U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–799PS 2008

NASA’S INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

PROGRAM: STATUS AND ISSUES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 24, 2008

Serial No. 110–96

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

HON. MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman

DAVID WU, Oregon

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

MIKE ROSS, Arizona

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BART GORDON, Tennessee

TOM FEENEY, Florida

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JO BONNER, Alabama

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director

PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member

ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member

KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member

ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member

DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 24, 2008

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space

and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of

Representatives .................................................................................................... 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23

Panel 1:

Dr. Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Dr. Louis S. Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies; Associate Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado

at Boulder

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30

Biography .......................................................................................................... 38

Dr. Cheryl A. Nickerson, Associate Professor of Life Sciences, School of Life

Sciences, Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, The Biodesign

Institute, Arizona State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41

Biography .......................................................................................................... 44

Mr. Thomas Boone Pickens, III, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

SPACEHAB, Inc.

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48

Biography .......................................................................................................... 52

Discussion

ISS Productivity and Utilization ......................................................................... 53

Differences Between Government and SPACEHAB Activities ........................ 55

Commercial Activity at the ISS .......................................................................... 57

Uncertainty Pertaining to Long-term Research ................................................ 58

ISS Lab Compatability ........................................................................................ 59

Panel 2:

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space Operations,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 62

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63

Page

IV

Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 70

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 71

Biography .......................................................................................................... 85

Dr. Jeffrey P. Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical Research Institute

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 85

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 87

Biography .......................................................................................................... 97

Discussion

Cost of ISS Operations ........................................................................................ 98

Logistics Flights ................................................................................................... 99

Soyuz Safety Issues .............................................................................................. 100

Exception to INKSNA .......................................................................................... 101

Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer ............................................................................. 102

Russian Cooperation and Capabilities ............................................................... 104

Additions to the ISS ............................................................................................. 105

INKSNA Amendment .......................................................................................... 106

Soyuz Landing Problems ..................................................................................... 108

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 112

Dr. Louis S. Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies; Associate Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado

at Boulder ............................................................................................................. 114

Dr. Cheryl A. Nickerson, Associate Professor of Life Sciences, School of Life

Sciences, Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, The Biodesign

Institute, Arizona State University .................................................................... 118

Mr. Thomas Boone Pickens, III, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

SPACEHAB, Inc. .................................................................................................. 121

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space Operations,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ................................ 123

Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 129

Dr. Jeffrey P. Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical Research Institute 131

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology ........... 138

(1)

NASA’S INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

PROGRAM: STATUS AND ISSUES

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NASA’s International Space Station

Program: Status and Issues

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008

10:30 A.M.–12:30 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 10:30 a.m., the House Committee on Science and

Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will hold a hearing to examine the status of the International Space Station (ISS) and issues related to its operation and utilization, including the planned and potential uses of the ISS to meet

both NASA and non-NASA research needs.

Witnesses

Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include the following:

William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office

Dr. Jeffrey Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical Research Institute

Dr. Edward Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Thomas B. Pickens III, CEO, SPACEHAB, Inc.

Dr. Louis Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies, Aerospace Engineering

Sciences, University of Colorado

Dr. Cheryl Nickerson, Associate Professor, Center for Infectious Diseases and

Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University

Potential Issues

The following are some of the potential issues that might be raised at the hearing:

Status and Risks of ISS Assembly and Logistics Flights

• What is the status of ISS construction and logistics flights and what issues

could impact the planned construction schedule and sequence?

• What are the main risks and challenges to successfully assembling the ISS

by the time the Shuttle is retired?

• What is the impact on programmatic risk of the low level of reserves ($32 million) requested for FY09?

• What are NASA’s options if scheduled and proposed ISS assembly and logistics fights are not completed by the end of 2010 and how will this impact future ISS utilization and operations?

• What challenges, risks and assumptions does each option pose?

• Do any of the options require prior action by the Congress?

• What has been the progress in securing a commercial cargo transportation capability?

• What planned actions have the international partners indicated they will take

to maintain access to the ISS during the ‘‘gap’’?

• Will operational, wear, or failure data now available have an impact on

NASA’s current ISS logistics strategy?

4

Utilization of the ISS and the ISS National Laboratory

• How does ISS research contribute to reducing risk in human space exploration? How much of that risk will be retired by the Administration’s proposed 2016 ISS end date?

• How much of NASA’s on-orbit research facilities and racks are currently

being used to support research?

• Does NASA have a plan with priorities for ISS research to be conducted in

the post-2010 period, and if so, what is NASA doing now to prepare that research for flight?

• How many experiment facilities/ hardware to support research investigations

have been completed but are not planned for flight, and what if any plans

does NASA have to fly that hardware on the ISS, free-flyers or other microgravity platforms?

• What advantages does the ISS National Laboratory provide to Laboratory

partners, public and private?

• How will agency or commercial participants in the ISS National Lab get access to the ISS and who will pay for transportation?

• When will NASA know how much up-mass and down-mass is available to

support research through commercial cargo vehicles?

• Will NASA’s decision to support investigations on ISS be determined by commercial logistics availability or will NASA seek to supplement, if necessary,

logistics requirements for research needs through non-U.S. launch capabilities?

• What lead time is required for potential ISS users, including other governmental agencies, to prepare experiments to fly on the ISS?

• What impact does the uncertain status of the ISS past 2016 have on potential

users being able to plan long term research using the station?

• What will NASA do with the unused capacity and capabilities of the ISS if

other agencies decide not to make significant use of it?

• What is the status of NASA’s (1) development of educational projects to be

conducted on the ISS, and (2) plan for research that supports national competitiveness in science, technology, and engineering, as directed in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69)?

BACKGROUND

Overview

The ISS is the most complex international scientific and technological endeavor

ever undertaken, involving the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and 10 nations of the European Space Agency. One of the fundamental objectives of the ISS

is to enable astronauts to learn how to live and work in space for long duration missions. When President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration in 2004,

he made completion of the ISS an important part of the overall exploration initiative. The ISS has been continuously crewed for over six years; a six-person crew capability is planned to start in 2009. At assembly complete, the ISS will have a pressurized volume of over 33,000 cubic feet and a mass of over 925,000 pounds.

Development and construction of the ISS has been a difficult journey. In addition

to schedule delays of its own, the ISS was severely impacted by the loss of the Shuttle Columbia and its crew. The ISS was in the midst of assembly when the accident

took place. Today, construction is over 65 percent complete. Development is mostly

done and components only await their turn on the Shuttle manifest for on-orbit assembly. The most recent additions to the ISS happened in March with the attachment of the Canadian-built Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator and the Kibo

Japanese Experiment Logistics Module—Pressurized Section. Later next month,

STS–124 will take up the Japanese Experiment Module’s Pressurized Module and

the Japanese Remote Manipulator System.

The retirement of the Shuttle currently scheduled for 2010, will cause the U.S.

to rely on partners such as Russia to provide routine transportation and emergency

crew return from the station or acquire commercial services. That period of time

during which the U.S. will have no crew transportation capability is referred to as

‘‘the gap.’’ While NASA is encouraging the development of a commercial crew and

cargo capability, the availability of such a capability is uncertain at this time. The

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is NASA’s effort to foster the development of

a cost-effective commercial space transportation capability for the post-Shuttle Era.

5

1 As part of the Congressionally directed budget restructuring, NASA shifted from a full-cost

budget, in which each project budget included overhead costs, to a direct cost budget. All overhead budget estimates are now consolidated into the Cross Agency Support budget line. NASA

has stated that maintaining a full cost budget with seven appropriations accounts would be

overly complex and inefficient. The direct cost budget shows program budget estimates that are

based entirely on program content. Individual project managers continue to operate in a fullcost environment, including management of overhead costs.

Initially, this capability will be used to carry cargo to the ISS; future options could

involve developing a crew transportation capability. The development of the commercial cargo/crew transportation capability is being funded in the Constellation

budget managed by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). While the

services will be demonstrated through the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) project, the operational responsibility for the program will move to the

ISS program within the Space Operations Missions Directorate (SOMD).

NASA is seeking partnerships with other government agencies and the commercial sector to utilize the ISS as a National Laboratory, as designated by the NASA

Authorization Act of 2005. NASA’s plan for the ISS National Laboratory, the National Lab Report, was submitted to Congress in May 2007. Interest in ISS use has

been demonstrated in the areas of education, human health-related research and defense sciences research. A Memorandum of Understanding for ‘‘Cooperation in

Space-Related Health Research’’ between the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

and NASA was signed on September 12, 2007. This could be the first in a series

of Memorandum of Understandings with U.S. Government agencies that have expressed interest in access to the ISS for research and development purposes. In addition, NASA issued an announcement of ‘‘Opportunity for Use of the ISS by NonGovernment Entities for R&D and Industrial Processing Purposes’’ on August 14,

2007, and is planning to enter into several Space Act Agreements as a result.

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request

NASA’s FY09 budget provides $2.06 billion for the International Space Station

Program under the direction of SOMD. It should be noted that NASA’s FY 2009

budget has been restructured pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2008,

and is now presented in seven accounts. In addition, the budget estimates presented

in the FY 2009 request are in direct program dollars rather than in the full cost

dollars used in previous Presidential budget requests. From a direct cost perspective,1 the proposed FY09 budget for the ISS is an increase of $247 million from that

appropriated in FY08.

The ISS Program budget funds:

• ISS operations. The FY09 request for ISS operations is $1,755.4 million, a

slight increase from the $1,713.1 million enacted in FY08. The ISS Operations budget funds several key activities: Program Integration, Multi-User

System Support, Avionics and flight software, and Launch and Mission Operations.

• ISS Crew and Cargo Services. The FY09 request for ISS Crew and Cargo

Services is $304.8 million, an increase from the $100.1 million enacted in

FY08. The purchase of ISS Cargo Crew Services was transferred from ESMD

to SOMD in the FY 2008 budget. The total available funding for the purchase

of cargo transportation services is $2.6 billion over five years.

Funding for research conducted on the ISS is included in the budget managed by

the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The FY09 request for

ESMD’s Human Research Program (HRP) is $151.9 million in direct program dollars. The HRP identifies risk for human exploration of space and measures to mitigate the risks. According to NASA’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request, the HRP includes $19.9 million for the ISS Medical Project, which ‘‘includes current ISS biomedical research capabilities and on-orbit validation of next generation on-orbit

equipment medical operations procedures and crew training concepts.’’ ESMD’s budget request also provides $168 million for Exploration and Non-Exploration research

to be conducted on the ISS, free-flyers, and through ground-based activities, of

which $138 million is for Exploration and $30 million is for Non-Exploration research. Exploration research focuses on physical sciences in the areas of life support,

thermal control, fire prevent, detection, and suppression, and on fluid flow. Non-Exploration research supports fundamental research in the areas of material sciences,

fluid physics, combustion sciences, cellular and animal research, and microbial research, among other areas.

6

Assumed Budget Growth for the ISS Program FY 2009–FY 2013

NASA’s out-year projections for the ISS Program in the President’s FY09 budget

request show minor funding level changes through 2013.

Key Challenges Related to the FY09 Budget and Five-Year Runout

Key challenges related to the FY09 budget request and five-year runout for the

ISS program include:

• Low level of program reserves. The ISS program has depleted reserves

through FY 2009 while facing the most challenging period of ISS assembly.

• Uncertain status of the two logistics flights. Two of the remaining Shuttle

flights are listed as ‘‘contingency’’ and have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—although NASA says sufficient funds

have been included in the FY09 budget request. NASA has indicated that the

two flights needed to deliver spares and logistics in advance of the Shuttle’s

retirement are necessary and of high priority.

• Cuts in research funding. Funding for ISS research has been cut back significantly over the last several years, and the research community that was intended to utilize the ISS has been decimated by reductions in funding. This

raises the issue of reduced opportunity to attract top research scientists in the

future.

• Export control restrictions. Current International Traffic in Arms Regulations

(ITAR) restrictions on NASA ‘‘are a threat to the safe and successful integration and operations of the International Space Station,’’ according to the ISS

Independent Safety Task Force (IISTF) issued in 2007. The Task Force also

found that workforce interactions must enable direct interfaces to assure safe

and successful operations. These interactions, including the ability to exchange and discuss technical data relevant to vehicle operation, are hampered

by the current ITAR restrictions.

ISS Cargo and Crew Transportation Services in the Post-Shuttle Era

The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is NASA’s effort to foster the development of a cost-effective commercial space transportation capability for the postShuttle Era. This capability will initially be utilized to carry cargo to the ISS; future

options could involve developing a crew transportation capability. The development

of the commercial cargo/crew transportation capability is being funded in ESMD’s

Constellation budget. Once the services have been demonstrated (Phase 1), the operational responsibility for the program will move to the ISS program within SOMD.

As the Space Shuttle nears retirement, NASA’s stated preferred solution for ISS

crew and cargo delivery and return requirements is to use commercial services provided by space transportation companies. NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) project is intended to facilitate U.S. private industry’s development of cargo and crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of demonstrating reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit. NASA had initially selected two partners for its COTS project under Space Act Agreements. One partner

failed to meet NASA’s milestones, and NASA terminated the Agreement. The other

partner, SpaceX, recently announced that it has delayed the first demonstration

flight for their Falcon 9 rocket for six to nine months. Following GAO’s decision rejecting a challenge by the terminated partner to NASA’s plans to utilize a Space

Act Agreement rather than a government contract, NASA made an award to Orbital

Sciences Corporation in February 2008. Last week, NASA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Phase 2 of the COTS program, now called Commercial Resupply

Services, with a planned contract award by the end of the year. Both of the current

COTS partners are working only on cargo carriers.

If NASA’s preferred solution of using commercial services is not attainable by the

time the Shuttle is retired, the agency has indicated that it will rely on

prepositioned spares to be sent up to the ISS before the Shuttle retires. In an interview in Aviation Week last week, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space OperVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
7

ations said ‘‘We recognized that there may be a little bit of a delay in the delivery

of those [commercial] services,’’ adding that ‘‘Our plan is that if we have a delay we

would live off the spares we flew up on Shuttle and take some limited degradation

in space station capabilities until those commercial services come on line.’’ However,

this poses a risk since the last two Shuttle flights scheduled to bring up those

spares have not been approved by the Administration. As to the use of international

partner cargo capabilities, NASA said last week that it will not ask Congress for

permission to continue buying cargo services from Russia after 2011. European

Automated Transfer Vehicles (ATV) and Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicles (HTV) are

alternatives but would require some time to procure.

Regarding crew transportation during ‘‘the gap,’’ purchases of Russian capabilities

beyond 2011 will require an extension of the waiver currently granted in the Iran,

North Korea and Syria Non-Proliferation Act (INKSNA). Last week, NASA notified

the Congress that it needs to continue using Russian Soyuz capsules to deliver crew

to the ISS after the Shuttle retires in 2010 and is thus seeking an extension of

INKSNA waiver authority. A copy of NASA’s letter to Chairman Udall transmitting

the proposed waiver and the waiver itself are included as Attachment 1.

Research Objectives of the ISS

Although one NASA objective for the ISS was to create a world-class laboratory,

cost overruns, a decision to focus on a ‘‘core complete’’ configuration, the elimination

of several planned research facilities, and a smaller crew size led a National Research Council (NRC) committee to conclude in a 2003 report, Factors Affecting the

Utilization of the International Space Station, that achieving that goal was ‘‘unlikely.’’

• Following President Bush’s announcement of a Vision for Space Exploration

in January 2004, NASA reoriented its goals for the ISS to focus on exploration.

A 2006 NRC report, NASA’s Plans for the International Space Station, identified

several priority areas of research to support NASA’s exploration goals, including ‘‘effects of radiation on biological systems, loss of bone and muscle mass during space

flight, psychosocial and behavioral risks of long-term space missions, individual variability in mitigating a medical/biological risk, fire safety aboard spacecraft, and

multi-phase flow and heat transfer issues in space technology operations.’’

In addition, the report recommended that NASA take several other actions in utilizing the ISS to support exploration missions. For example, the NRC recommended

that:

• ‘‘NASA should develop an agency-wide, integrated utilization plan for all ISS

activities as soon as possible.’’

• ‘‘NASA should develop and maintain a set of operations demonstrations that

need to be conducted on the ISS to validate operational protocols and procedures for long-duration and long-distance missions such as the ones to Mars.’’

• ‘‘NASA should plan options and decision points for obtaining a post-Shuttle

logistics capability for . . . demonstrating the technology and operations that

will enable exploration missions. NASA should establish priorities and develop

back-up plans to enable the post-2010 deployment of large ISS structural components and research facilities required to accomplish exploration mission objectives.’’

In 2007, at the House Committee on Science and Technology’s hearing on NASA’s

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, NASA provided material for the record noting that

NASA’s research use of the ISS aligns with the Agency’s needs in the following

areas:

• Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of Biomedical Protocols for

Human Health and Performance on Long-Duration Space Missions

• Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of Systems Readiness for LongDuration Space Missions

• Development, Demonstration, and Validation of Operational Practices and

Procedures for Long-Duration Space Missions.

