience, capillary pumping, evaluation of
toxicity, numerical simulation, vibration control, in-situ observation, solution
stirring/handling, utilization of parts/devices for civilian use, long-duration storage,
and transportation of specimens. They are summarized in Table.2-3-1, with abrief description for each technical field.

31

Table 2-3-1

Space Experiment Technology Acquired Previously

Technology Field

Primary Contents

Wettability and reactivity between
the material and container

Measurement of Wettability/Reactivity, Countermeasure to/Suppressionof Reaction

Evaluation of Microgravity Effecton material processing

Characterization and Modeling of residual gravity, Countermeasure to
g-jitter

High-Temperature Processing

High-Temperature Heating,Temperature Measurement

Bubble Translation/Evacuation in
Fluid

Evacuation by applying the rotational magnetic field

Measurement and Control of
Marangoni Flow

Precise measurement of the flow, its control by surface temperature andoxygen partial pressure

Telescience Technology

Testbed experiment, Experimental architecture and technical evaluation,
Command signal transmission, Compensation of time-lag fromcommand to execution

Capillary Pumping

Application of thermal input or internal pressure gradient within the loop

Safety Measures andAccumulation of the Data

Double and triple containment, Evaporation pressure data archive of
toxic substances

Numerical Simulation of PhysicalPhenomena

Analytical software dealing with thermal convection/solidification
combined process and unstable interface growth process

Thermal Analysis Simulation

Crucible Interior Temperature distribution analysis, Thermal convection
analysis due to residual gravity,

Application

to

Space

Experiments,

Crystal growth analysis
Stirring/Mixing of Samples

Efficient/effective mixing under microgravity

Vibration Control

Active/Passive vibration control (isolation and damping)In-situ Observation

Two-wave interferometer,
high-speed camera

Solution HandlingTechnique to handle the solution/fluid under microgravity

High Reliability

Quality assurance and development management similar to those seenin the launcher/satellite programs

Experiment Integration

Optimization and refinement of experiment planning process among all
players: scientists, apparatus manufacturer, and agency personnel

Application of parts/devices forcivilian use

Digital VTR, Video camera

Long-Time Sample Storage ofSamples

Solution Growth (organic and inorganic), Fluid, Colloid

Transportation of Samples

Vibration environment control log, Temperature control log

32

Real-time

phase

shift

interferometer,(2) Uniqueness of space experiments
A unique aspect of the space experiment, the meagerness of all resources,
compels us to consider how to maximize the science. This is not a scientificquestion, but an engineering one to be resolved by engineers.
On the ground, the experimenter can operate the facility, adjusting its
performance as needed, and it is possible to repeat the experiment and analyze
the results statistically to improve their total accuracy. However, in the case of aspace experiment, operation by the crew or by the command from the ground
involves various constraints, and it is better to have automated instruments. With
the repetition of an experiment, operations that are easily accomplished on the
ground (e.g. rinsing the devices) must be examined thoroughly and correctly
prepared.
Countering many problems, the space experiment operation has establishedprocessing by experiment sequence. This concept implies clarification andquantification of the experiment process (i.e. determining the timing of theexecution of the operation and the type of handling). This exercise enables thescientists to reevaluate their experiments and to understand the subjects morethoroughly.
For example, in the electric furnace experiment in the MSL-1 mission, theexperiment was performed by monitoring, commanding, and changing theexperiment conditions and operational steps from the ground, leading to higher
operational accuracy. In addition, human-machine interface engineering was
adopted for the layout of instruments and their operation. This approach is
expected to nurture new technology widely applicable to the industry at large.
(3) Utilization of commercial products
Unlike commercial products on the ground, space systems have adopted very
special parts and devices for their components because of the severe
environmental requirements on orbit. However, some commercial parts anddevices have recently been applied to satellites or rockets. They work as
expected on orbit, if the mission duration is not long.
To satisfy the two requirements, top-level science accomplishment and cost
reduction, commercial digital video devices are being converted for space use
through their miniaturization, weight reduction, and increased resistance to thespace environment. The NASDA sounding rocket program TR-1A has alreadyadopted some commercial products.
In using commercial products, vibration resistance characteristics of print chips
and connections in electronics is crucial; thus, they can be utilized after vibration/
shock tolerance is raised/verified and mounted in spacecraft/rockets as standard.
(4) Safety measures
Safety measures of the manned systems imposed major impacts and burdens
both cost-wise and schedule-wise in the era of the FMPT (SL-J Mission). Since
that time, all the outgas data and spacecraft maximum allowable concentrations(SMAC) standards have been accumulated in JAXA and NASA open data archives:
http://matdb1n.tksc.nasda.go.jp/otuline j.html
http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/toxicology/33

(5) Refinement and Optimization of space experiment planning(Experiment Integration)
With ground research, an experiment can be carried out on a trial-and-error
basis; in contrast, the space experiment requiring excellent results with only one
trial on orbit necessitates a quite different approach. A higher degree of accuracy
and precision than that on the ground is obviously required.
For a higher probability of success, excessive requirements from the scientists
must be relaxed. For a higher degree of accuracy, the experiment theory must be
re-evaluated, or physical parameters must be measured once again.
Scientists, hardware developers/engineers, and operators (including thespace agency in charge of the flight program) must sketch the big picture orcontrol the total configuration of the experiment in terms of experiment
procedure preparation/quantification and theory verification by the minimum
amount of data. These three groups process joint tasks such as defining theexperiment conditions and design specifications (called Experiment Integration).
This total coordination is sometimes processed in accordance with theperformance tests of experiment facilities/instruments, and it requires tediousand time-consuming negotiation among three groups who have generally
different views even on the same subject. Arriving at a precise and unanimousconclusion within the limited time span is necessary for the success of theexperiment. In the earlier days of space experiments, many scientists contended
that higher priority was placed on technology rather than on science; but later,
discussions and mutual understanding among the three groups improved. A few
problems still remain, and knowledge accumulated in the past needs to betransferred to subsequent generations.

2-3-2 Instruments for Space Experiments
Due to many constraints on volume, weight, power consumption, reliability
and safety, vibration tolerance, and interface to spacecraft, it is unlikely or
impossible to install ground hardware on spacecraft.
To meet the requests of the majority of users, JAXA provides multi-user
facilities such as the Fluid Physics Experiment Facility (FPEF), the Solution and
Crystal Observation Facility (SCOF), the Protein Crystallization Research
Facility (PCRF), and the Gradient Heating Furnace (GHF). The Electrostatic
Levitation Furnace (ELF) and the Multipurpose Rack will be developed by thesecond phase of ISS-JEM utilization. Their specifications are available in the
JAXA brochure and on the following websites:
http://iss.sfo.jaxa.jp/kibo/kibomefc/index.html
http://idb.exst.jaxa.jp/
When the proposed experiment cannot be carried out by the multi-user facility
provided by the space agencies, it is necessary to design and build amission-specific facility. Usually, scientists are not able to build such a facility, sothey negotiate with the space agency as to how to develop the desired
hardware.
Since JAXA is now developing a general/multipurpose rack to house any
instrument or apparatus, it is becoming easier for the scientists to propose an
experiment-specific instrument/apparatus on board the ISS-JEM.

34

2-3-3 Development of Specimen Block
The term “specimen” has two meanings: the bare solid (seed material) madeof certain chemical elements, and the (usually) cylindrical seed material charged
in the ampoule or cell and finally set in the canister. This outside canisterinterfaces with the crucible, the innermost portion of the furnace to be utilized. In
the space community, the second meaning (i.e. seed material set in thecontainer) may generally be adopted and understood as such, unless otherwise
indicated.
In this text, however, for the sake of clarity we use terminology in a more
rigorous manner. Here, the term “specimen” refers to sample material or
specimen substance, not the specimen block or cartridge. We have alreadyadopted the terms “specimen block” and “cartridge” in Section 2-2-5. Sometimes
it is possible to mount the ampoule or cell charged by the sample substancedirectly on the crucible, skipping the application of an outside canister, whendouble or triple containment is not necessary for safety reasons.
The scientist’s role is to develop the seed material or experiment medium,and the specimen block. It is generally necessary to validate the technology toprepare the sample material and the technical feasibility of the container. Thus, itis necessary to build the engineering model (in some cases, up to the BBM) of
the specimen block, satisfying the experiment requirements and maximizing thescience. Adequate technology and information/data base should be transferredfrom the scientists to the manufacturer and operator, since the space agency
procures the FM of the specimen block, and the space agency or the hardware
developer can better handle flight safety. It is not easy for scientists to work onmodels not directly associated with science.
The scientist should try to help hardware developers and other support
workers understand how to approach the scientifically significant experiment. In
some cases, the scientists need to compromise their requirements of the size ofthe sample/specimen and the experiment conditions. If the support workers areadequately aware of the experiment contents, the constraints on the experiment
may be relaxed and the experiment procedures revised.