Congressional Policy Direction on ISS Utilization

Congress directed in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–155) that

NASA complete the assembly of the ISS and ensure its utilization for basic and applied research, as well as commercial research, and other benefits to the Nation. As

part of this policy direction, NASA is to sustain the necessary scientific expertise

8

to support research in disciplines that require microgravity environments (e.g., molecular crystal growth, animal research, basic fluid physics, combustion research,

and cellular research). To ensure that NASA continues to sustain basic research in

life and microgravity sciences, the Act directs NASA to allocate at least fifteen percent of ISS research funds to non-exploration research conducted on the ISS, freeflyers and ground. In addition, the Act designates the ISS as a National Laboratory

to ‘‘increase the utilization of the ISS by other federal entities and the private sector

through partnerships, cost-sharing agreements, and other arrangements that would

supplement NASA funding of the ISS.’’

Status of NASA Plans for ISS Utilization and Ongoing Utilization Activities

In response to direction in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, NASA submitted

a report, the NASA ISS Research and Utilization Plan. The nature of that report

was high-level, and as a follow-up, NASA submitted three additional documents detailing NASA plans for ISS utilization: 1) Human Research Program Utilization

Plan for the International Space Station, 2) ISS Exploration and Non-Exploration

Research Project Plan for the NASA ISS Utilization Plan, 3) Consolidated Operations and Utilization Plan 2007–2015. The first report identifies the human health

risks to be addressed by the ISS Human Research Program, for which 25 of 32 risks

require research on the ISS to mitigate the risk. The second report provides a toplevel plan for ISS research to support NASA’s exploration objectives (applied) as

well as non-exploration (basis) research. The third report details the operational

plans for utilizing the ISS, including allocation of resources among partners. An

overview summary of these documents states that ‘‘human biomedical research is

of the highest priority in order to prepare for longer duration human space exploration missions . . .’’

At a hearing of the House Committee on Science and Technology on NASA’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, the NASA Administrator testified that ‘‘we are still

building the Station, and its full capability as a research laboratory is mostly in

front of us. But we can’t have a research laboratory until we get the power and the

water and the air conditioning fully in place. And that is what we are doing right

now.’’ He further stated that ‘‘I believe it [the Station] should be sustained as long

as the costs of its operations and maintenance, once built . . . seem to be justified

by the research, which is being returned . . .’’ The duration of Space Station operations has not yet been determined.

Upon request of the Committee, NASA provided material for the record noting

that NASA has conducted 17 NASA Human Research Program investigations (the

ISS component of that research was complete) which supported 44 researchers

‘‘worldwide.’’ NASA also reported that there were 16 investigations of the Human

Research Program being conducted on the ISS in which 49 researchers ‘‘worldwide’’

were involved. NASA’s plans were to conduct nine Human Research Program investigations over the next year, which would involve 25 researchers. NASA also conducts exploration and non-exploration research on the ISS, although it is not completely clear how many experiments have been flown or how many will be flown and

when.

ISS as a National Laboratory

As directed in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, NASA submitted a report to

Congress on an International Space Station National Laboratory Application Development. NASA indicates that approximately 50 percent of planned U.S. utilization

resources on ISS could be available for non-NASA use through the ISS National

Laboratory. In August 2007, NASA solicited proposals for ‘‘Opportunity For The Use

Of The International Space Station By U.S. Non-Government Entities For Research

And Development And Industrial Processing Purposes.’’

ISS National Laboratory Partners and Prospective Partners

In September 2007, NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) signed a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Cooperation on Space-Related Research.

The MOU will foster synergies in research being sponsored by both agencies that

will help ensure astronaut health, especially on long-duration missions, and yield

benefits for medical science on Earth. For example, research on the loss of bone density and muscle mass resulting from the effects of microgravity may improve treatment for bone and muscle diseases. Better understanding of the effects of gravity

on astronauts’ balance may increase our knowledge of conditions such as vertigo,

problems of the inner ear, and dizziness. Research on how microorganisms respond

to microgravity may also provide insights into the immune system’s response to infectious diseases.

9

The MOU outlines NIH’s particular interest in the use of the ISS for research in

the following types of areas:

Æ ‘‘Basic biological and behavioral mechanisms in the absence of gravity

Æ Human physiology and metabolism

Æ Spatial orientation and cognition

Æ Cell repair processes and tissue regeneration

Æ Pathogen infectivity and host immunity

Æ Medical countermeasures

Æ Health care delivery and health monitoring technologies’’

A copy of the MOU is included as Attachment 2.

In a Fall 2007 issue of NIH Medline Plus, Dr. Stephen Katz, National Institute

of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, said, ‘‘An enormous amount of

time will be required to develop the questions and experimental models for use on

the Space Station. . ..’’ Members may wish to probe whether or not the Administration’s current plans for operating the ISS until 2016 will be sufficient to accommodate the time NIH would need to prepare and carry out research investigations.

NASA is currently working on an MOU with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Potential UDSA-sponsored research on the ISS could help to advance knowledge in

the areas of nutrition and animal and plant biology. Potential goals of the research

include outcomes that could provide additional benefits in assuring food safety and

the quality of agricultural products.

SPACEHAB, a commercial company that provides space products and services, is

also discussing partnership opportunities with NASA as part of the ISS National

Laboratory. The company announced in 2007 plans ‘‘to develop a new company division that will focus on manufacturing pharmaceuticals and materials in space for

distribution into the commercial marketplace.’’ Following on this path, SPACEHAB’s

January 28, 2008 press release announced the company’s plans to use the ISS for

‘‘research, development, and industrial processing purposes.’’ SPACEHAB’s past relationship with NASA has been in providing pressurized habitation modules, unpressurized cargo carriers, and related space flight equipment and services to support

research and other payloads for launch, operation, and return from NASA space

flight and ISS missions. In addition, SPACEHAB has an unfunded Space Act Agreement with NASA to develop (along with several partner companies) a commercial

transportation system (COTS) to provide logistical support to the ISS following the

retirement of the Shuttle in 2010.

The ISS National Laboratory report refers to ‘‘the availability of cost-effective

transportation services’’ as the most significant risk for the success of the National

Laboratory. The report prepared for Congress did not indicate that NASA planned

to provide transportation services to ISS National Laboratory partners. According

to the ISS National Laboratory report to Congress, NASA plans to begin managing

the operations and utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. NASA is also considering alternative approaches for managing the ISS national lab.

Readiness of the Life and Microgravity Sciences Research Community to Support ISS

Research

At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on ‘‘NASA’s Space

Shuttle and International Space Station Programs: Status and Issues’’ in July 2007,

Dr. G. Paul Neitzel, a professor of fluid mechanics, testified that ‘‘At its zenith, the

budget of the then Office of Biological and Physical Research . . . had grown to approximately $1B and the FY03 OBPR Task Book . . . shows a broad research program containing roughly 1000 tasks, supporting over 1,700 PIs and co-investigators

and nearly 3,000 students. . ..’’ Following the Columbia accident and the President’s announcement of a Vision for Space Exploration, NASA reduced the size of

the life and microgravity sciences program. ‘‘In December 2005, NASA sent letters

to hundreds of investigators in the program, informing them of significant cuts in

their funding for FY06 and the termination of their grants effective September 30,

2006.’’ Dr. Neitzel further noted that ‘‘The re-establishment of an external research

community will take years, if it can be accomplished at all.’’

Existing and Planned Research Facilities for U.S. Use on the ISS

The U.S. laboratory module, Destiny, houses several research facilities. These include the:

• Human Research Facility racks

• Microgravity Science Glovebox

10

• The Minus Eight-Degree Freezer for ISS that can store and freeze life science

and biological samples

• Expedite the Processing of Experiments to Space Station (EXPRESS) racks,

which can provide power, data, and fluids and other utilities needed to support research experiments that can attach to the racks.

The following are NASA facilities planned for inclusion on the ISS, and most, if

not all, have been manifested on upcoming Shuttle flights to the ISS:

• Fluids and Combustion Facility (includes the Combustion Integrated Rack

and the Fluids Integrated Rack)

• Microgravity Science Research Rack

• Space Dynamically Responding Ultrasound Matrix Facility

• Window Observation Research Facility

• EXPRESS Rack 6

• Muscle Atrophy Research Exercise System

• Five External Logistics Carriers (ELCs) each of which can support two payloads that do not require a pressurized environment.

• Several International Standard Payload Racks (ISPR)

• Other research facilities can be accommodated on international modules.

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), a collaboration between the Department of Energy and international participants, had been planned for flight to the

ISS, but is currently not manifested on any of the remaining Shuttle flights.

Use of ISS to Support Math and Science Education and Competitiveness

In exploring the opportunities for using the ISS National Laboratory for potential

educational activities, a NASA-led task force produced the International Space Station National Laboratory Education Concept Development Report. The task force

concluded ‘‘that there is significant interest among other federal agencies in the opportunity to further develop the ISS as an asset for education.’’

In 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, which became Public Law

110–69. Section 2006 of the law directs NASA to use the results of the ISS education task force report to ‘‘develop a detailed plan for implementation of one or more

education projects that utilize the resources offered by the International Space Station.’’

In addition, Section 2006 directs NASA to ‘‘develop a detailed plan for identification and support of research to be conducted aboard the International Space Station,

which offers the potential enhancement of United States competitiveness in science,

technology, and engineering.’’ NASA is to work with agencies and organizations that

have entered into agreements as partners on the ISS National Laboratory.

Establishing ISS Program Service Life

NASA indicates that while the FY09 budget run out does not presently allocate

funds for operating ISS beyond 2016, it is not taking any action to preclude it. Likewise, out year projections do not include costs to retire and de-commission ISS.

Two new issues have bearing on the ISS’s life expectancy:

1. Reports of sooner-than-expected wear on components, such as the beta gimbal assembly (BGA) and the Solar Array Rotary Joint (SARJ) could be indications that NASA may need to re-analyze its sparing strategy due to uncertainties about the last two Shuttle logistics flights and resupply options after

the Shuttle is retired in 2010.

2. It was recently reported that Russia will ask partners in June to extend the

utilization of the ISS until 2020 because a Russian segment would take

longer to complete. Russia still does not have a research module on the ISS

and the Multi-Purpose Laboratory Module (MLM) would provide the expanded research capability desired. The MLM will be Russia’s primary research module as part of the ISS. According to news reports, funding issues

had delayed the MLM from an initial 2007 date. A NASA official has told

Subcommittee staff that NASA will discuss these issues at a meeting of the

partner Space agencies in July of this year.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Chairman UDALL. This hearing will come to order. Good morning

to all of you. I want to welcome today’s witnesses to our hearing.

We welcome your participation and look forward very much to your

testimony.

Today’s hearing continues the Subcommittee’s oversight of

NASA’s major programs by focusing on the International Space

Station (ISS) Program. While it is a program that has had a long

and at times controversial and frustrating development path, I am

impressed with the progress that has been made in assembling and

operating this incredibly complex international space science and

technology facility. The NASA witness, Mr. William Gerstenmaier,

will describe some of the recent accomplishments of the ISS Program in his testimony, and he and his team and all the international partners, too, can take justifiable pride in what they are

achieving.

An important component of that success is the way the ISS is

truly becoming the International Space Station with American,

Japanese, European, Canadian, and Russian astronauts, engineers,

and program managers working together to overcome challenges on

a continuing basis.

Yet, if we are to justify the significant resources that have been

expended on the ISS Program, we need to be confident that it is

going to be used in as productive a manner as possible once it is

assembled.

To that end, I am encouraged by news of emerging research and

commercial collaborations with NASA, and I am looking forward to

hearing from our witnesses from the research and commercial sectors about their plans for utilizing the Station. Equally important,

their views on what it will take to make the ISS a productive

venue for research and commercial activities.

I also want to hear NASA tell us what it intends to do to make

the ISS a productive facility, not just for research and commercial

activities but also to carry out the ISS research and technology activities that NASA has said will be necessary to prepare for future

exploration.

In this hearing instead of dwelling on past problems, I want to

focus on where we go from here.

However, as NASA talks about providing research opportunities

on the Station, we cannot forget that the funding cuts NASA has

made to its microgravity research programs in recent years, whether willingly or not, have largely decimated the research community.

Thus, I think the onus has to be on NASA to prove that it means

what it says by taking meaningful steps both to make the Station

a productive venue for research and to start to rebuild the research

community.

Yet, it won’t be possible to have a productive Station unless the

facility can be sustained after the Shuttle is retired.

I am going to want to hear from NASA about how it plans to ensure the availability and productivity of the ISS after the Shuttle

is retired, what it considers the major risks ahead, and how it

plans to manage those risks.

It is no secret that we are currently living with the adverse impacts of the Administration’s shortsighted decision four years ago

to accept a four-year gap in U.S. crew launch capabilities after the

21

Shuttle is retired. I hope we learn from that experience and not let

the future of the Station to be determined by equally shortsighted

measures.

If we are to receive a meaningful return on the Nation’s investment in the ISS, we need to ensure that the Station’s post-Shuttle

logistics re-supply needs are adequately funded.

It is also clear that it is time for the Administration to commit

to flying the two contingency Shuttle flights that will deliver critical spares and logistics to the Station before the Shuttle is retired.

Based on all the information provided to the Committee to date,

it is clear that those flights are not optional if NASA is to minimize

the risks facing the ISS after 2010.

And finally, we need to ensure that any decision on the service

life of this international facility is based on sound policy, considerations, and thorough consultations with our international partners

and not simply be a date based on the current Administration’s desire to make it conform to their own under-funded budget plan for

NASA.

Well, we have a great number of issues to consider today. As I

have said, we have a very good panel of witnesses to help us address them.

Again, I want to welcome you, and we will look forward to your

testimony.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MARK UDALL

Good morning. I’d like to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing. We welcome

your participation and look forward to your testimony.

Today’s hearing continues the Subcommittee’s oversight of NASA’s major programs by focusing on the International Space Station program.

While it is a program that has had a long, and at times controversial and frustrating development path, I am impressed with the progress that has been made

in assembling and operating this incredibly complex international space-based

science and technology facility.

The NASA witness, Mr. William Gerstenmaier, will describe some of the recent

accomplishments of the ISS program in his testimony, and he and his team—and

all of the international partners too—can take justifiable pride in what they are

achieving.

An important component of that success is the way that the ISS is truly becoming

the International Space Station, with American, Japanese, European, Canadian, and

Russian astronauts, engineers, and program managers working together to overcome challenges on a continuing basis.

Yet, if we are to justify the significant resources that have been expended on the

ISS program, we need to be confident that it is going to be used in as productive

a manner as possible once it is assembled.

To that end, I am encouraged by news of emerging research and commercial collaborations with NASA, and I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses

from the research and commercial sectors about their plans for utilizing the Station. . .

And equally importantly, their views on what it will take to make the ISS a productive venue for research and commercial activities.

I also want to hear NASA tell us what it intends to do to make the ISS a productive facility—not just for research and commercial activities, but also to carry out

the ISS research and technology activities that NASA has said will be needed to

prepare for future exploration.

In this hearing, instead of dwelling on past problems, I want to focus on where

we go from here.

However, as NASA talks about providing research opportunities on the ISS, we

cannot forget that the funding cuts NASA has made to its microgravity research

programs in recent years—whether willingly or not—have largely decimated that research community.

22

Thus, I think the onus has to be on NASA to prove that it means what it says

by taking meaningful steps both to make the ISS a productive venue for research

and to start to rebuild that research community.

Yet, it won’t be possible to have a productive ISS unless the facility can be sustained after the Shuttle is retired.

I am going to want to hear from NASA about how it plans to ensure the viability

and productivity of the ISS after the Shuttle is retired, what it considers the major

risks ahead, and how it plans to manage those risks.

It is no secret that we are currently living with the adverse impacts of the Administration’s shortsighted decision four years ago to accept a four-year gap in U.S.

crew launch capabilities after the Shuttle is retired.

I hope we learn from that experience and not let the future of the ISS be determined by equally shortsighted measures.

If we are to realize a meaningful return on the Nation’s investment in the ISS,

we need to ensure that the ISS’s post-Shuttle logistics resupply needs are adequately funded.

It is also clear that it is time for the Administration to commit to flying the two

‘‘contingency’’ Shuttle flights that will deliver critical spares and logistics to the Station before the Shuttle is retired.

Based on all of the information provided to the Committee to date, it is clear those

flights are not optional if NASA is to minimize the risks facing the ISS after 2010.

And finally, we need to ensure that any decision on the service life of this international facility is based on sound policy considerations and thorough consultations

with our international partners—and not simply be a date based on the current Administration’s desire to make it conform to their own underfunded budget plan for

NASA.

Well, we have a great number of issues to consider today, and we have a very

good panel of witnesses to help us address them.

I again want to welcome them, and we look forward to your testimony.

Chairman UDALL. The Chair now is greatly privileged to recognize my good friend, Congressman Hall, for an opening statement.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, again, for my

first neighbor when I came up here 28 years ago with Mr. Udall.