2-3-4 Summary
Information from past space experiments is summarized in the form of atechnical report, usually one report per experiment. This report is utilized in thefacility development for the STS and the ISS, and accumulated in various
databases. Nevertheless, the information (experiences or lessons learned) ismostly accumulated individually. Since an ISS-JEM project may last for a longtime and face a generation change of scientists and engineers, technology
transmission from the present to the future is critical for the space experiment tobe successful.

2-4 Experiences and Lessons Learned from Space Experiments
Experiences and lessons learned can hardly be described in a clear format.
Nevertheless, the major categories of collective wisdom are delineated in thefollowing section.

35

2-4-1 During Preparation
1) 95-5 Rule
A mission consists of 95% ground experiment and 5% space experiment.
This statement has two meanings. The first suggests carrying out as manyground experiments as possible because the repetition of the experiment on
orbit is severely restricted. Ground preparatory experiments involve the precise
determination of experiment parameters, and the validation and verification ofparameters by the facility FM.
The second meaning suggests scrutinizing the experiment, once again
questioning whether or not the planned experiment is worth executing on orbit.
For example, in the case of an experiment controlling convection, the convection
velocity on the ground can be suppressed to the level of microgravity 10-3 – 10-4g
by providing a liquid column of 1mm diameter. In validating the theory, if a large
diameter of the liquid (sample) column is not required, it is not necessary to try aspace experiment at all.
2) Determining precise experiment parameters
In a space experiment, repetition is not as possible as it is on the ground. The
repetition of ground experiments and the optimization of experiment conditions
are necessary to achieve success in the first trial on orbit. In addition, theexperiment conditions cannot be changed easily on orbit; thus, “the more groundexperiments the better.” Change requires agreement with the operator inadvance.
In the case of the FMPT crystal growth experiment, more than 100
experiments were carried out to determine the optimum conditions, such as theseeding condition to utilize the seed crystal. In-depth prior evaluation of theexperiment conditions enabled us to see success and yielded many insights,
such as the capability to preset the proper microgravity condition necessary forhomogeneous crystal growth.
3) Ground experiment by the trial model (BBM)
In the early stage of the design phase, it is necessary to build a BBM of the
facility, specimen block, and other components/devices, and to examine theperformance of each component as well as the instruments combined. The
higher the fidelity of those apparatus to the FM, the higher the accuracy andsignificance of the data. Since the ground test cannot substitute a 1g
environment for a μg environment, tests using aircraft or drop-tubes arerecommended to validate and confirm the design of the FM under μg.
4) Ground experiment by the flight model (FM)
Decisions regarding experiment parameters are based on the results of theground experiment of the proposers. Obtaining the expected results is not 100%
guaranteed when the preset parameters are applied to the FM. The slightdifference between the BBM or the EM and the FM causes a “difference” inscience. Ground models are manufactured without any operational constraints,
while the FM is designed considering various restrictions of facilities on board
the ISS-JEM. Thus, the ground test by the FM is necessary to obtain feedback36