I learned more from him than I had the past 50 years politically.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this morning’s very

timely hearing on the International Space Station.

I want to begin by thanking the witnesses, because I know about

your busy schedules, and I know a lot of you have traveled considerable distance, and I want to assure all of you that your wisdom

and expertise are greatly valued by, I value them greatly, as do

other Members of this committee, because we, you are knowledgeable about what we are discussing, and we write laws based on the

good information that we get from good folks like you that give us

your time.

And I would ask you, Mr. Pickens, are you related to Boone Pickens? He is one of the finest guys in the whole world. He just absolutely leads the energy chase and is generous with universities.

Golly, he is going to solicit Nature’s Aid in the greatest way. He

is really a great guy, and I am—and how is he related to you?

Mr. PICKENS. He is my father.

Mr. HALL. Your father? Golly, I wish he was my father.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is well

on its way to completion, and if NASA successfully flies out its remaining schedule of flights over the next two years, it will be capable of conducting a wide array of world-class science.

The United States and its international partners have invested

tens of billions of dollars to assemble the most complex and largest

laboratory and living facility ever to fly in space. The fruits of this

investment are only now capable of really being realized.

23

But having said that, a number of critical questions and challenges remain to be answered, both with respect to completing assembly of Station and once accomplished, using the Station as a

one-of-a-kind laboratory to conduct research in a microgravity environment.

Issues that bear discussion include the status of the two contingency flights. Is NASA committed to flying them or not? Will the

United States be able to reliably and safely move crew and cargo

to and from Station during the five-year gap between retirement of

Shuttle and advent of the Orion Ares Launch System?

Now, and how safe is Soyuz in light of the most recent pair of

re-entries that did not perform as expected? I hope our NASA witnesses, Mr. Gerstenmaier, will be able to spend a couple of minutes

in his opening testimony talking about Soyuz performance problems and potential solutions.

I am also concerned about NASA’s plans to fully exploit the Station’s research and testing capabilities and how it intends to maximize its utility as a national research laboratory.

Several of the witnesses will offer helpful insights and suggestions stemming from their experiences. By raising these questions

I don’t mean to appear critical of NASA’s management of ISS. In

fact, I would applaud Mr. Gerstenmaier and the men and women

of NASA and their contractor teams for making the difficult task

of building the Station look relatively routine. I can only imagine

the amount of detailed planning, design, and consultation, as well

as negotiating with our international partners that went into this

effort.

It has always been one of NASA’s great strengths and perhaps

one of its biggest public relations challenges to make the highlydangerous and complex task of space flight look benign, easy, or of

no significance.

I want to again thank our witnesses for joining us this morning,

and I certainly look forward to your testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this morning’s timely hearing on the status

of the International Space Station. I want to begin by thanking our witnesses for

taking time out of their busy schedules to be here. Some of you have traveled considerable distance, and I want to assure all of you that your wisdom and expertise

are greatly valued by me and other Members of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is well on its way to completion

and, if NASA successfully flies out its remaining schedule of flights over the next

two years, it will be capable of conducting a wide array of world class science. The

United States and its international partners have invested tens of billions of dollars

to assemble the most complex and largest laboratory and living facility ever to fly

in space. The fruits of this investment are only now capable of being realized.

But having said that, a number of critical questions and challenges remain to be

answered, both with respect to completing assembly of station, and once accomplished, using the station as a one-of-a-kind laboratory to conduct research in a

microgravity environment. Issues that bear discussion include the status of the two

contingency flights; is NASA committed to flying them or not? Will the United

States be able to reliably and safely move crew and cargo to and from station during

the five-year gap between retirement of Shuttle and advent of the Orion/Ares launch

system? How safe is Soyuz in light of the most recent pair of re-entries that did

not perform as expected? I hope our NASA witness, Mr. Gerstenmaier, will be able

24

to spend a couple of minutes in his opening testimony talking about Soyuz performance problems and potential solutions.

I am also concerned about NASA’s plans to fully exploit the station’s research and

testing capabilities, and how it intends to maximize its utility as a National Research Laboratory. Several of our witnesses will offer helpful insights and suggestions stemming from their experiences.

By raising these questions, I don’t mean to appear critical of NASA’s management

of ISS. In fact, I want to applaud Mr. Gerstenmaier and the men and women of

NASA, and their contractor teams, for making the difficult task of building the station look relatively routine. I can only imagine the amount of detailed planning, design, and consultation, as well as negotiating with our international partners, that

went into this effort. It has always been one of NASA’s greatest strengths, and perhaps one of its biggest public relations challenges, to make the highly dangerous

and complex task of space flight look benign.

I want to again thank our witnesses for joining us this morning, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Thank you.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Hall. If there are Members

who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record. Without objection, so ordered.

At this time I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses.

I am going to start from my left, and we will introduce each one

of you, and then we will return and start with the panel.

Dr. Edward Knipling is the Administrator for the Agricultural

Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Next to

him, Dr. Louis Stodieck, who is a constituent of mine. He is the Director of the BioServe Space Technologies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. To his left, Dr. Cheryl Nickerson is an Associate

Professor at the Biodesign Institute in the Center for Infectious

Diseases and Vaccinology at Arizona State University. I would note

I grew up in Tucson so I tend to be a little bit more of a fan of

the University of Arizona, but we will leave that where it may be,

Dr. Nickerson. And finally we have Mr. Thomas Pickens, III, who

is the President and CEO of SPACEHAB, Incorporated, and who

shares kinship now with Dr. Hall because you both have a father

in common. You have, Dr. Hall is an honorable, he is everybody’s

father, including mine.

I would add before we turn back to the witnesses, it is an honor

for me. I don’t know that I have had a chance to Chair a committee

hearing in the presence of Judge Hall, but he has been a mentor

to me, and he chaired this committee, and I am truly honored.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also note that

it is an honor for me to be here with a man who knew Sam Houston as well.

Chairman UDALL. We will discuss later whether that commentary will be in the record or not based on Judge Hall’s perspective.

And again, the witnesses know that spoken testimony is limited

to five minutes each, after which Members of the Subcommittee

will have five minutes each to ask questions.

Dr. Knipling, the floor is yours.

25

Panel 1:

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD B. KNIPLING, ADMINISTRATOR,

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Dr. KNIPLING. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of

the Subcommittee. My name is Edward Knipling. I serve as the

Administrator of the Agriculture Research Service, also known as

ARS. ARS is the research arm of USDA, the intramural, in-house

research arm of USDA, and we operate a network of 100 federal

agricultural science laboratories across the Nation in all aspects of

agricultural science.

And thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to present testimony about ARS’s collaboration

with NASA on research relevant to agriculture and the Space Program.

ARS and NASA have a long history of working together. The

ARS Beltsville Agricultural Research Center and the Goddard

Space Flight Center in Maryland, we are next-door neighbors. We

worked together for many years, particularly with respect to the

Earth Observation Program and various aspects of remote sensing

of the environment.

Among our successes in that area are predictions of animal disease outbreaks in Africa based upon global weather and vegetation

patterns that affect insect vector populations, detection of drought

indicators, remote measurements of crop yields, detection and risk

assessment of plant pests and invasive species, and development of

data for application of precision farming using GPS technology. The

role of ARS scientists in these collaborations has been to provide

the knowledge and interpretation of plant, animal, and environmental indicators recorded in the imagery and other data collected

by NASA’s satellites and other aerial platform sensors, and in turn,

how to effectively design and use those systems for meaningful environmental and biological assessments.

These research activities have been conducted under the framework of an existing Memorandum of Understanding between USDA

and NASA and various predecessor agreements, and today I will

speak of a planned new Memorandum of Understanding involving

research collaboration in the agricultural life sciences that will take

advantage of the microgravity environment of the International

Space Station.

And Mr. Chairman, I will address four questions about this new

collaboration between ARS and NASA that are of particular interest to this subcommittee. One of these is what achievements are

expected under this new collaboration? Well, we anticipate this research will lead to new understandings of biological cellular mechanisms and creative new ways to improve American agriculture, protect the environment, and contribute to human health. These will

be based upon principles related to the early development of cells

and how that development is influenced by zero or reduced gravity

compared to the Earth’s gravitational field.

Certainly access to the facilities and the environment of the

International Space Station will provide ARS with new abilities to

test biological processes in microgravity. Topics of immediate interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

est are development plant and animal cells and culture and improved understanding of the capacity of such cells to express desired traits or to develop in specialized ways. Selection of cell lines

under microgravity may provide germplasm capable of improving

plant resistance to pathogens, improved growth characteristics, and

generation of functional replacement organs.

Question number two. How will ARS and NASA proceed on these

collaborations? Our ARS program managers and scientists have

met with NASA program managers and scientists to define areas

of mutual interest. They have determined that for work on the

International Space Station, the ARS focus will be on the science

of cells, principally the affects of microgravity on basic biological

mechanisms, genetic regulation in plants and animal cells, pathogenesis in both plants and animal cells, development of cells cultured to understand organ function and development, and selection

of plant cells for desirable growth characteristics.

We expect to apply the findings and results of research in these

areas to improving animal and plant productivity. We anticipate

that our first collaborative research on the Space Station will be to

understand the effect of microgravity on the differentiation of animal germ cells. Our goal is to develop and validate the technology

to produce and replicate undifferentiated cells that can be, in turn,

used to study gene expression, cellular differentiation, and to improve genetic enhancement technologies.

What is the role of agriculture in space research? Well, we envision the tools of space research provided by NASA collaboration as

a powerful means to better understand and deal with the responsibilities and challenges we face in agriculture as well as exploiting

new opportunities to help advance to agricultural life scientists and

potential new applications. And certainly our experiences with the

development of remote sensing applications have proven this to be

possible.

The ARS research mission and our own goals themselves will not

change, but we will benefit from the NASA collaboration and

unique approaches to help reach our goals. The new MOU that I

spoke about will specify that each agency, ARS and NASA, will,

shall provide their own resources, including expenditure of funds,

to support their, our respective complementary part of the collaborative research.

Question four. How will ARS develop a research plan for work

on the International Space Station? Well, planning for this work

has already begun at the national or program level. Our respective

program managers have worked together to assure that the goals

to be met will be relevant to the problems of agriculture and to establish a formal relationship through the MOU. And at the investigator level, science level, NASA, ARS, and cooperating private sector and university scientists have met and explored the possibilities

for specific experiments to be conducted.

Initially ARS investigators are interested in determining if fertilized cow eggs do not differentiate under microgravity but continue to replicate. And additional experiments will be designed for

a particular set of cell lines from swine embryos that have been

shown to give rise to liver cells, and these cells may have potential

use in artificial liver devices.

27

Many questions about the regulation of their differentiation and

replication in culture remain unanswered. And the research planning has focused on the design of experiments to answer such questions.

In addition to the potential value of all of these experiments for

advancing animal and plant agriculture, they are expected to serve

as models for beneficial applications of cell culture technologies for

human health as well.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes

my testimony. I will be pleased to address any questions that you

have at a later time.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Knipling follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. KNIPLING

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Edward B. Knipling, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ARS is the principal intramural science research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA). ARS operates a network of more than 100 federal research laboratories

across the Nation on all aspects of agricultural science.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to

present testimony about ARS’ collaboration with the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) on research relevant to agriculture and the space program.

ARS and NASA have a long history of working together. The ARS Beltsville Agricultural Research Center and the Goddard Space Flight Center are next-door neighbors in Maryland. ARS scientists at Beltsville and other ARS locations have worked

with the NASA scientists in the Earth Observation program at Goddard and elsewhere to apply a wide range of remote sensing methods to environmental and agricultural problems.

Among our successes are predictions of animal disease (Rift Valley Fever) outbreaks based on global weather patterns, detection of drought indicators, remote

measurement of crop yields, detection and risk assessment of plant pests and

invasive species, and development of data for application of precision farming. The

roles of ARS scientists in such collaborations have been to provide knowledge and

interpretation of plant, animal, and environmental indicators recorded in the imagery and data collected by NASA’s satellite and other aerial platform sensors, as

well as how to effectively design and use these systems for meaningful environmental and biological assessments.

These research activities have been conducted under the framework of an existing

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and predecessor agreements between USDA

and NASA. Today I will speak of a planned new Memorandum of Understanding

involving research collaborations in the agricultural life sciences that will take advantage of the microgravity environment of the International Space Station (ISS).

Mr. Chairman, I will address four issues about this new collaboration between ARS

and NASA that are of particular interest to this subcommittee.

Achievements Expected Under the New Collaboration

We anticipate that this research will lead to new understandings of biological cellular mechanisms and creative new ways to improve American agriculture, protect

the environment, and contribute to human health. These will be based on principles

related to the early development of cells and how that development is influenced

by zero or reduced gravity compared to the earth’s gravity environment.

Access to the facilities and environment of the ISS will provide ARS with new

abilities to test biological processes in microgravity. Topics of immediate interest are

development of plant and animal cells in culture and improved understanding of the

capacity of such cells to express desired traits or to develop in specialized ways. Selection of cell lines under microgravity may provide germplasm capable of improving

plant resistance to pathogens, improved growth characteristics, and generation of

functional replacement organs.

How ARS and NASA Will Proceed on Significant Collaborations

ARS program managers and scientists have met with NASA program managers

and scientists to define the areas of mutual interest. They have determined that for

28

work on the ISS the ARS focus will be on the science of cells, principally the effects

of microgravity on:

Æ basic biological mechanisms,

Æ genetic regulation in plants and animals cells,

Æ pathogenesis in both plants and animal cells,

Æ development of cells cultured to understand organ function and development,

and

Æ selection of plant cells for desirable growth characteristics.

We expect to apply the findings and results of research in these areas to improving animal and plant productivity. We anticipate that our first collaborative research on the ISS will be to understand the effect of microgravity on the differentiation of animal germ cells. Our goal is to be able to produce undifferentiated cells

that can be used to study gene expression, cellular differentiation, and to improve

genetic enhancement technologies.

The Role of Agriculture in Space Research

We envision the tools of space research provided by NASA collaboration as a powerful means to better understand and deal with the responsibilities and challenges

we face in agriculture as well as exploiting new opportunities. Our experiences with

the development of remote sensing applications have proven this to be true. We expect that the microgravity environment on the ISS will provide the same kinds of

benefits to help advance our agricultural life sciences programs and potential new

applications. The ARS research mission and goals will not change but we will benefit from NASA collaboration and unique approaches to help reach those goals. The

new MOU will specify that each agency, ARS and NASA, shall provide their own

resources, including expenditure of funding, to support their respective complementary part of the collaborative research.

How ARS Will Develop a Research Plan for Work on the ISS

Planning for this research on the ISS has begun. ARS has been involved at two

levels: at the national planning level and at the investigator level. At the national

level, ARS program managers have worked with NASA program managers to assure

that the goals to be met would be relevant to problems of agriculture and to establish a formal relationship through a MOU. At the investigator level, NASA and ARS

scientists have met and explored the possibilities for specific experiments to be conducted at the ISS. In particular ARS investigators are interested the development

and differentiation of a particular set of cell lines that came from swine embryos

and have been shown to give rise to liver cells. These cells may even be able to be

used in artificial liver devices. Many questions about the regulation of their differentiation in culture remain unanswered. Research planning has focused on the design

of experiment to ask questions about the role of gravity in cell culture differentiation.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony. I will be pleased to address any

questions you and Subcommittee Members may have.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Knipling.

Dr. Stodieck.

STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS S. STODIECK, DIRECTOR,

BIOSERVE SPACE TECHNOLOGIES; ASSOCIATE RESEARCH

PROFESSOR, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER

Dr. STODIECK. Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

The International Space Station represents an incredible human

achievement for which our nation and our international partners

can be very proud. It represents the best of what people can do

working together with commitment and resolve. I for one am very

grateful to the engineers and all who have built this magnificent

facility.

29

With the focus on assembly of the ISS set to end in only two and

one-half years, research utilization, the original purpose of the ISS,

can finally be brought to the forefront of our discussions and planning. The ISS has tremendous potential to advance our nation’s interests in science, technology, and commerce. I imagine some of the

witnesses here today will testify to this potential, and you will find

other illustrations of this in my written statement.

These examples are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The

ability to use the lens of microgravity to understand and exploit

gravity as a physical force is unique to the ISS. If fully utilized, I

expect that the ISS is going to greatly advance scientific knowledge

and have important economic impacts in many fields of study.

The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, designated the U.S. segment of the ISS as a national laboratory. This designation was a

result of Congress recognizing that limiting ISS utilization to only

NASA’s exploration research needs would do a disservice to the

taxpaying public and the many ISS stakeholders. This designation

clearly opens the door to re-establishing the ISS as an important,

productive R&D facility.

However, this step by itself is insufficient to insure that the ISS

National Lab will be successful. In my view there are three actions

that need to be taken.

The first is Congress or NASA should establish an independent

management organization to provide leadership of the ISS National

Lab R&D activities. This organization should be chartered to develop and manage a rich portfolio of non-exploration research on

the ISS. The expeditious way to do this might be for NASA to identify one or more qualified organizations to provide this leadership

and form a partnership with them through the use of a space act

agreement.

Resulting ISS National Lab management organization would

reach out to scientists and commercial users across disciplines and

across institutions, identify the best research ideas to bring forward. The organization would also serve as the interface to NASA

and assure, and assume the responsibility for getting the research

integrated and operated on the ISS.

The second action that should be taken is Congress should provide modest funding to encourage and support non-NASA agencies,

U.S. industry, universities, and other organizations to utilize the

ISS. Under the ISS National Lab model, the research sponsor

would be expected to cover the cost of the science. And it should.

However, conducting research on the ISS requires something like

five to ten times the funding than that needed for comparable

ground-based research. This is because research on the ISS carries

additional costs associated with all the requirements to fly with the

procurement of specialized hardware and with securing transportation to and from low-Earth orbit.

If ISS National Lab users are required to cover these full costs,

then I fear it will have the unfortunate affect of precluding a number of excellent ideas from going forward. Funding provided to the

ISS National Lab management organization to cover these extra

costs would encourage increased demand for ISS utilization and

help achieve a high level of productivity and ultimately success.

30

The third action is for Congress or NASA to ensure that research

sponsors have regular, reliable, and frequent transportation access

to and from the ISS. The Space Shuttle is currently the only vehicle with any significant capacity for bringing research samples and

equipment back to Earth. Retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010,

will exactly coincide with when this capability will be most needed

for the ISS National Lab to become productive.

The best option for both up and down transportation will be for

one or more U.S. commercial providers to be successful at developing new launch vehicles and ISS docking spacecraft and for these

capabilities to be pressed into service. As NASA works to procure

services for logistics re-supply to the ISS, planning should also include the needs of the ISS National Lab users. Productive ISS National Lab will require something like 20 to 25 percent of the transportation capacity both up and down with shipments spread across

multiple flights each year.

The ISS National Lab has enormous potential to advance the interests of the Nation in commerce, science, medicine, technology,

and education. If the steps I have just outlined are taken, I believe

ISS National Lab will be productive, and significant breakthroughs

can be expected.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering any

questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stodieck follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. STODIECK

Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Feeney and Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for inviting me to testify on a subject that I feel is very important to our

nation. As you will see, I believe there is tremendous potential for the International

Space Station (ISS), as a National Laboratory, to be utilized for high-value research

and development in low-Earth orbit. I also hope to convince you that more must be

done now to position the ISS National Laboratory to succeed.

My name is Louis Stodieck and I am a Research Professor in the department of

Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In addition to my academic role at CU–Boulder, I am privileged to serve as the Director

of BioServe Space Technologies, a space life sciences research center. BioServe was

founded in November 1987 through a NASA grant to the University. Through its

20-year history, BioServe’s mission has essentially remained unchanged: we work in

partnership with industry, academia and government to conduct space life sciences

research that primarily focuses on commercial applications that could benefit the

public. BioServe has served the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, agribusiness and biomedical industry sectors with most Center projects focusing on the effects of microgravity, often referred to as weightlessness.

Starting with our first flight in 1991 on STS–37, the Center has flown 40 payloads

on 29 missions. Our experiments have launched on the Space Shuttle, Progress and

Soyuz vehicles and were operated in orbit on the Space Shuttle, the Russian Mir

Space Station and, more recently, the International Space Station. A wide range of

experiments have been carried out across the full spectrum of space life sciences applications that have evaluated molecular processes, cell and tissue biology and the

development and adaptation of various plants and organisms. BioServe’s commercial

partners have included large Fortune 500 companies such as Amgen, Bristol-Myers

Squibb, Procter and Gamble and Weyerhaeuser along with numerous start-up and

established smaller life sciences companies.

It is through the above activities that I feel I am qualified to present to you today

the reasons why the Nation should capitalize on the ISS and utilize its capabilities

to the greatest possible extent.

Potential for R&D on the International Space Station

The International Space Station (ISS) represents an incredible human achievement for which our nation and our International Partners can be very proud. The

launch of the first ISS element took place just under 10 years ago in 1998. Today,

31

the ISS is a remarkable orbiting laboratory with unequaled capabilities. It represents the culmination of the dedication and commitment of thousands of people

who have worked tirelessly on the design, fabrication and on-orbit assembly of this

massive undertaking. The ISS also represents an unparalleled opportunity in

human history: The ability to use the ‘‘lens’’ of microgravity to understand and exploit gravity as a physical force. The ISS offers a superb vantage point from which

to observe the Earth as well as providing access to the space environment, attributes that can both be exploited for research. The ISS is rapidly growing in capability and even now can support a wide array of research and development activities

that simply cannot be done on Earth.

During the last 10 years, the focus for the ISS Program has necessarily been on

assembly. NASA’s ISS Payload’s Office at the Johnson Space Center has done an

excellent job of supporting research utilization, but in reality such utilization has

had to take a back seat to ISS assembly and maintenance. The focus on assembly

has meant that comparatively little transportation volume, mass, power and, probably most important of all—crew time—have been available to utilize the ISS to any

significant extent. As a result, many of the ISS racks and equipment are currently

sitting idle awaiting the day when ISS utilization can be ramped up. So, when can

ISS utilization be ramped up, and what will it take to do so?

Based on the current schedule, the ISS project is now only two and one-half years

away from completion. At that point, the ISS can be officially and substantially

opened for business. A significant part of that business, in my mind, ought to be

scientific and commercial research and development. It will indeed be unfortunate

if the ISS remains substantially under-utilized once it is completed in 2010. I hope

instead that with proper planning and strategic investment now, the ISS will be

able to live up to its fullest potential as a unique laboratory the like of which has

never before been available and possibly never again will be in our lifetime. It is

probably not possible to predict when the ISS will reach the end of its lifetime and

be de-commissioned, and it seems quite premature to discuss this when the lab is

not yet completed and anything close to full utilization remains unrealized. However, the operational lifetime of the ISS is currently certified only through 2016.

Even if this date is extended, it should be clear to all of us that the ISS will be

available to serve the interests of the U.S., our International Partners and, more

broadly, humanity for a finite period of time. Once the Space Shuttle is retired, our

ability to service and replace major components of the ISS will be severely constrained. This ultimately could limit or reduce the amount of science that is conducted in this laboratory. Compare this situation with that of the Hubble Space Telescope. Just imagine how the lifetime of the Hubble Space Telescope would have

been shortened and consider the amount of science lost without Space Shuttle servicing missions. The period of actual use of the ISS after assembly complete may be

only five to 10 years and may be determined more by an inability to maintain safe

operations than by U.S. policy. Thus, it will be very important to derive the most

benefits possible from this incredible, one-of-a-kind laboratory as early as possible

and for as long as possible.

Currently, NASA remains the predominant user of the ISS. Research is being performed to better understand the negative effects of long-duration space flight on the

human body and to develop countermeasures and technologies to mitigate these effects. Non-exploration utilization research on the ISS has been conducted but only

on a limited basis due to resource constraints and NASA’s focus on the Exploration

Vision. If the ISS is going to live up to its full potential, then clearly the productivity of the station must significantly increase, especially for non-exploration research.

Before discussing the future of ISS utilization, I believe it is important to revisit

the potential that ISS represents and why planning and further investment should

be considered to jump start the great body of work to be done there.

Value of ISS as a National Lab

It is easiest for me to speak from the experience and flight research projects that

my Center has directly sponsored or supported. Of course there are numerous articles and studies that have identified and vetted the best R&D applications for the

ISS across a host of scientific disciplines. The examples below are based in the life

sciences, which is the focus of our Center and my area of expertise.

Despite significant funding challenges over the last few years following the termination of NASA’s Space Product Development program, the program within NASA

under which BioServe was funded, BioServe has strived to remain productive in

space flight research endeavors. We have done so for the simple reason that we believe strongly in the potential of the ISS to benefit the general public, commerce,

scientific knowledge, technology development and education. Since December of

32

2006, space flight hardware designed and developed by BioServe has supported 17

different commercial, international, NASA and K–12 research projects. These research experiments have flown on five different Shuttle missions, launched and

landed on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, and spanned three ISS increments. In addition, BioServe has had operating research hardware on-board the ISS since December of 2002.

Over the years BioServe has worked with several different commercial companies

in support of collaborative research with commercial applications. Some of these

companies are mentioned above but the most recent support of commercial research

involved experiments conducted in collaboration with Amgen and SPACEHAB.

Amgen, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies, has collaborated with

BioServe in the area of disuse bone and muscle loss since 1995. During this time

BioServe conducted ground- and space-based studies both to verify the models utilized in these studies as well as to determine the effectiveness of two Amgen developed investigational compounds designed to reduce or prevent significant bone and

muscle loss associated with certain types of disease and disuse conditions. This work

culminated in two successful space flight experiments, one conducted on-board STS–

108 and the other on-board STS–118. For each experiment, in addition to the primary research that was conducted, Amgen agreed BioServe could arrange a tissuesharing program in which unused tissues from the space experiments were given

to over 20 separate investigators each researching the effects of space flight and

microgravity exposure on different physiological systems. In essence with careful

planning productivity was greatly enhanced despite limited resources. Although

these two space flight experiments were Shuttle missions, it is believed that significant additional information could be learned through longer duration studies onboard ISS.

The research projects with Amgen show the potential for alignment between industry and NASA goals and needs in the broader context of the ISS National Lab.

For example, the research investigation of a bone therapeutic on STS–108 was part

of a much larger traditional development program being conducted by Amgen.

Today, that development program has led to a therapeutic called Denosumab which

is in Phase III clinical trials. In addition to helping patients with osteoporosis, bone

metastasis, and other serious bone loss conditions, this drug could become a highly

effective countermeasure for future flight crews exposed to long-duration skeletal

unloading. In the context of the ISS National Lab, this project shows the potential

for industry-sponsored research to benefit the company, NASA’s exploration vision

and the general public.

As part of a Space Act Agreement that is being completed between NASA and

BioServe to support ISS National Lab commercial path-finder research, BioServe recently collaborated with SPACEHAB, Inc. to launch a series of commercially applicable experiments in the area of vaccine development for certain infectious diseases.

The first of these payloads launched in March on-board STS–123 and the second is

scheduled to launch in May on-board STS–124. The results, while still preliminary,

are very encouraging. SPACEHAB, which is represented here today, can speak more

to this promising work.

Additionally, BioServe supported four NASA peer-reviewed life science researchers on-board STS–123. The Microbial Drug Resistance and Virulence or MDRV payload was sponsored by NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate under the

non-exploration research program. As the payload name implies, the research conducted by these investigators focused on the effects of space flight on virulence in

pathogenic microbes, specifically bacteria, and antifungal resistance in a yeast

model organism. This research has tremendous space- and Earth-based applications.

Again, one of the investigators from this mission is here today and can speak to the

value of this important work.

BioServe has a long history of providing training and educational opportunities

to graduate, undergraduate and K–12 students. The Center has trained and educated over 115 graduate students since its inception. BioServe students are highly

sought by NASA and industry once they graduate due to the unique education in

bioastronautics and hands-on training received within the Aerospace Engineering

Sciences department and at the Center. This important benefit of the ISS National

Lab simply cannot be overstated. With the sharp cuts by NASA in the physical and

life sciences, universities and colleges have lost critical support for students to keep

them engaged in these important fields. More importantly, academic institutions

have lost the single largest set of opportunities for students to be involved with the

human space program. Without this connection, I fear that fewer and fewer students will pursue lines of study and choose careers associated with NASA’s ambitious Vision for Exploration. The ISS National Lab has the potential to restore some

of these lost opportunities.

33

In late 2006 BioServe started a formal K–12 education program called CSI. CSI

brings actual space flight experiments into the K–12 classroom. Through its education partners, curriculum supplements are developed for each CSI experiment.

These materials are delivered to participating classroom teachers via the Internet.

Once the experiment is activated on-orbit, images and data of the experiment are

down-linked to BioServe and then up-linked to the educational web site. Students

are able to conduct their own ‘‘ground controls’’ in the classroom and compare their

results on a near-real time basis to the space experiment. These experiments have

examined seed germination, growth of metallic salts in silicate solutions, multigenerational organism growth in space and plant development. The CSI–01 and

CSI–02 projects have reached over 10,000 students. This program is an excellent example of utilizing a national asset, the ISS, to inspire K–12 students in science,

technology, engineering and math. It utilizes a unique element, the ISS, to promote

inquiry of gravity’s effects and influence on our every day lives. In turn, this type

of activity creates a very real connection between students and parents and the tremendous accomplishments of NASA and the ISS.

This brief description of work we have recently been conducting provides what I

believe is only a very small glimpse into what could be possible on the ISS National

Lab if research utilization were significantly stepped up. There is great potential to

use ISS to advance applications in biotechnology, life sciences, fluid physics, fundamental physics, combustion, energy, Earth sciences, materials and biomedicine. Of

course, there are critics of the ISS who disagree with this statement as would be

expected when competing interests come into play. I would argue, however, that the

work done to date on the Shuttle and on the ISS has shown the potential of the

ISS National Laboratory to produce a rich return for taxpayers and that far greater

benefits and discoveries await us. In any event, strict scientific return on investment should not be the sole measure of the worth of taking the ISS National Lab

to the next level. Like it or not, the investment to build and assemble ISS in orbit

has been made. We should now recognize the historically unique capability of this

tremendous facility and exploit that capability to the maximum extent possible

while we can.

Status of ISS National Lab Utilization

It is difficult to assess the current status of ISS utilization without first considering how we arrived where we are today. It is well known that NASA policy concerning utilization of the ISS changed dramatically in January 2004 with the release of the new Vision for U.S. Space Exploration. The new vision for NASA clearly

enumerated that the NASA Administrator should:

• ‘‘Complete assembly of the International Space Station, including the U.S.

components that support the U.S. space exploration goals and those provided

by foreign partners, planned for the end of this decade;’’

• ‘‘Focus U.S. research and use of the International Space Station on supporting space exploration goals, with emphasis on understanding how the

space environment affects astronaut health and capabilities and developing

countermeasures.’’

Two significant decisions by NASA leadership pertinent to the future of the ISS

followed from the new Vision for Exploration policy:

1. NASA’s life and physical science programs were drastically cut with many

lines of research being eliminated altogether. Even life sciences research that

was seen as supportive of the Vision for Space Exploration but was more fundamental in nature or involved pre-clinical animal models, was effectively

canceled. For many scientists within NASA and at universities across the

country, these decisions translated to the termination of grants and forced

the redirection of research programs, even whole careers. Hundreds of college

undergraduate and graduate students were discouraged from engaging in

physical and space life sciences research. The development of much of the

life and physical sciences equipment that was being built to support robust

research programs on the ISS was canceled.

2. As part of the realignment of NASA programs to the Vision for Exploration,

in 2006, NASA terminated the Space Product Development program, which

at the time supported 11 Research Partnership Centers around the country,

including ours. Many of these centers were engaged in commercial research

and development activities that planned to utilize the ISS.

These changes, along with others, certainly had the desired effect to reprogram

significant funding and define budgets to carry out the Vision for Space Exploration

34

and help focus NASA squarely on the development of replacement vehicles to the

Space Shuttle and the development of plans and hardware systems to return to the

Moon.

Of course these decisions also placed in serious doubt the future of the ISS as a

world-class, productive research laboratory in space, as had been originally envisioned. The momentum that had been built up by the collective efforts of thousands

of people was depleted by these decisions in what seemed a very short period of

time. There are in fact few organizations remaining today with the knowledge and

expertise to conduct ISS utilization. Even now, these organizations are at risk of

disappearing altogether and would take years to recreate.

The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 designated the U.S. segment of the International Space Station as a National Laboratory. This designation was made as a

result of strong leadership within Congress who recognized that limiting ISS utilization to only exploration research would do a disservice to the taxpaying public and

the myriad of ISS stakeholders who should expect a reasonable return from the ISS

in the form of scientific advances, new technologies, economic development, inspiration of education in technical fields and overall societal enrichment. This designation clearly opened the door to re-establishing the ISS as an important and productive R&D facility.

The designation of the ISS as a National Lab represents an important step in the

right direction. However, this step by itself is insufficient to ensure that ISS will

be productive in supporting high-value R&D activities. In my view, there are three

actions that need to be taken for the ISS National Lab to become successful.

1. Establish an independent management organization to provide leadership

and oversight of the ISS National Lab R&D activities.

2. Provide modest funding to encourage and support non-NASA agencies, U.S.

industry, universities, colleges and other organizations to utilize the ISS.

3. Ensure regular, reliable and frequent transportation access to and from the

ISS.

Please allow me to expand on each of these steps.

ISS National Lab Management Organization

The ISS National Lab designation from the 2005 Authorization Act establishes

the potential for the ISS to be used for non-exploration research but does not establish a path by which this is to happen. In essence, this designation establishes the

national lab facility without specifically identifying the people who would manage

it. Imagine if Brookhaven National Lab, with its incredible facilities, were operated

and maintained but no organization existed to serve the extramural research scientists and communities who might want to use the facilities. The productivity of

Brookhaven’s facilities would drop off precipitously.