on the FM design and to determine the precise parameters of on-orbit
experiments.
5) Test as a means to discover “the unexpected”
In the development stage of a cartridge, when the container of the specimenmaterial in which electric current was to be charged, the electric voltage did not
rise during the test. Engineers found that the sample material had leaked out of
the electrode, and supposedly made contact with the furnace. Thus, the electric
current passed the leaked material and went through the furnace structure (i.e. amalfunction occurred).
A countermeasure was taken to stop this type of malfunction. First, thestructure at the electrode was reinforced to reduce the possibility of leakage.
Next, the cartridge was insulated around the electrode (i.e. isolated from electric
current). Insulation prevented the passage of electricity to the apparatus, even if
leakage occurred. Finally, insulation was extended to all portions of the cartridge,
such as the mounting interface with the interior structure of the furnace.
This countermeasure was sufficient to make electric charge possible under
the possible leakage of sample material. In the actual flight, leakage did notoccur. Therefore, the preparatory action proved to be correct and adequate.
As this experience exemplifies, the ground test at the earlier stage of planningmay be a good opportunity to avoid an unexpected event on orbit. However, in
the actual development process of the facility, the performance of the facility isverified at the last moment after ample design validation is completed. It isdifficult to obtain feedback from the verification test to create a better design,
even if a problem does occur. To alleviate the associated risk, two approaches
are proposed: to proceed from BBM, EM, PFM, and FM; or to carry out athorough test from the BBM stage, when the EM and PFM are omitted.
6) Foundation of microgravity science
Microgravity science starts from designing the experiment hardware.
If water held in a beaker is heated in space, it will not stay in the container;
instead, it will float in the air and become a large spherical bubble. Conducting
an experiment that involves heating water in space requires coming up with acompletely different experiment facility, unlike most ground experiment facilities.
This is the starting point of microgravity science experiments.
It is necessary to exercise one’s imagination to design devices, whileconsidering the evidence revealed by short-time μ-g experiments by aircraft,drop-tubes, or sounding rockets, to ensure that the idea/concept will work under
microgravity.
Controlling a water bubble at a certain position in space first requires theconfirmation of the method, its effectiveness and reliability, based on preparatory
tests on the ground (e.g., aircraft, droptube, or sounding rocket).
Evidence data is necessary to ensure that the design of the hardware meets
safety standards and restrictions. Otherwise, rework would be imposed at thelast moment of the safety review, and the experiment contents might bedrastically degraded.
A ground reference experiment under 1g is sometimes possible, but at other37

times it is not possible, depending on the experiment facility on orbit. For
example, a large-diameter liquid column cannot be handled on the ground, but it
is possible in space. If reference experiments are impossible on the ground, aquite different approach is required. Finding an alternate approach is part of
microgravity science.
Originality in experimentation may lead to publication of the results in theacademic journal of the appropriate discipline. Writing a paper sometimes impels
the scientist to notice the lack of data or defects in the data, thus inspiring
another idea to develop. Such a situation is beneficial not only for the scientist
but also for the rest of the world. For example, in the days of the Apollo program,the savior of the Apollo 13 crew facing the accident was the trouble-shooting
software created by a Ph.D. student, which had accidentally been filed at theNASA office. This praiseworthy story tells more than a dramatic novel. We
propose a research system in Japan where all such Ph.D. theses are registered.
Microgravity science is abundant in research subjects and topics.
In summary, experiences that still need explanation include the following:①Merit and demerit of the cartridge where the heater is enclosed②Fidelity of the thermal model in the early stage of design③Check and review organization④Development of optimized mission-specific specimen block⑤Determination of the dimension of the specimen block, with anticipationthat the process will be supported by proper validation⑥Necessity of prior validation/verification of sample materials⑦Many development items on a new experiment⑧Configuration difference, even the slightest, that may lead to malfunction⑨Rejecting stereotypic thinking⑩Regarding the FM casually⑪Deeper understanding of necessity as a shortcut to problem solution.

2-4-2 Failure attributed to Lack of Experience
Despite hard work on ground preparation, an unimaginable situation may
occur in space, and failure may result. Some examples are described below.
1) Differences between flight (on orbit) and ground environments
Here, some practical examples of the differences between flight and groundenvironments will be described. In the liquid pillar (column) formation experiment,
the temperature difference between the upper and lower disks was 32.5K for the
ground experiment, but 46.6K for the microgravity experiment, even if the power
supply to the apparatus remained the same for both. Periodic oscillatory flow
during a 3sec period was observed on the ground, and non-periodic compoundflow associated with temperature variation with several periods was observed
under microgravity.
In the silicon solution experiment, the final temperature attained inside themolten silicon under microgravity flight conditions was 15 to 30 degrees higher
than it was on the ground. Consequently, the temperature of the flight sample
material was higher over all of the cartridge.
38