The NASA Report to Congress regarding a Plan for the ISS National Laboratory

in 2007 partially addressed the question of management. In the report, NASA acknowledged the issue and indicated that various management structures had been

considered to create a possible future ISS National Lab management organization.

The report went on to recommend a two-phase approach to implementation. Phase

I, which is currently being followed, utilizes the expertise of a small project office

at NASA headquarters under the direction of the Associate Administrator for Space

Operations. In this phase, NASA is focused on identifying end-users of the ISS National Lab and securing agreements intended to provide access to NASA expertise

and eventual access to ISS for R&D activities. Phase II would occur depending on

whether demand for access to the ISS National Lab evolved to a scale that would

warrant such an organization. In this event, ‘‘NASA could establish an institute, or

other cost-effective entity, to manage opportunities for non-government organizations

that are pursing applications unrelated to the NASA mission.’’

I am very encouraged by the steps that NASA has so far taken in creating a small

project office at headquarters and by the accomplishments of this office. Clearly, our

Center is a beneficiary of the work of this office through the Space Act Agreement

about to be completed. However, demand for the use of the ISS is already high and

continuing to grow. This can be evidenced, in part, by the increasing number of

agreements being formed with NASA by various organizations including, commercial, academic and government, all of which are interested in utilizing the ISS.

Many of the witnesses here today are testifying about these interests. I would argue

that now is the time to move into the second phase of the ISS National Lab management strategy identified in NASA’s report. An effective management organization

put into place now should have a strong initial focus on expanding the user base

by providing outreach to scientists, engineers and leaders of R&D organizations.

35

This would continue to build demand for ISS utilization, which would lay the foundation for a high level of productivity of the ISS National Lab soon after completion

of the ISS facility in 2010.

How can an organization capable of leading ISS National Lab utilization be created in a short time frame? One approach could be pursued by the ISS National

Lab office at NASA headquarters. Specifically, this office could seek interested parties, identify one or more qualified organizations and then proceed to execute a

Space Act Agreement that would establish a public-private partnership to oversee

ISS National Lab utilization on behalf of multiple users. I have recently become

aware of one such organization that allows me to believe that this approach would

be possible. The Biotechnology Space Research Alliance (BSRA) is a self-organized

partnership between university, industry, foundation and economic development organizations. The purpose of BSRA is to facilitate access to the ISS National Lab and

create benefits for the biotechnology industry sector in Southern California. This

represents a possible model of how an ISS National Lab management organization

might be structured. It should also be pointed out that BSRA could grow to support

other industry sectors and expand to meet the needs of other regions across the Nation.

The ISS National Lab management organization should be chartered to develop

and manage a rich portfolio of non-exploration research activities on the ISS. To be

clear, this organization would not be intended to replace the office at NASA headquarters but rather to greatly augment its efforts. This organization also would not

replace any of the responsibilities of NASA’s Payloads Office, which serves to integrate requirements for flight research across all users of the ISS including exploration and non-exploration research, but rather work hand-in-hand with this group.

An effective ISS research management organization would have a number of key

responsibilities in supporting the ISS National Lab:

1. Perform outreach to scientists across multiple disciplines such as physics,

materials science, life science, biomedicine, chemistry, Earth science, etc. The

organization would educate scientists and others on the known effects of

gravity, the space environment and other space attributes and how conducting studies on the ISS might benefit their research. The ISS would essentially be marketed to prospective university, government and commercial

users. The goal would be to identify researchers whose work could benefit

the most from utilizing the ISS and develop a substantial portfolio of prospective R&D projects.

2. Develop a selection process to prioritize and support the best research from

a regularly updated list of candidates. The goal would be to serve as a fair

broker in selecting research, particularly when flight resources are constrained, based on criteria that would be established by the organization

when it is formed.

3. Work to seamlessly integrate and fly research as a turn-key operation. The

goal would be to take responsibility for the onerous process of flying research

so that the scientists can focus solely on their science.

4. Work closely with the ISS Payloads Office to streamline the process of integrating and certifying research for flight. The goal would be to shorten the

payload processing timeline as much as possible so as to maximize the productivity of the ISS National Lab.

5. Maintain a database with key specifications for all space flight research

hardware that might be used on the ISS. In some cases, the organization

might maintain an inventory of flight hardware and make this hardware

available, as needed. The goal would be to match the best available hardware with a particular research project to avoid duplicate hardware development.

6. Assist NASA to archive results from work performed on the ISS and effectively communicate these results to the public.

ISS National Lab Utilization Costs

Performing research in orbit is more expensive than comparable ground-based research. Conducting a research investigation on the ISS could include 1) the cost of

the science itself (research team, materials, analyses, etc.), 2) the cost for development of new hardware necessary to meet the science objectives, 3) the costs for payload integration, operations, preparation and flight certification, 4) the costs of

transportation to and from the Space Station and, 5) use of the ISS and associated

resources (power, crew time, volume, etc.).

36

Within the concept of ISS as a National Lab, it is appropriate that the research

sponsor or beneficiary would cover the cost of the research itself. This expectation

would apply whether the work was being sponsored by a commercial, academic or

government organization. In short, whoever brings research ideas forward and expects to benefit from those ideas should cover the full costs for executing the research.

On the other end of the spectrum, it is currently NASA’s policy to cover the costs

associated with Space Shuttle transportation and the use of the ISS utilization resources. Compared with the costs being borne by NASA to launch the Shuttle, and

assemble and operate the ISS, costs for transporting research and use of ISS resources for utilization are certainly marginal. Assuming that the costs for use of ISS

resources continue to be covered by NASA for the foreseeable future, the obvious

question is what happens to the transportation costs after the ISS is complete and

the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010? Without doubt, this question poses a significant risk to ISS R&D productivity post-assembly complete. Transportation costs for

ISS National Lab research communities after 2010 need to be understood as soon

as possible so they can be taken into account in laying a plan for productive ISS

utilization. I’ll address more on the subject of transportation shortly.

Cost categories 2 and 3 present a different type of challenge. The costs of developing new hardware and meeting all of the NASA requirements associated with

safety, integration, operations and flight certification can be significant. These costs

are not ones that are normally associated with terrestrial research and, as such,

even with the transportation cost excepted, the cost for conducting a research investigation on the ISS may be anywhere from two- to tenfold higher than a comparable

ground investigation. These costs could impose a high barrier to research utilization

of the ISS. Passing these costs to the end user will discourage high-risk, high-payoff

research on the ISS. One obvious solution might be to provide modest funding to

the ISS National Lab management organization so the organization can assume the

responsibility for performing and meeting all NASA payload integration, operations

and flight requirements. If research is selected for flight through an appropriate

prioritization and vetting process, then the ISS National Lab organization could assume the responsibility and costs for its execution in orbit. This approach would

have the important advantage that neither the research sponsor nor the science

team will need to learn the daunting process for integrating and certifying an investigation for flight. At the same time, more high-risk, high-payoff experiments will

be possible.

ISS National Lab Utilization Transportation

After the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010, the options for transporting research

between Earth and the ISS become limited. At this point, the U.S. Space Shuttle,

the Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles and now the European Space Agency’s Autonomous Transfer Vehicle are the only means for transporting research equipment,

supplies and samples. By 2009–2010, the H–II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) being developed by JAXA should have a similar capability to transport cargo to the ISS. Of

these, only the Space Shuttle has significant capacity for transport back to Earth

and yet it will be retired exactly at the time that research on the ISS should be

significantly stepped up. Without a solution to this dilemma, ISS National Lab utilization will be crippled. The only research that will be practically possible, other

than exploration research involving the station crews as test subjects, will be research where data are generated on-orbit and samples and payload equipment are

considered disposable and incinerated in the atmosphere after use. While this approach might work for some investigations, the technology necessary to do this on

a large scale on the ISS has not been developed nor are there any plans to do so.

NASA should be credited for pursuing commercial options for ISS resupply. The

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services or COTS providers may help to solve

the transportation problem for the ISS National Lab. The release by NASA only recently of the request for proposals for Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) represents a

critical step forward and suggests a certain level of confidence that one or more

COTS providers will step up and be able to meet the cargo resupply and sample

return needs of NASA and the ISS. To be clear, the solicitation appears to only

cover NASA’s needs for logistics and science materials and equipment. The solicitation does not cover ISS National Lab research users. Instead, NASA’s expectation

is that prospective ISS National Lab users will independently negotiate transportation to meet their needs.

There are two concerns with NASA’s approach to the CRS procurement from the

perspective of ISS National Lab users.

First, in planning for success with the ISS National Lab, there will be many different users needing to make transportation arrangements. Clearly, having multiple

37

organizations, such as individual companies, agencies, government labs, even individual scientists, all approaching the successful COTS provider for a ride will create

some degree of chaos. More importantly, it is not clear how coordination between

ISS National Lab users and NASA (logistics resupply and exploration science) will

be done. It is my opinion that the ISS National Lab will be most productive if research material can be transported both up and down on a schedule of 4–5 times

per year or more. This schedule will provide the greatest flexibility to meet the requirements of multiple end users. ISS National Lab users should be included on

every NASA procured shipment. This will require careful coordination between the

ISS National Lab management organization and NASA. For now while the Cargo

Resupply Services are being procured, NASA needs to plan to include perhaps 20–

25 percent of the volume on each supply mission for the ISS National Lab work.

Second, the cost of this component of the research, as mentioned above, could be

the most severe challenge of all. Without knowing the charges for transportation

that the selected Cargo Resupply Services providers will decide is needed to allow

them to recoup their investment, it is difficult to know how to predict this critical

cost component. However, as a point of reference, a reasonable approximation that

has been previously used is $20,000 to launch and return a kilogram of mass. Of

course the actual charge could be different, either higher or lower. Based on this

value, one modest sized experiment, comparable to what is currently flown in the

Shuttle mid-deck, would cost over $600,000 to transport to and from the ISS. Add

the cost of integration, operations and safety certification (category 3 discussed

above) and an experiment may cost ∼$1,000,000. Add the cost of any modest new

hardware development, if suitable existing hardware cannot be found, and the cost

for a single experiment may reach as high as $2,000,000, a cost prohibitive to most

research sponsors.

Conducting research on the ISS National Lab is going to require 5–10 times the

investment for comparable research on the ground. The transportation element is

a significant portion of this cost. As previously stated, if this cost must be fully

borne by the ISS National Lab users, then there will be a very high barrier that

many end users may choose not to cross. This will have the unfortunate effect of

precluding a number of excellent ideas and projects from going forward under the

ISS National Lab. Keep in mind that some of the best and most successful ideas

originate with entrepreneurial individuals or start-up companies, which may have

little investment capital on hand.

The issue of transportation and cost go hand in hand. One solution might be for

the ISS National Lab management organization, if it were to be established, to be

given sufficient funding outside of NASA to negotiate transportation contracts with

the COTS providers on behalf of all ISS National Lab users. This would need to be

done working with NASA to ensure sufficient capacity could be made available on

each delivery mission to the ISS for ISS National Lab users.

The greatest risk to the ISS National Lab failing to deliver on its research potential, in my opinion, is that the COTS providers may not succeed in developing an

ISS re-supply capability soon enough or perhaps at all. Even though NASA is investing $500M into this program, considerably more investment capital is required

from each of the COTS companies for these new rocket and spacecraft systems to

be developed and tested and to meet NASA’s safety requirements to dock with the

ISS. Having a successful commercial transportation provider is strategically and

technically important to the U.S. Without a U.S. provider, we will be purchasing

extensive services from the Russians (Progress and Soyuz vehicles) and there will

still be insufficient return mass capability to meet anyone’s needs. All ISS research,

including that of NASA and the ISS National Lab, will be crippled. While there is

no simple solution to this issue, it is one that NASA should carefully consider, perhaps with the development of a contingency plan to assist any selected Commercial

Resupply Services providers, if they encounter major technical difficulties.

Summary of Key Points and Recommendations

• The ISS National Lab has tremendous potential to advance the interests of

the Nation in commerce, science, medicine, technology and education.

• Not enough is being done to ensure that the ISS National Lab will succeed

in what should be the most productive time for the highly capable ISS facility

after assembly is complete. Given the finite period of time that it can be safely assumed to be operational, perhaps only 5–10 years, it will be very important to accommodate as many of the best research and development ideas as

possible.

• Transportation of research utilization equipment and materials to and from

the ISS with a frequency of at least 4–5 times per year is critical. With the

38

Shuttle retiring in 2010, the only other viable option will be for one or more

COTS providers to be successful at developing new launch vehicles and docking-capable spacecraft. NASA is pursuing this solution with the recently released solicitation for Cargo Resupply Services.

• Recommendations

a. NASA should proceed to identify and select an ISS National Lab management organization as soon as possible. (Described in NASA’s Plan for

the ISS National Laboratory.) Time is of the essence when considering

what must be done to set the stage for full ISS National Lab utilization

after 2010. Use of a Space Act Agreement to form a public-private partnership could allow this to be done relatively quickly.

b. Once it is formed, the ISS National Lab management organization

should be given adequate resources to identify, manage and support a

rich portfolio of utilization projects. The organization should not cover

science costs, as those will be the responsibility of the research sponsor,

but should be structured to cover some or all of the additional costs

(hardware, integration, operations, transportation, etc.) not normally associated with terrestrial research. This approach could change over time

as demand for the ISS increases where more and more of the full costs

are covered by the end users.

c. NASA should plan to fully accommodate ISS National Lab transportation

needs in their effort to secure Cargo Resupply Services. At the least, this

should include setting aside 20–25 percent of the up and down volume

and mass on any given ISS resupply vehicle, even if that means that the

number of total commercial launches per year must be increased.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LOUIS S. STODIECK

Louis S. Stodieck, Ph.D. is the Director of BioServe Space Technologies and Associate Research Professor in Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Dr. Stodieck earned his doctorate in Aerospace Engineering from the

University of Colorado, Boulder in 1985. His research focus was biomedical engineering. He trained for two years as a postdoctoral Medical Research Council Fellow

in the Department of Physiology at the University of British Columbia. He returned

to the University of Colorado in 1987 to take a position as Associate Director for

Technical Affairs for BioServe Space Technologies, a newly-formed NASA-sponsored

Commercial Space Center. The Center’s mission was to engage the private sector

in conducting space life sciences research and development. Dr. Stodieck became Director of BioServe in 1999 where he currently leads an organization of approximately 25 faculty, staff and students. During his tenure at BioServe, Dr. Stodieck

has overseen extensive ground-based research and over 40 space-based research

payloads flown on the Space Shuttle, Mir Space Station and International Space

Station. As a result of Dr. Stodieck’s strong leadership BioServe is widely recognized

for its successful partnerships with large and small biotechnology, pharmaceutical,

biomedical and agricultural companies and for its highly successful, cost effective

and innovative commercial space flight research program. Based in the College of

Engineering and Applied Sciences, BioServe is also well regarded for providing high

quality and unique hands-on educational opportunities for the next generation of

scientists and engineers involved in space exploration. Dr. Stodieck’s current research focuses on the development of countermeasures to the deleterious effects of

space flight on human health especially in regard to space flight-induced bone and

muscle loss. He has authored or co-authored 24 peer reviewed journal publications

and over 40 conference papers in the fields of biomedical engineering and space life

sciences research and hardware development.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Stodieck.

Dr. Nickerson.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHERYL A. NICKERSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LIFE SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES,

CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND VACCINOLOGY,

THE BIODESIGN INSTITUTE, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. NICKERSON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

thank you for inviting me to appear today before you to testify. My

39

name is Cheryl Nickerson. I am an Associate Professor in the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology at the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. I have been the principal investigator on multiple NASA-funded life science experiments. I serve as

a consultant to the NASA Life Sciences Program at the Johnson

Space Center, and I was honored to have been selected as a NASA

astronaut candidate finalist in 2003.

In your invitation letter today you posed a series of questions to

me regarding the utilization prospects by ISS research that I would

like to now address in sequence.

First, what had been the nature of my space-based research, and

what had been my findings to date? My research focuses on understanding the molecular mechanisms of infectious disease and specifically on the affect of space flight on the molecular mechanisms

of infectious disease, with an important emphasis on the microbial

pathogen response.

Infectious disease is responsible for 35 percent of all deaths globally, and it is the world’s largest killer of children and young

adults. The economic impact on the U.S. alone from infectious disease exceeds $120 billion annually, and of course, future threats

loom on the horizon for us globally as well, including new and reemerging infectious diseases for which we do not have sufficient

treatments, antibiotic resistance strains, and always the potential

for the intentional misuse of microbial pathogens as agents of bioterrorism. Clearly then new treatment and prevention paradigms

are desperately needed.

My space flight research is focused on the bacterial pathogen Salmonella, which is a global threat to public health and it counts for

approximately 30 percent of all deaths from food-borne illness in

the United States. From NASA’s perspective Salmonella is considered a potential source of infection during space flight that could

incapacitate crew members during a mission. However, there are

currently no human vaccines to prevent Salmonella food-borne illness.

I applaud NASA’s foresight in funding our space flight research

in the field of infectious diseases, as well as the awesome engineers

for building this wonderful ISS craft. The connection between space

flight and infectious diseases was not immediately clear 10 years

ago when NASA originally funded our research. Based on our early

findings using ground base space flight analogs, NASA awarded us

a grant to investigate the effect of true space flight on Salmonella

disease-causing ability, which we call virulence, and gene expression results. This experiment flew on STS–115 in September of ’06,

and the results were remarkable. They showed that space flight increased the virulence of this important pathogen and globally altered its gene expression profiles by changing 167 genes.

Now, the interesting part about that is it not only increased its

disease-causing potential and changed all these expression of

genes, but it did so in unique ways that are not observed using traditional experimental approaches in the laboratory. So what we

have done is we have been able to discover new ways that this important human pathogen causes disease in the host.

We also discovered a key master regulatory mechanism that controls the vast majority of the Salmonella’s responses to the space

40

flight environment. This molecular target, along with others that

we identified in my laboratory, holds real potential to be translated

into new therapeutics and new vaccines to treat and prevent

human enteric food-borne illness caused by Salmonella.

Our findings were published in the proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences. The success of our flight experiment on STS–

115 inspired a follow-up experiment on STS–123, which just flew

in March, 2008, and the results from that are equally exciting, and

we are looking forward to publishing those within the next one to

two months.

An important part of our space flight work is helping us to understand, therefore, how microbial pathogens cause infectious disease here on Earth, and likewise, then using space flight as a

novel, enabling research platform to translate those innovations

into infectious disease control here for the general public on Earth.

Shortly we expect NASA and the public to receive a direct benefit

from their investment in our work.

Second, what is my perspective on the future potential for the

use of microgravity environment as a research tool? It is simple.

The microgravity of space flight offers a unique environment for

ground-breaking biotechnology and biomedical advances and discoveries to globally advance human health. Not just in infectious

diseases but in some of the major health illnesses here that we

worry about globally. Cancer, aging, bone and muscle wasting diseases, and tissue engineering. And it will have a long-lasting impact on our nation’s scientific capability, economy, and the quality

of our lives.

Many breakthroughs in life sciences research have come from

studying living systems in extreme environments. The environment

of space flight offers insight into fundamental cellular and molecular response mechanisms that are directly relevant to human

health and disease and which cannot be observed using traditional

experimental approaches in the lab.

Third, and my final question. What are any potential applications of the basic research I have conducted to date or intend to

pursue? The investment that NASA has made in our research for

innovations in infectious disease treatment and control will provide

long-lasting return in the protection of humans as they explore

space and for the general public here on Earth.

An example of the potential boom from space flight experiments

is my laboratory’s discovery that gene regulatory proteins participate in the space flight response of microbial pathogens. Gene regulatory proteins affect every property of a cell, including its ability

to cause disease. My lab is currently studying how this regulatory

and these regulatory pathways work in Salmonella and other important human pathogens and how they can be manipulated to control microbial virulence and subsequently, how those findings can

be translated to the design of new drugs and new vaccines with

clinical applications.

One key to our nation’s economic success has been its ability to

consistently provide unique answers to the world’s problems. We

have the opportunity here and now to advance in a field where the

U.S. is a world leader. I firmly believe that space exploration and

41

development will be one of the defining activities of our nation that

will lead the world in this new millennium.

And I thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Nickerson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. NICKERSON

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear

before you today to testify. My name is Cheryl Nickerson, and I am an Associate

Professor in the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology at the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. My research focuses on understanding the molecular mechanisms and processes of infectious disease, with an important emphasis

on investigating the unique effect of space flight on microbial pathogen responses.

NASA’s support of my research has resulted in multiple space flight experiments,

which have provided novel insight into how microbial pathogens cause infection both

during flight and on Earth, and hold promise for new drug and vaccine development

to combat infectious disease.

Through awards such as the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and

Engineers, and independent research funding from grants totaling over three million dollars, NASA has consistently recognized my laboratory’s contributions to the

United States Space Program into infectious disease risks for the crew during space

flight and the general public here on Earth. I also serve as a scientific consultant

for NASA at the Johnson Space Center in support of their efforts to determine and

mitigate microbial risks to the crew during flight, and was honored to be selected

as a NASA Astronaut candidate finalist for the Astronaut class of 2004. That being

said, the views expressed in today’s testimony are my own, but I believe they reflect

community concerns.

In your invitation letter asking me to testify before you today you asked a series

of questions regarding the utilization prospects of ISS research that I would like to

address now in sequence.

1. What has been the nature of your space-based research, and what have

been your findings to date?

I would like to begin by applauding NASA’s foresight in funding our space flight

research in the field of infectious disease. We were initially funded by NASA’s Office

of Biological and Physical Research and are currently funded by both the Advanced

Capabilities Division and the Human Research Program in the Explorations Systems Mission Directorate. The connection between space flight and its influence on

infectious disease was not immediately clear 10 years ago when NASA initially

funded our research. As a result, NASA’s support of my research through multiple

space flight experiments has allowed us to provide novel insight into the molecular

mechanisms that microbial pathogens use to cause infectious disease both during

flight and on Earth, and has exciting implications for translation into human health

benefits, including the development of new drugs and vaccines for treatment and

prevention.

While the eradication or control of many microbial diseases has dramatically improved the health outlook of our society, infectious diseases are still a leading cause

of human death and illness worldwide. Infectious disease causes 35 percent of

deaths worldwide, and is the world’s biggest killer of children and young adults.

Within the United States, infectious disease has a tremendous social, economic, and

security impact. Total cost for infectious disease in the U.S. exceeds $120 billion annually due to direct medical and lost productivity costs. Moreover, the future is

threatened by new and re-emerging infectious diseases, an alarming increase in antibiotic resistance, and the use of microbial agents as a bioterrorist threat. Thus,

research platforms that offer new insight into how pathogens cause infection and

disease are desperately needed and will lead to novel strategies for treatment and

prevention.

To enhance our understanding of how pathogens cause disease in the infected

host, my laboratory uses innovative approaches to investigate the molecular mechanisms of infectious disease. It was this search for novel approaches that drove our

initial investigations with NASA technology. As flight experiments are a rare opportunity, our early experimental efforts concentrated on the use of a unique bioreactor,

called the Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV), designed at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston as a ground-based space flight analogue. The RWV bioreactor allows

scientists to culture cells (microbial or mammalian) in the laboratory under conditions that mimic several aspects of space flight and can be used to induce many of

the biological changes that occur during space flight. In addition, by using matheVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

matical modeling, we found that this analogue, and true space flight, produce an

environment that is relevant to conditions encountered by the pathogen during infection in the human host—thus enhancing the relevance of our findings for the development of new strategies to combat infectious disease on Earth.

We chose the model bacterial pathogen Salmonella typhimurium for both our

space flight analogue and space flight studies, as it is the best characterized pathogen and poses a risk to both the crew during flight and the general public on Earth.

Salmonella is the most readily and fully understood pathogen and belongs to a large

group of bacteria whose natural habitat is the intestinal tract of humans and animals. This group includes most of the bacteria that cause intestinal and diarrheal

disease, considered to be one of the greatest health problems globally. Indeed, Salmonella infection is one of the most common food-borne infections worldwide. In the

United States an estimated 1.41 million cases occur, resulting in 168,000 visits to

physicians, 15,000 hospitalizations and 580 deaths annually. Salmonella accounts

for approximately 30 percent of deaths caused by food-borne infections in the United

States, and is even more detrimental in the developing world. The total cost associated with Salmonella infections in the U.S. is estimated at three billion dollars annually. Moreover, in 1984, Salmonella was used in a bioterrorism attack by a religious cult in Oregon to cause a community-wide outbreak of food-borne illness in

an attempt to influence the outcome of a local election. The organism is also an excellent choice for NASA as it is considered a potential threat to crew health as a

food contaminant. There are currently no human vaccines to prevent Salmonella

food-borne illness.

Using the RWV ground-based technology, we conducted preliminary studies showing that Salmonella responded to this environment by globally altering its gene expression, stress resistance, and disease causing (virulence) profiles, thereby improving our chance of success and need for a space flight experiment. Subsequent analysis of the genes that were expressed after growth in this analogue suggested that

the environment induced unique molecular mechanisms in the microbe to cause disease. Our information from these early experiments provided NASA with new insight toward understanding the risk of infection during flight. In addition, the

unique molecular mechanisms that were identified held the potential to be used to

develop new therapeutics and vaccines for the general public on Earth.

NASA and the scientific community continued their support of our ground-based

findings by awarding us a grant to investigate the effect of true space flight on Salmonella virulence and gene expression responses. This was an exciting opportunity

for us, as while the RWV bioreactor can simulate some aspects of the space flight

environment, it cannot duplicate all of the physical parameters that organisms encounter during space flight or their biological responses. In September 2006, our

first space flight experiment flew aboard STS–115, and we investigated the comprehensive changes in Salmonella when exposed to the truly unique environment

of microgravity. The results from this experiment were remarkable and showed that

during space flight, Salmonella altered its virulence and gene expression responses

in unique ways that are not observed using traditional experimental approaches.

These findings immediately advanced our knowledge of microbial responses to space

flight and disease causing mechanisms used by this important human pathogen.

Our first technical report from this space flight experiment was recently published

in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and our results demonstrated changes in Salmonella disease causing potential (virulence) during flight

as compared to identical samples that were grown on the ground. Specifically, our

findings demonstrated that space flight increased the virulence of Salmonella, and

the pathogen was able to cause disease at lower doses. In addition, we identified

167 genes in Salmonella that changed expression in response to space flight. The

identity of these genes allowed us to discover a key ‘‘master switch’’ regulatory

mechanism that controls Salmonella responses to space flight environments. This

molecular target, and others that we identified, hold potential to be translated into

new therapeutic and vaccine approaches to treat and prevent human enteric salmonellosis.

This experiment was a ‘‘first of its kind’’ in space flight biological study. It was

the first study ever to investigate the effect of space flight on the disease-causing

potential (virulence) of a pathogen, and the first ever to obtain the entire gene expression response profiles of a bacterium to space flight. In fact, very few studies

contain data that document gene expression changes during space flight. It is also

critical to mention that an important part of our space flight work is directly related

to helping us understand how microbial pathogens cause infectious disease here on

Earth. This is possible because the unique environment of space flight encountered

by microorganisms (including pathogens) are also relevant to conditions that these

cells encounter here on Earth during the normal course of their life cycles, including

43

certain niches within the infected host, such as parts of the human intestine. Thus,

an exciting part of this work is the opportunity to use space flight and the ISS as

a novel enabling research platform for innovations in infectious disease control here

on Earth—including novel insight into how pathogens cause disease and for the development of new therapeutics and vaccines for treatment and prevention.

The success of our flight experiment aboard STS–115 inspired a follow-up experiment aboard STS–123, which just flew in March 2008. While the data is still being

analyzed, our preliminary findings are leading toward translational applications of

our original data for the development of novel strategies to treat and prevent infection and disease during flight and here on Earth. Shortly, we expect NASA and the

public to receive a direct benefit from their investment.

The ISS holds tremendous potential to provide novel insight into human health

and disease mechanisms that can lead to ground-breaking new treatments to combat infectious disease and improve the quality of life.

2. What is your perspective on the future potential for use of the microgravity environment as a research tool?

The microgravity of space flight offers a unique environment for ground-breaking

biotechnology and biomedical innovations and discoveries to globally advance

human health in the following areas:

– Infectious disease

– Immunology

– Cancer

– Aging

– Bone and muscle wasting diseases

– Development of biopharmaceuticals

– Tissue engineering

It is not surprising that biological systems respond in novel ways to the space

flight environment. Many breakthroughs in life sciences research have come from

studying living systems in unique and extreme environments. It is from studying

the response of biological systems under these environments that we have not only

gained new fundamental insight into how they function and adapt to extreme conditions, but have also translated these findings into beneficial biotechnology and biomedical advances to improve our quality of life. Space flight is simply the next logical progression and extreme environment to study that holds tremendous potential

to provide the next ground-breaking advances in public health.

The ISS provides a unique environment where researchers can explore fundamental questions about human health—like how the body heals itself and develops

disease. Specifically, the ISS offers an orbiting laboratory to use microgravity as a

tool to bring a new technological approach to understanding living systems and discover basic mechanisms we haven’t seen before. That is because organisms and cells

respond in unique ways to space flight and exhibit characteristics relevant to

human health and disease that they do not when cultured using traditional conditions on Earth. Accordingly, cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie disease can be studied, offering new opportunities to see how cells operate in these conditions, and giving new fundamental insight into the disease process. Many of these

findings may translate directly to the clinical setting for novel ways to diagnose,

treat and prevent disease here on Earth. This type of research creates exciting new

opportunities for the utilization of ISS to advance the frontiers of knowledge and

act as a commercial platform for breakthrough biomedical and biotechnological discoveries. I believe it is important to take advantage of this unique research facility

to develop new advances in biotech and biomedicine that will globally advance

human health and benefit the United States in the international economy.

Thus, it is anticipated that ISS life sciences research will lead to ground-breaking

discoveries and innovations in human health, biotech and biomedical innovations,

and will have a lasting impact on our nation’s scientific capability, economy, and

quality of our lives.

3. What are any potential applications of the basic research you have conducted to date or intend to pursue?

The investment that NASA has made in our research for innovations in infectious

disease treatment and control will provide long lasting return in the protection of

humans as they explore space and for the general public here on Earth. Regarding

protection of the crew, the negative impacts of infectious disease range from impeded crew performance to potentially life threatening scenarios. As humans travel

44

further away from our home planet, the risk to crew health and mission success becomes even greater. As we gain greater knowledge of the risks of microbial infection,

prudent preventative operational activities, therapeutics, and other countermeasures can be implemented to mitigate the risk to the crew and mission success.

Perhaps the greatest application from this research will not apply directly to

space flight, but rather to improving the quality of life on Earth through the development of novel strategies to combat infection and disease. Internationally, we face

many challenges to our health by microbial threats. Antibiotic resistant strains are

on the rise, regional diseases are expanding to new locations, the threat of bioterrorism looms, and a multitude of diseases have insufficient treatments. New treatment paradigms and testing methods are desperately needed. The knowledge from

space flight experiments is providing novel insight into how microbes cause disease

in the human body and is providing new targets for therapeutic and vaccine development. The goal is to identify target mechanisms in space and then investigate

these mechanisms on Earth. By understanding more fully how these organisms

function and react to novel stimuli, we can develop new methods to treat and prevent the spread of infectious agents.

In addition, the knowledge gained from space flight research can advance and accelerate therapeutic development and implementation of new strategies for translation of this research into health benefits for the developing world. The costs of

therapeutics and vaccine development can be prohibitively high. Bringing a new

drug to market can cost in excess of one billion dollars over a decade before it

reaches the patient. If the knowledge gained from space flight studies provides even

an incremental decrease in these costs and timelines (which studies strongly suggest

is the case), then this research is of tremendous importance.

An example of a potential boon from space flight experiments is our laboratory’s

discovery that gene regulatory proteins participate in the space flight mechanistic

response of microbial pathogens. Gene regulatory proteins affect every property of

a cell including its ability to cause disease. Our laboratory is currently focusing on

how this regulatory pathway works in Salmonella and how it can be manipulated

to control that organism’s virulence in flight and here on Earth. Once understood,

we will use that knowledge to see which other microorganisms can be controlled in

a similar fashion. A detailed understanding of how these gene regulatory proteins

are controlled may offer new opportunities to design efficacious drugs and vaccines

that would target this class of protein.

It is also relevant to note that there are exciting efforts underway to develop a

nationwide Biotechnology Space Research Alliance (BSRA) Consortium that partners a world-class team of industry, university, and economic development organizations across the country to partner with NASA to utilize the ISS for breakthrough

biomedical and biotechnology discoveries. It is anticipated that the discoveries made

on ISS will engender scientific knowledge, technological capability, and commerce

on Earth as a gateway to 21st Century exploration and development of space.

One key to our nation’s economic success has been its ability to provide unique

answers to the world’s problems. We have the opportunity to advance in a field

where the United States is a world leader. I believe space exploration and development will be one of the defining activities for our nation that will lead the world

in this new millennium.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHERYL A. NICKERSON

Dr. Nickerson is an Associate Professor at The Biodesign Institute in the Center

for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology at Arizona State University. She obtained

a B.S. in Biology at Tulane University/Newcomb College (1983), a M.S. degree in

Genetics from the University of Missouri (1988), and a Ph.D. in Microbiology from

Louisiana State University (1994). Her postdoctoral internship in microbial pathogenesis and infectious disease research was done at Washington University in St.