The following reasons for these phenomena were determined: suppression ofthermal convection, differences in thermal environment due to argon gas flow
variation, and heat imbalance (excessive input heat from the electric pump) due
to a smaller amount of SiO2 grown on the silicon surface and attached to theinterior quartz tube wall.
Clearly, the factors described above indicate the differences between 1g
environment and microgravity environment. They emphasize that anunderstanding of the phenomena in the idealistic sense could not be reflected in
the proper setting of experiment conditions.
2) Difficulty in removing air bubbles
Since it is difficult to remove air bubbles under microgravity, their suppression
is necessary. When dispersion alloys are made of powder material, gas bubbles
evolve out of the material when the material becomes molten. Even if theamount of gas is small, the gas bubbles become very large because of highvacuum and microgravity, and stay inside the solidified substance after it hascooled down. Moreover, disturbance by gas bubbles inside the molten materialcauses larger grain separation than that by the gravity effect. Thus, acountermeasure to suppress the generation of gas bubbles is necessary for
microgravity experiments.
At the time of the FMPT experiments, bubbles were suppressed by developing
handling technology of experiment sample materials at a high temperature andunder a vacuum, and procuring a pressurized high-temperature electric furnace.
In a TR-1A sounding rocket experiment, no pressurized high-temperatureelectric furnace was available; therefore, the sample material underwent atreatment of hydrogen/vacuum processing and high temperature, and the
addition of titanium. Most ground experiment tasks were carried out to makesure that no gas bubbles would appear. Consequently, solution and solidification
experiments of alloys and semiconductors in FMPT and TR-1A programs weresuccessful.
3) Dominance of Marangoni convection under microgravity
Once, the experiment results could not be analyzed because the effect ofMarangoni convection was dominant in a molten alloy dispersion experiment.
The reason for this problem was that the temperature profile became more
complex than on the ground, due to the apparent increase of mass transport
under microgravity. Possible methods to suppress Marangoni flow in space areto suppress the formation of free surfaces by pressurizing the molten substance,
to lessen the quasi-surface area by using a crucible with better wettability, and to
decrease the temperature differences among components of dispersing
materials in order to suppress the convection induced by the density gradient.
4) Residual gravity and gravity jitterOn the Space Shuttle and the ISS, gravity will not become zero, due to theexistence of residual gravity. In addition to static gravity, the noise (g-jitter) ofgravity consists of many frequencies. Thus, an experiment should not bedesigned assuming zero-gravity.

39

Failure in the earlier space experiments were mostly attributed to the fact thatscientists did not pay much attention to microgravity, and thus they did not obtain
the expected results.
5) Verifying hardware performance in microgravity
In the sounding rocket experiment, it was important to evaluate theperformance of the facilities under microgravity. Thus, experiments by droptube
and airplane were conducted to acquire the design data necessary to develop
the flight hardware and to determine the experiment plan.
6) Failure of liquid column formation
One failure was due to the oscillation of the extruding liquid column at theinitial phase of formation. This oscillation caused the column to contact part of
the harness protruding from the heating disk. Thus, the liquid escaped (leaked)
from the disk into the harness. This protruding portion of harness was notsupposed to be there. However, it was recognized not as a potential hindrance
to the experiment, but rather as a small shade when taking the infrared image
pictures, even when observed during the ground test. A precise analysis andevaluation of the accident revealed that the problem could be resolved byextending the length of the neck to the depth of the disk from the base, and arecommendation was made for developing ISS hardware. Nevertheless, theexperiment results produced new findings: because of the liquid leakage, theshape of the liquid column was not cylindrical but like a round saddle (i.e. thediameter of the column was largest at both disks and smaller at the center).
Viewing from the observation camera in the direction of the disk axis revealed aring-like halation around the center portion of the column. This halation moved
around with the surface vibration of the column, and analysis of the camera
image enabled us to quantify the surface vibration of the liquid column.
7) Movement of molten specimen in a quartz crucible
It was formerly considered that an object placed statically in the STS would not
move around in microgravity. This assumption was not correct. As an example, amolten sphere was observed floating around and hitting the wall of the quartz
crucible.
Some external force is needed to move the center of gravity of the molten
sphere. The question was what this force was and where it originated. We
examined the recorded g-jitter history, but no pulse of gravity had been recordedat that specific time. The answer to this question has not been obtained thus far.