Louis, MO, in the laboratory of Dr. Roy Curtiss III. In 1998, Dr. Nickerson joined

the Tulane University School of Medicine as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, where in 2003 she received tenure and appointment to Associate Professor. While at Tulane, she also served as the Director

for the Tulane Center of Excellence in Bioengineering, and as Co-Director of the

Tulane Environmental Astrobiology Center. In January 2006, Dr. Nickerson joined

the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University as an Associate Professor in the

Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology.

Dr. Nickerson’s research interests are focused on understanding how microbial

pathogens cause infection and disease in humans, both on Earth and in space flight.

By combining cell biology and microbiology with engineering and mathematics, she

has been at the forefront of space biosciences and the emerging field called cellular

45

biomechanics, making several fundamental discoveries in these fields. Her research

has contributed important new insight into how mechanical forces like microgravity

and fluid shear affect the function and behavior of living cells, and ultimately, play

an important role in infectious disease. The results of Dr. Nickerson’s NASA-funded

work have been published in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Infection and Immunity, and Applied

and Environmental Microbiology. She is recognized internationally for her work and

has won several prestigious awards including the Presidential Early Career Award

for Scientists and Engineers from NASA—presented by President George W. Bush

at the White House (2001); the Charles C. Randall Award for Outstanding Young

Faculty Member from the American Society for Microbiology (2000); Woman of the

Year, New Orleans, LA, presented by New Orleans City Business (2002); Outstanding Newcomb College Alumnae (2004), and selection by NASA as an Astronaut

Candidate Finalist (2003). She also serves as a Scientific Consultant for the NASA

Life Sciences Division at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. Experimental

payloads from Dr. Nickerson’s laboratory have flown on-board NASA Space Shuttle

missions STS–112, STS–115, STS–123, and the International Space Station.

A landmark experiment from Dr. Nickerson’s lab recently flew on Shuttle mission

STS–115, and was the first study to examine the effect of space flight on the

virulence (disease-causing potential) of a microbial pathogen, and the first to obtain

the entire gene expression response of a bacterium to space flight. The results from

this experiment were remarkable and showed that during space flight, the bacterial

pathogen Salmonella increased its virulence and altered its gene expression responses in unique ways that are not observed using traditional experimental approaches. The results from this work have provided novel insight into the molecular

mechanisms that microbial pathogens use to cause infectious disease both during

flight and on Earth, and has exciting implications for translation into human health

benefits, including the development of new drugs and vaccines for treatment and

prevention.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Nickerson.

Mr. Pickens.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS BOONE PICKENS, III, CHAIRMAN

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPACEHAB, INC.

Mr. PICKENS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to make my first appearance before

you today as the Chairman and CEO of SPACEHAB to discuss the

significance of NASA’s International Space Station Program, not

just as it applies to commercial aerospace company, but also for its

tremendous potential to benefit mankind. I represent the commercial perspective of microgravity and its value.

First question was how does your company arrive at the decision

to pursue vaccine development under microgravity conditions and

other opportunities? SPACEHAB has long known the value of the

microgravity as our commercial modules and carriers have been

the primary payload on 23 Space Shuttle missions in both the

Space Station here and International Space Station. We have flown

over 1,500 experiments to space, and much knowledge was discovered.

However, after reviewing these experiments I found that we have

only begun the discovery processes. While experiments were sent to

space, the ISS was under construction, and the environment was

not ideal for these sometimes very sensitive samples.

But today the International Space Station is nearly complete,

and the ISS has been designated a national laboratory available for

commercial endeavors, setting the stage for a new age in microgravity experimentation that shows strong indications of great

value both in commercial investment returns and in saving and enhancing our lives here on Earth.

46

To take advantage of these unparalleled space-based resources,

SPACEHAB has initiated a new division. SPACEHAB’s Microgravity Processing division is uniquely qualified to identify commercial microgravity processing opportunities through our history

of supporting microgravity research activities and our wide range

of partnerships with agencies and industry leaders.

This division focuses on commercial R&D initiatives that are

aligned with the national lab capabilities, transportation opportunities, and market demand.

To assist SPACEHAB in identifying these high-value opportunities for commercialization, we formed a team of our nation’s leading microgravity researchers. SPACEHAB Science Advisory Council

is comprised of experts in microgravity life sciences, biotechnology,

and material sciences, and most of these distinguished individuals

have extensive experience with microgravity.

The first step in this process is to gain access to the ISS through

a Space Act Agreement, and the next step is to establish the appropriate public and private partnerships required to execute an ISS

National Lab project.

As an example, SPACEHAB has established a public partnership

with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will allow joint efforts in various biotechnology research and product development in

the national lab, leading to commercial healthcare solutions.

Second question. Are there other applications of the microgravity

environment that you intend to pursue? And I will go through

those. The space environment has been, has shown to induce key

changes in microbial cells to, and are directly relevant to infectious

disease. The targets identified from each of these microgravity-induced alterations represents an opportunity to develop new and improved therapeutics, including vaccines, as well as biological and

pharmaceutical agents aimed specifically at eradicating the pathogen. Furthermore, these different targeted approaches each represent potential product lines of development within the microgravity environment.

SPACEHAB has determined that one of the most valuable shortterm microgravity opportunities is in the development of advanced

vaccines that have the potential to be worth billions of dollars

while saving thousands and perhaps millions of lives.

No single medical advance has had a greater historical impact on

human health than vaccines. Today vaccines continue to be developed, providing hope to eradicate many diseases that continue to

kill millions every year as pandemic influenza, AIDS, cancer, and

instruments of bioterror.

An experiment that flew in the ISS in 2006, concluded that bacteria grown in microgravity are much stronger than those grown on

Earth. This is a very important discovery as it signaled to scientists that microgravity properly controlled could be used to design vaccines much quicker and with much greater precision than

before possible.

As a result of these and other conclusions, SPACEHAB has

taken these composite findings to the next level in sponsoring a

microgravity vaccine development model that was sent to space on

the Space Shuttle during mission STS–123. The vaccine model is

scheduled to return on the STS–124 mission in May to confirm the

47

initial results. Once complete, this new space-based model has the

potential to significantly increase our ability to develop vaccines for

various types of infectious diseases.

Protein crystal growths, we call those PCGs, the cells of the

human body are the mini factories that enable life. What divide all

those factories to perform their specific functions are the proteins

that are synthesized within these cells. The body utilizes approximately 400,000 of these proteins, and when certain protein/cell

functions become abnormal, a wide variety of diseases and conditions may present themselves. Drugs can be developed to alter the

effects of these problem proteins, but drug development is very difficult to accomplish on Earth and for some of those more serious

diseases, microgravity is thought to hold the only solution for saving millions of lives on Earth.

Diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Cystic Fibrosis are only just

a few of the diseases the microgravity is thought to hold the potential to provide significant advancements in developing a drug treatment.

A technique has been developed on Earth to discover drug therapies that involves growing a very pure crystal that is used to obtain

an image of the atomic structure of a protein. Once the crystal is

obtained, a very high powered X-ray or X-ray crystallography,

reads the structure of the protein and from this, a drug can be developed. It was discovered that when crystals were grown in microgravity, the results are often times a larger and better quality crystal that can be more easily and accurately characterized, making

it more possible to develop a drug treatment that can treat these

diseases.

The PCGs have flown more than any other experiment with an

estimated investment of over $400 million by NASA. SPACEHAB

has identified 1,250 Membrane Proteins and 425 Aqueous Proteins

that are ready for microgravity crystallization. The company expect

to send the first samples to the ISS for processing in the third

quarter of 2008. Upon return from space, these crystals will be Xrayed and the data sold to drug development companies. Alternatively, the company may choose to add more value to the discovery by pursuing its own drug development program.

Since the inception of the ISS, hundreds of experiments have

been conducted giving rise to additional opportunities to provide

Earth-based benefit. As NASA’s mission priorities focus on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, the designation of the ISS as a national lab enables non-government entities to partner with NASA

to further the benefit of space-based research and development.

SPACEHAB intends to conduct its national lab activities to move

technology forward, provide economic growth, stimulate the minds

of our future engineers and scientists, and to ultimately improve

the quality of life here on Earth.

The third question that I had was are the current, what are the

current perspectives in the financial community with respect to underwriting R&D efforts that require the microgravity environment

of space? We are currently funding our micro-G efforts with internal cash and financial assistance from the State of Florida and its

Space Florida Authority. The fact that the ISS was designated as

48

a national laboratory last year went a long, long way to produce

a—to putting an environment together to attract capital.

Ultimately, the investment community needs to see commercial

product come back from micro-G in products sold, in profits made.

We feel confident that we can attract capital from corporate and institutional investors as needed to provide an acceptable return.

In closing, I would like to add the International Space Station is

unarguably the greatest achievement man has ever accomplished.

The ISS is the pyramids of our generations in the aqueducts of our

nation. The taxpayers of this country have spent over $100 billion

in its design and construction, and it is a magnificent achievement

that has included 19 countries in this effort.

I want to take this moment to recognize the engineers, the technicians, and politicians that have accomplished this great feat, and

I want to close by reminding you that this is the time to take advantage of what we have built.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to extend my sincere appreciation for having me here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS BOONE PICKENS, III

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to make my first appearance before you today as the Chairman and CEO of

SPACEHAB, Inc. to discuss the significance of NASA’s International Space Station

Program—not just as it applies to a commercial aerospace company—but also for

its tremendous potential to benefit mankind.

SPACEHAB, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPAB), was incorporated in 1984 and made its initial public offering in 1995. The Company flew its first module on a Space Shuttle

mission in 1993. To date, SPACEHAB modules and carriers, which fly in NASA’s

Space Shuttle cargo bay, have been the primary payload on 23 Space Shuttle missions, including research missions on-board the fleet of orbiters, resupply missions

to both the Russian space station Mir, and the International Space Station (ISS).

The modules doubled the amount of working and living space available to the astronaut crews. Over the course of our pressurized module program, SPACEHAB has

been involved in the analytical and physical integration and operation of hundreds

of microgravity research and science payloads.

SPACEHAB has long known the value of microgravity; however there has never

been the environment to commercially exploit these opportunities as the priorities

of the international space partners have been the construction of the ISS while performing rudimentary experiments in microgravity. Additionally, until this year, the

ISS has simply not been in the state of completion that would have been able to

sustain repeated processing of microgravity products. And, until the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, NASA has never considered commercial ventures to profit from

ISS produced products. Now that the International Space Station is nearly complete,

and the ISS has been designated as a National Laboratory available for commercial

endeavors, the next obvious direction for SPACEHAB is to utilize its experience in

microgravity and commercial practices in forming a partnership with NASA to demonstrate the efficacy of the commercial space industry. This goal is achieved by the

enhancement of life on Earth through the advancement of a wide range of microgravity technologies from a ‘‘demonstrated’’ state to a production state.

To take advantage of these unparalleled space based resources SPACEHAB has

initiated a new division. SPACEHAB’s Microgravity Processing division is uniquely

qualified to identify commercial microgravity processing opportunities through our

history of supporting microgravity research activities and our wide range of partnerships with agency and industry leaders. Additionally, SPACEHAB’s Microgravity

Processing division is ideally positioned to implement these commercial microgravity

opportunities through the company’s core capability of planning, integrating, operating payloads and its proven experience in commercial business practices. This division focuses on commercial R&D activities that are aligned with the National Lab

capabilities, transportation opportunities and market demand.

SPACEHAB’s Microgravity Processing division serves to advance both the business and technical state-of-the-art. With the designation of the ISS as a National

49

Lab, SPACEHAB is establishing a broad portfolio of commercialization initiatives

that will advance the state of the commercial space business sector to a level only

previously theorized by commercial space advocates. By migrating microgravity

processing initiatives from demonstration and validation to commercial production

initiatives, substantial progress is made in sample throughput by adding to existing

microgravity processing hardware the advanced automation systems necessary for

higher volumes.

To assist SPACEHAB in identifying those high-value opportunities for commercialization, a team of our nation’s leading microgravity researchers has been formed.

This Science Advisory Council, chaired by SPACEHAB’s MGP Program Manager, is

comprised of experts in microgravity life sciences, biotechnology and material

sciences. The majority of the council members are affiliated with educational institutions and will also provide significant guidance and contribution to SPACEHAB-developed educational programs used to motivate the next generation of science and

engineering professionals. Members of this council include:

Once a commercial opportunity has been identified, SPACEHAB will develop a

unique business plan to ensure the viability of the proposed opportunity. Each business will utilize a systematic process to assure all technical and financial aspects

of each opportunity are aligned with the goals and objectives of the National Lab

and have a high probability of success.

The first step in this process is to establish the appropriate public and private

partnerships required to execute an ISS National Lab project. As an example,

SPACEHAB has established a public partnership with the Department of Veterans

Affairs which will allow joint efforts in various biotechnology research and product

development on the National Lab leading to commercial health care solutions. Additionally, SPACEHAB is establishing partnerships with private commercial companies to better ensure its success for the development of commercial products utilizing the National Lab. SPACEHAB has established a commercial partnership with

Dynamac, the operator of the Space Life Sciences Laboratory (SLSL) at the Kennedy

Space Center (KSC). For 37 years, Dynamac has been providing advanced science

research and technology services related to physical, chemical, and life science research initiatives. Beginning in 1995, as the prime Life Sciences Services Contractor

(LSSC) for NASA–KSC, Dynamac scientists have helped process more than 180

Shuttle and ISS flight experiments. In addition to supporting Principle Investigators

(PIs) world wide, Dynamac scientists have designed, constructed, and processed over

10 flight experiments as the primary PIs. This partnership arrangement utilizes

their commercial ‘‘work-for-others’’ allocation in their SLSL contract allowing them

to support industry initiatives in microgravity research. Utilization of their skills

and this state of the art facility accommodates payload preparation, in-flight data

collection, payload control, and supports post flight sample recovery and evaluation.

The data network system installed in the SLSL, and managed by Dynamac, allows

payload monitoring and control capability to both on-site and at off-site SPACEHAB

facilities.

SPACEHAB has developed a broad portfolio of opportunities in the biotech and

material science markets. We are working diligently to match these opportunities

with flight opportunities and funding profiles. The overall objective is to have a dynamic matrix that can quickly match opportunities with flight availability, market

demand and available resources. Some near-term targets include:

Infectious Disease

The space environment has been shown to induce key changes in microbial cells

that are directly relevant to infectious disease, including alterations of microbial

growth rates, antibiotic resistance, microbial pathogenicity (that is, the ability of the

organism to invade human tissue and cause disease), organism virulence, and geVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
50

netic changes within the organism. The targets identified from each of these microgravity-induced alterations represent an opportunity to develop new and improved

therapeutics, including vaccines, as well as biological and pharmaceutical agents

aimed specifically at eradicating the pathogen. Furthermore, these different targeted approaches each represent potential product lines of development within the

microgravity environment.

Understanding virulence factors is key to developing a vaccine. Virulence refers

to the degree of pathogenicity of a microbe, or in other words, the relative ability

of a microbe to cause disease. Virulence factors must be identified, and either purified for use as a vaccine, or the virulence factor can be deleted from the bacterium,

yielding an attenuated strain to use as a vaccine. Hence, vaccines may consist of

dead or inactivated organisms, or purified products derived from them. As the development of antibiotic resistance continues to erode one of the greatest advances in

modern health care, it is crucial to identify bacterial targets that can form the basis

of novel anti-infective therapies, including vaccines.

SPACEHAB has determined that one of the most valuable short-term microgravity opportunities is the development of advanced vaccines that have the potential to be worth billions of dollars and also represents one of the quickest paths to

success. No single medical advance has had a greater impact on human health than vaccines. Before vaccines, Americans could expect that every year measles would infect

four million children and kill 3,000; diphtheria would kill 15,000 people, mostly

teenagers; rubella (German measles) would cause 20,000 babies to be born blind,

deaf, or mentally retarded; pertussis would kill 8,000 children, most of whom were

less than one year old; and polio would paralyze 15,000 children and kill 1,000.

Smallpox, a disease estimated to have killed 500 million people, was eradicated by

vaccines. Today, vaccines continue to be developed providing hope to eradicate many

diseases that continue to kill millions every year such as pandemic influenza, staphylococcus, AIDS, instruments of bioterror, and various types of cancers.

The frustration encountered by the biotech vaccine industry lays in the cost of the

discovering the exact strain of bacteria needed to invigorate the immune system

while causing no harm to the animal—including humans. On Earth this is a very

arduous process typically taking many years with a low probability of success. However, an experiment that flew to the ISS in 2006 concluded that bacteria grown in

microgravity are much stronger than those grown on Earth. This was a very important discovery as it signaled to scientists that microgravity, properly controlled,

could be used to design vaccines much quicker and with much greater precision

than ever before possible. Many other vaccine experiments have since been sent

with similar findings. As a result, SPACEHAB is taking these composite findings

to the next level and sponsoring a microgravity vaccine development model that was

sent to space on the Space Shuttle during mission STS–123. The vaccine model is

scheduled to return on the STS–124 mission in May to confirm the initial results.