2-4-3 Teamwork
1) Teamwork and group efforts for space experiments
A space experiment is a large project that requires cooperation among many
specialists and professionals, and expertise is necessary. For example, a crystal
growth experiment requires a theoretician, a specialist on numerical simulationof fluid dynamics, a specialist to measure physical properties, a specialist to
analyze and evaluate the quality of the crystal, and space experiment engineers.
Collaboration among those people is necessary.

402) Amalgamation of science and technology
The scientists should carry out as many ground experiments as they can,scrutinize the contents of the experiment, and prepare the Experiment Planning
Document so that the experiment operator and facility manufacturer canunderstand the contents in depth. Additionally, people on the operation side andhardware developers must carry out their assignments flexibly so as to achieve
the scientific objectives.
In determining experiment conditions, scientists must understand thecharacteristics of the hardware, and facility developers must understand theexperiment objectives. It is not a negotiation in which one side gives way toanother, but rather the creation of collective wisdom to achieve optimum
experiment conditions. The science by the scientists and technology by the
hardware developers then merge, leading to successful space experiments.
3) Coordination of operators, researchers, and hardware developers
The most important aspect in carrying out a space experiment is coordination
among scientists, space agency personnel, hardware developers, and technicalsupport workers. This coordination is intended to determine the proper
experiment conditions with previously prepared facilities under numerous
constraints, without degrading the scientific concept/objective. The continuationof coordination meetings with possible trial and error will bring about deep
mutual understanding and credibility. In the case of the sounding rocket
experiments, the Space Experiment Planning Document became increasingly
more substantial as the project proceeded.
4) Networking with multidisciplinary specialists
Every time a difficulty arises (e.g., a broken cell in the middle of an experiment,a cell that does not fit the size of the cartridge, an impossible electric chemicalmeasurement), it is necessary to find someone to fix the problem. No report may
exist to help the experimenter find the right person (engineer) at the right time forassistance. Technology is usually not written in a report or a textbook; instead, it
belongs to individuals. Thus, it is always advisable to maintain an association
with specialists of all disciplines.
5) Debate and discussion in advanceThe experiment coordination meeting of scientists and engineers of different
disciplines involves discussions about many proposed items until ample mutual
understanding is achieved; such a meeting is productive in that it brings out what
the scientists may not have noticed.
An example is application of 10g during rocket launch. If gravity segregation
occurs during the solidification process, it will not occur in thesolution-solidification process under microgravity. In contrast, if gravity
segregation occurs in the molten state, segregation is accelerated by theexcessive launch gravity of 10g and a significantly segregated sample might beacquired. In this case, the sample material is in a molten state prior to the launch.
As a result, we decided to carry out two experiments using two electric furnaces.
In one furnace, the sample material became molten prior to the launch. In the41

other furnace, the sample material became molten after reaching the
microgravity condition.

2-4-4 Importance of Numerical Simulation
Currently, it is possible to foresee what will happen in flight experiments,
thanks to available software and high-speed computers. For example, thebehavior of a fluid under microgravity can be predicted by simulation, to a certain
extent. Needless to say, ground experiments are important. However,experiments conducted on the ground cannot be used to determine theexperiment conditions in space.
It is helpful to consider the example of the FMPT experiment. In the crystal
growth experiment, the position where the seed material was supposed to
become molten was shifted 15mm along the higher-temperature portion of thesample in space. This discrepancy was due to the fact that convection was
suppressed under microgravity (i.e. heat transport was suppressed). While on
the ground, heat was obviously transmitted from the higher temperature portion
to the lower temperature portion because of natural convection.
Under microgravity, the transfer of heat took place primarily throughconduction. Understanding these results and conducting some preparatory
numerical simulations in advance enable predicting the location and interfacial
shape where the seed material will start to become molten.

2-4-5 Failure Attributed to Excessive Familiarization
1) Importance of not relying on past achievements
Sometimes the vector of the success gene disappears, and failure occurs. In
the sounding rocket experiments, success was apparent with the fluid
experiment forming the liquid column from flights 1 through 3, even though thediameter of the liquid seemed slightly smaller. However, when the diameter ofthe fluid column was increased for flights 4 and 6 with the heating disk made ofglass, the liquid column did not form successfully.
The earlier success caused us to be too confident in the design of a similar
facility later. It is necessary to be prepared to encounter difficulty and criticality
when designing facilities of different sizes, especially larger ones.
2) Difficulty of modifying hardware
As mentioned previously, the fluid physics facility flown on sounding rocket
flights 4 and 6 was a modified version of that flown on flights 1, 2, and 3. In
general, modification is easier than designing a new device. However,sometimes modification is carried out by a different team, not the original team
who developed the previous version. Thus, modification turns out to be moredifficult than new development. Past achievement and success do not enable us
to make changes freely unless we have adequate and proper reasons to change.
It is necessary to minimize change/addition/time/cost/labor. It must beemphasized that the engineers modifying the hardware have to be more
knowledgeable about their tasks than those designing new hardware.

423) The Importance of Having Someone In Charge
This section is a continuation of 1) and 2) above. The fluid physics facility
structure and the heating disk for the fluid column formation device of flight 6
were developed independently by different personnel (engineers). The heating
disk itself was verified by the aircraft experiment, and it was successful in flights
1, 2, and 3. Moreover, the problem on flight 4 was supposed to be fixed.
Therefore, no one doubted the proper flight operation and success of flight 6.
Everybody was prone to think that since it had been successful in the past, it
would work adequately, and individuals tended to think that they should look at
only what they themselves had modified. Consequently, no one was in charge at
the critical moment.
4) Compatibility of flight cell (container of the specimen) to specimen
At one time, the flight sample of colloid was charged in the flight cell at thelaunch site, and the anticipated crystal growth was supposed to be observed
right after the filling of the sample. However, it did not appear, and nodesalination reaction by the ion exchange resin was observed.
The reason was determined later: air bubbles blocked the resin mesh,inhibiting the desalination reaction, since the wettability between the teflon meshand sample solution was not appropriate. Unfortunately, the reason was notdiscovered at the launch site; the sample was repeatedly refilled and precious
time was lost, prolonging the launch site tasks.
5) Manual processing to fill the cell with sample material
A certain task carried out in the laboratory without apparent consciousness,due to years of similar routine exercises, may be forgotten at a critical moment,even though those chores are crucial to keeping the material in proper condition.
However, the environment at the launch site is different from that at thelaboratory, and filling the sample material may sometimes fail.
6) Preparation of backup sample material
During the colloid experiment, much of the sample material was prepared toadjust the crystal growth velocity, but it became unusable.
Aggregation of the sample was enhanced due to the low efficiency of stirring(mixing), resulting in lower density than expected. Thus, it was impossible tomeasure the spectrum because the spectrum peak was outside the measurable
range of the frequency (into the higher frequency region).
We could quickly refill the higher density sample material and proceed. In thisparticular situation, we were lucky to have backup samples.

2-4-6 Regard for even Classical (Low) Technology
1) Difficulty of Precise Drilling
In making the instruments and jigs, the structural members must be drilled
precisely. For example, it requires high skill to drill a hole with a diameter of 1.5m
and a depth of 19.5m, with a precision of ±10μm. Generally speaking, themechanics and engineers of small or medium-sized companies tend to possess
those skills. Once we ordered a large company, a manufacturer of sintered boron

43

nitride, to drill the hole on the plate. They brought back the plate with a hole of
50μm at one end but a hole of a different size at the other end. The hole wastapered! They then showed us a document guaranteeing their work.
2) Experiment Materials
Since space experiments are expensive, scientists and support workers tend
to prepare special items for the space experiments, in spite of the fact that they
prepare homemade samples for the ground research. This difference willdefinitely cause trouble for space experiments. It is not advisable to prepare andprocure special materials for the space experiment; instead, the same or similarmaterial should be used in both experiments, with the space experiment serving
as an extension or an extrapolation of the ground experiment.

2-4-7 How to Cope with a Long Waiting Time on the GroundA space experiment is a project type of research activity that requires five to
six years for preparation. It is carried out with the collaboration of scientists,
engineers, and support workers. The most important factor in this activity is theconfidence of the scientists in their research objectives. Scientists should
continue asking questions objectively and trying to find answers; doing so raises
their level of confidence.
On the MSL-1 flight, one mission came down without results, due to sometrouble on board the STS. The scientist on that mission remained calm andwaited until the re-flight of the mission, because he/she had confidence in its
scientific significance.

2-4-8 Vigilance on Serendipity and Unexpected Happenings in SpaceIf everything goes as planned, all people working on a project will becomebored. We must be vigilant in observing and analyzing what we did not expect.
An example of an unexpected happening in space is the spherical crystal of
the semiconductor that appeared accidentally. In the crystal growth experimentof PbSnTe, in addition to the cylindrical crystal (the target crystal), a number ofspherical crystals (11mm diameter) were unexpectedly found inside the carbon
spring used to pressurize the molten substance. The dislocation density of thespherical crystals was of the magnitude 104/cm2, two digits lower than that ofground-grown crystals. Thus, the quality of the crystal became the new world
record. News of this unexpected byproduct was noteworthy among those in thescience community of that day.
In the experiment of InGaAs, crystal segregation was not realized. At that time,
the relation between the g-jitter and segregation did not receive attention, but inlater years this question became a topic of research and was studied
extensively.

44

Appendix
Valuable Information Sites (Materials Sciences)
Database
JAXA International Space
Environment Utilization
Research Database

http://idb.exst.jaxa.jp/

NASA Microgravity Science
Research Database

http://edmp.grc.nasa.gov/idea_search.cfm

ESA Space Experiments
Database

http://spaceflight.esa.int/eea/

Academic Societies and Organizations
Japan Society ofMicrogravity Applications

http://www.jasma.info/

European Low Gravity
Research Association

http://www.elgra.org/

OthersMulti-users’ Experiment
Apparatus

http://iss.sfo.jaxa.jp/kibo/kibomefc/index.html

Safetyhttp://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/toxicology/

Outgas Data

http://matdb1n.tksc.nasda.go.jp/outline_j.html

45References(1) H. Inokuchi, Editor, Memoir of Japanese Space Experiments-Accomplishments and Lessons Learned-, (Japanese text)
The Japan Society of Microgravity Application, 22 Supplement, 2005.
(2) Executive Summary of “ Memoir of Japanese Space Experiments Accomplishments and Lessons Learned –“JAXA Brochure46

Editorial Postscript
This brochure was developed directly from a brochure with the same contents
but in Japanese, published by JSF in March 2007. When we wrote the Japanesetext, we primarily followed the description pattern of the International AOs for
medical/biological and physical/materials sciences, and presented the pivotal
explanation.
Now, once again the description in Japanese has been translated into English,
because this brochure is intended for international readers. Currently, JAXA isannouncing that opportunities of ISS-JEM utilization will be extended to Asian
scientists and technologists to enhance the existing ground collaborative
endeavors with Asian countries. JAXA believes that joint space activities may
strengthen the current friendly ties further in the future.
Even though space medicine is part of life science and should be included in
the text as such, the space medicine research in space by Japaneseexperimenters has not yielded comprehensive results, and their achievements
cannot be compared with those of life science and materials science describedin Parts I and II. Thus, only an informative explanation is provided in the
appendix of Part I so that readers may understand the current situation on board
the ISS and the future plans of the JAXA space medicine research group.
The JEM module “Kibo” is scheduled to be launched and attached to the ISSvery soon. Once Kibo is on orbit, its utilization will be possible for several years,
possibly 10 years. This endeavor will definitely bring a new aspect andperspective to Japanese sciences at large, and will contribute much to national
science and technology policy-making. It is hoped that this brochure will be
widely circulated and read by not only the professionals but also the generalpublic and policy-makers.
The former products in the Japanese text are well written. As a result, we hadsome difficulty translating the Japanese text into English because conveying
precise nuances in the Japanese language often ends up as an approximation in
English. Nevertheless, we believe that we did the best we could.
Last but not least, all authors express their gratitude to Ms. Satomi ISHI for
taking time to tailor the entire script and to lay out the manuscript, tables, andfigures in an orderly manner.
Y. Fujimori47