The selected vaccine that SPACEHAB has chosen is to combat the complex Salmonella bacteria that makes millions sick every year, kills thousands, and costs

many millions of dollars in financial damages. SPACEHAB has teamed with the Department of Veterans Affairs in collaboration with investigators from the National

Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine, Duke University

Medical Center, University of Colorado at Boulder, and the Max Planck Institute

for Infection Biology. Results of this infectious disease model will be made public

in the coming months. Once complete this new space based model has the potential

to significantly increase our ability to develop vaccines for various types of infectious

disease.

Proteins

The cells of the human body are the mini ‘‘factories’’ that enable life. What drive

all of those factories to perform their specific functions are the proteins that are synthesized within those cells. The body utilizes approximately 400,000 of these proteins and when certain protein/cell functions become abnormal, a wide variety of

diseases and conditions may present themselves. Drugs can be developed to alter

the effects of these problem proteins, but drug development is very difficult to accomplish on Earth and for some of the more serious diseases, microgravity is

thought to hold the only solution for saving millions of lives on Earth. The following

is a list of those diseases that microgravity is thought to hold the potential to provide significant advancements in developing a drug treatment:

• Diabetes

• Parkinson’s

• Alzheimer’s

51

• Lou Gehrig’s disease

• Pancreas Cancer

• Cystic Fibrosis

• Hemophilia

Protein Crystal Growth (PCG)

A technique has been developed on Earth to discover drug therapies that involves

growing a very pure crystal that is used to obtain an image of the atomic structure

of a protein. Once the crystal is obtained, a very high powered x-ray (x-ray crystallography) reads the structure of the protein and from this, a drug can be developed. This crystallography technique is routinely performed on Earth however it has

been found that gravity has a limiting effect on the growth and quality of the crystals. It was discovered that when crystals are grown in microgravity, the result is

often times a larger and better quality crystal that can be more easily and accurately characterized making it more possible to develop a drug treatment that can

treat these diseases.

The PCG’s have flown more than any other experiment with an estimated invest- ment of over $400 million to date. SPACEHAB has identified 1,250 Membrane Proteins and 425 Aqueous Proteins that are ready for microgravity crystallization. The

Company expects to send the first samples to the ISS for processing in the third

quarter of 2008. Upon return from space, these crystals will be x-rayed and the data

sold to drug development companies. Alternatively, the Company may choose to add

more value to the discovery by pursuing its own drug development program.

Of the human body’s approximately 400,000 proteins, nearly 30% are considered

membrane proteins and are, in fact, the types of proteins involved in some of the

higher mortality diseases thereby commanding significant governmental and corporate research funding. While 30 percent represents well over 100,000 proteins, unfortunately only about 100 membrane protein structures have been identified due

to the extreme difficulty of growing membrane protein crystals of sufficient quality

for crystallography. To show the importance of membrane proteins and despite low

number identified, nearly 50 percent of the commercially available drugs target

membrane proteins. Given the improvements in crystallography and drug design

over the past 10 years, Vergara, notes that the ‘‘production of well diffracting crystals of biological macromolecules remains a major impediment.’’

Previous space flight activities indicated that growing protein crystals in the

microgravity environment experienced in spacecraft offers significantly increased

quality of protein crystals. These better diffracting crystals create the opportunity

to increase the number of protein structures identified that can be used for new

drug development efforts.

As SPACEHAB’s microgravity processing initiative gains momentum, our business model is to reinvest in our own future. SPACEHAB will continuously evaluate

past microgravity research and emerging discovery opportunities to drive our next

generation microgravity processing programs. This exploratory activity will be selffunded and will set as a goal the continued demonstration to the American public

the value of the International Space Station.

From improved firefighting equipment derived from NASA’s advances in extra-vehicular mobility units (EMUs) to satellite tracking of forest fires by NASA’s Earth

Observing System, the value of NASA’s research and development activities has

been manifested countless times here on Earth. Since the inception of the ISS, hundreds of experiments have been conducted giving rise to additional opportunities to

provide Earth based benefit. As NASA’s mission priorities focus on exploration beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO), the designation of the ISS as a National Lab enables

non-government entities to partner with NASA to further the benefit of space based

research and development. SPACEHAB intends to conduct National Lab activities

on a broad portfolio of technologies in the life sciences, biotechnology and material

sciences arenas to move technology forward, provide economic growth, stimulate the

minds of our future engineers and scientists, and to ultimately improve the quality

to life here on Earth. The SPACEHAB microgravity processing effort directly benefits the public in multiple ways.

Through the establishment of our microgravity processing division and initial onorbit processing opportunities, SPACEHAB will raise significant capital and re-invest this capital in established biotech companies, universities, research centers, as

well as our own MGP division resulting in direct growth to local economies at our

sites in Texas and Florida. Furthermore, as we incrementally increase the scale of

our microgravity processing capabilities, we create job opportunities within the aerospace industry in support of the on-orbit facilities (i.e., rack facilities, etc.) development and operations, the necessary ground infrastructure to support microgravity

52

processing preparation and flight operations, and non-traditional jobs in support of

product post processing and distribution. We are actively planning the creation of

new companies that are established as a result of the products developed from our

space based processing; these new companies contribute positively to economic

growth through additional job creation and capital investment.

An integral component of the planned activities for utilization of ISS as a National Laboratory is the development of education and outreach initiatives for the

advancement of 6–12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). An

education task force convened by NASA has defined a role for private sector participation in this important goal, and has extended this objective to also include activities ranging to university, graduate and post-doctoral studies. R&D activities in

microgravity provide much opportunity in support of educational initiatives.

SPACEHAB has a rich history in this area, specifically in the successful Space

Technology and Research Students (STARS) program, which provided hands-on,

interactive scientific learning for students from grammar through high school

aboard the Space Shuttle missions, including STS–107. Students from six countries

participated in the STS–107 mission and were directly involved in the experimental

concept, design, management, set-up and data assessment of research conducted in

microgravity. More than 40 countries expressed interest in participating during the

development of the STARS program. This activity partnered with BioServe Space

Technologies, and utilized the Isothermal Containment Module (ICM) for the experimental studies. BioServe has continued educational payload design—the Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus Insert–02 (CGB–02) was successfully deployed

on STS–116 and provided data and imagery, via cameras installed within the hardware, which were down-linked directly into classrooms across the world via the

World Wide Web. The CSI–02 is an educational payload designed specifically to

heighten the enthusiasm of students in STEM and to provide opportunities for these

students to participate in near-real time research on ISS. Moreover, these activities

also raise national and international awareness of cutting edge science and technology, and opportunities for product development in microgravity. Partnerships to

utilize ISS for educational endeavors can be modeled after the STARS program for

6–12, with additional outreach to the broader educator community to include teachers and scientists in both academia and industry, and can be further extended to

educational program administrators for design of next-generation programs in

STEM disciplines. The development of training, internship and shadowing programs

designed to raise awareness of the commercial sector as it pertains to microgravity

R&D would also be an important outcome of these educational initiatives.

In conjunction with the establishment of our MGP business unit, SPACEHAB has

undertaken the development of our microgravity processing technology roadmap.

With 23 successful SPACEHAB missions containing numerous microgravity payloads, our engineers are experienced in end-to-end microgravity payload processing

including analytical integration, comprehensive payload functional and interface

testing, physical integration, and payload flight operations. Leveraging this unique

experience in the development of our technology roadmap, our efforts are focused

on innovative concepts that move the state-of-the-art in microgravity from small

scale locker processing to large scale rack processing on-orbit, on automation techniques that reduce the required on-orbit crew time requirements, and to develop

new techniques for on-orbit data processing where results can be down-linked thereby reducing the down-mass requirements.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to extend my sincere

appreciation for allowing me this forum to discuss a topic as critical to our future

as the International Space Station Program—as well as your continued support

which is vital for its success going forward. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR THOMAS BOONE PICKENS, III

Mr. Tom B. Pickens, III is presently the Chief Executive Officer of SPACEHAB,

Incorporated, a Texas-based aerospace company, which has been pioneering in providing commercial space services for nearly 25 years. Mr. Pickens is also the Managing Partner of Texas Nanotech Ventures, Inc., a leader in the global

nanotechnology industry; and, the Managing Partner and Founder of Tactic Advisors, Inc., a company specializing in corporate turnarounds that have aggregated to

more than $20 billion in value. Concurrently, Mr. Pickens is President of T.B. Pickens & Co., which has acted as both advisor and principal of corporate acquisitions

now totaling more than $10 billion.

Mr. Pickens’ financial and corporate streamlining experience began in the Wall

Street arena where he worked extensively in hedge fund management and due diliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
53

gence implementation. His unprecedented experience with all facets of corporate

turnaround and restructuring including startup, growth, and value creation has

gained him the esteemed reputation of being one of the leading authorities in corporate transactional matters. Mr. Pickens has been a member of SPACEHAB’s

Board of Directors since 2003 and became the President and Chief Executive Officer

in January 2007.

Other notable contributions include acting as Founder and President of Beta Computer Systems; Managing Partner, Grace Pickens Acquisition Partners, LT; Managing Partner, Sumter Partners L.P.; Chairman and CEO of Catalyst Energy Corporation (NYSE); Chairman, United Thermal Corporation (NYSE); President, Golden Bear Corporation; President, Slate Creek Corporation; President, Eury Dam Corporation; Chairman, Century Power Corporation; President, Vidalia Hydroelectric

Corporation; Managing Partner, Pickens Capital Income Fund, L.P.; Chairman, The

Code Corporation; and President, U.S. Utilities, Inc. Mr. Pickens has also served in

the capacity representing the Office of the Chairman, Mirant Equity Committee

(NYSE) and Director, Optifab, Inc. (NASDAQ). He is currently Director, Trenwick

America Corporation, and Director of Advocate MD.

Mr. Pickens graduated from Southern Methodist University with a Bachelor of

Arts in Economics.

DISCUSSION

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Pickens.

At this point let us jump right into our first round of questions.

The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.

I would like to direct a question to every member of the panel,

and I would give each one of you about a minute or so to respond.

ISS PRODUCTIVITY AND UTILIZATION

In your opinion what needs to be done to ensure that the ISS will

be a productive research facility, and Dr. Stodieck, I might also ask

you if you would speak to when you mentioned modest funding,

what that might entail. But we will start with Dr. Knipling.

Dr. KNIPLING. Well, my sense it is already very successful as one

witness, Mr. Pickens, indicated. It is a tremendous success. Certainly, yes, we garner the results of some of these initial experiments. I think that is really going to provide testimony for the opportunity, and that in turn will drive our future strategies for expanding and enhancing that work. That is my sense of how this

work will unfold.

Dr. STODIECK. Thank you. Modest funding. You know, it depends, of course, on ultimately what it is going to cost for transportation, and that is a fairly uncertain term at this point, but just

doing some estimates based on what I suspect this will get, I would

say if you funded an organization somewhere between $50 million

and $150 million, maybe ramping up to that point, that you would

have a substantial ability to attract and raise the productivity of

the space station, something on that order.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you. Dr. Nickerson.

Dr. NICKERSON. From a scientific perspective, in order to truly

tap into the fundamental and the enormous potential of the ISS as

I mentioned in my previous testimony to lead to global advances

in human health, two things from my perspective.

Consistent funding and access. The consistency in that funding

word is very important, because science doesn’t stop after one experiment. Good science leads to more questions than it answers,

and so once you find something truly remarkable in flight and that

potential for novel discovery, just as we found in STS–115, we were

54

fortunate enough to have the follow-up flight on STS–123. But that

consistency has to continue.

So consistency for funding and access.

Chairman UDALL. Mr. Pickens.

Mr. PICKENS. I think that it is a little more complex from my

standpoint, because I am from the commercial side. I have seen

where they have put experiments in space. They have done kind

of fits and starts of it in terms of funding, timing, but they are in

the middle of a construction program, and I kind of, you know, put

the analogy is that you are trying to do open-heart surgery on the

back of a bulldozer in the middle of a construction site at a skyscraper.

You know, they were building a space station in space, and they

were putting and wedging the science in whenever they had the opportunity, and that is very, very hard to do science that way. When

you talk to the scientists, they need to have consistency where they

are bringing back samples, they are fixing them, they are going

back again, over and over and over.

Now is the time, because we have completed the station or we

are near completion of the station. Now is the time that we should

get in there and do that. We should do it exactly like Louis says.

We should fund something. We should remain, if there is somebody

who is independent to make sure that these initiatives are held

forth, there is $100 billion asset up there. The taxpayers expect a

return, and they are entitled to a return. And they need to be given

that opportunity and that science needs to be taken care of.

From a commercial standpoint I will take the low-hanging fruit

of those efforts, and I will take, and whenever they are discovered

to a point where they are commercial, and I will move them on

through to the marketplace.

Chairman UDALL. I could follow on, what are your next steps in

preparing for the utilization of station?

Mr. PICKENS. We are already moving, I mean, STS–123, 124, we

are headed out for the, you know, duration of the Space Shuttle

missions. We are concerned after that, because we don’t have as

easy access to space. It is nearing the completion of the manifest

of the Shuttle. It is very, very tight to wedge our way in there. We

are doing that successfully thus far, but we are very concerned

about it, and we need that desperately because by the time we finish, we need to not have some gap in there, not to overemphasize

the gap, but we don’t want a gap sitting there on the science either.

We still have to make a return as soon as possible to the American

people and by getting on these Space Shuttle flights and sending

up what we are sending up that goes a long way, and I commend

NASA for allowing us to go on the Shuttle to date.

And I hope for more of that.

Chairman UDALL. You are ready to go, you have got the capital

lined up, you are confident what you need is——

Mr. PICKENS. Yes, sir. I am sending samples to space as we

speak.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you very much. I am going to recognize

Judge Hall for five minutes. Look forward to hearing his questions.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

55

And I guess I will use part of my time in thanking this very capable group of witnesses here. I have really got something from

every one of you. And I thank, Mr. Rohrabacher for being here. I

especially ask him, you can tell by my raspy voice that I have been

a victim of the influenza, and Dr. Nickerson, if you will do some

more work on that, we will all be——

Dr. NICKERSON. I will get right on that.

Mr. HALL. And everybody around me would appreciate it.

I want to say of course I enjoyed Dr. Knipling’s work, and to Dr.

Stodieck, I liked your use of all agency’s cost covered and comparisons with other research, and NASA and Congress admonished to

have access to ISS and planning together and producing together.

Very good instructions.

And Dr. Nickerson, our nation badly needs good news from

space, not just tickertape, something over the television or just

huge appropriations and exciting and delicate yes and still fragile

missions. We need studies of cures from space, and you certainly

reflect your intention is such, and I know I appreciate that and this

group does.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SPACEHAB

ACTIVITIES

And to Tom Pickens, accelerating the need for microgravity and

the many experiments of space and the comparisons were very

helpful. And your salute to the Space Station by it being at a class

of all strategies is very, and the suggestion also to be as sensible

as possible as they can be with the funds.

And along that line let me ask you, Mr. Pickens, do you see any

distinction between the types of activity SPACEHAB seeks to conduct versus those that would be of interest to university and government researchers? Or commercial activities in competition with

other university government research for ISS resources.

I would like to hear your comments on that if we have time left.

I would like to hear each of you.

Mr. PICKENS. I always look when doing due diligence on, you

know, opportunities in the marketplace, I like to see paradigms

that were successful in the past, and I think a paradigm, you could

take most of them, but let us just take the railroads.

You know, the United States Government built the railroads and

then they proved out the technology and then today, you know, the,

you know, all that evidence of success is certainly there. We built

the International Space Station. We have built the access to space.

What we haven’t done and what is necessary here is that the government is the only one that is going to take these kind of risks,

because commercial enterprise is not. They are not going to be

sending up a whole lot of real basic science that we really haven’t

gone to the steps necessary in order to discover.

Again, we weren’t given, the science community was not given

and nor should really, I mean, the amount of time that they were

given was generous by NASA. They were building a skyscraper in

space, and to be putting science in there was generous of them to

do that. But now we are at the stage to where we need to go and

promote that and move forward with it, and government needs to

go with the university level like Louis suggests and do a lot of basic

56

science work. When it gets to the point to where it is commercial,

people like me and myself, we will see that. We will identify that,

and then we will move forward with how you end up taking that

to a commercial setting.

So I think that there is a differentiation between the commercial

interests and from the more basic science university interest, and

I think they should be treated differently as well, sir.

Dr. NICKERSON. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that

question. From researchers and scientific individuals’ perspective

and maybe I was fortunate to have been trained in a very multidisciplinary background which thinks outside of the box, but I have

been trained, and I have always believed in a diversified research

portfolio that is funded on multiple fronts, both by a government,

traditional federal funding agencies, but also by corporate and private funding as well.

In that capacity, therefore, a lot of times some of your higher-risk

research which has real tremendous potential to lead to major advances in public health, but it is higher risk, and sometimes some

of the traditional funding venues in terms of our federal funding

agencies like in NIH, tend to steer away from that a little bit and

go for a more safer paradigm in terms of funding.

And sometimes those risks don’t pay off, but holy cow, sometimes

they do. And we have got to make that translational leap of not

phenomenology. This isn’t would be, could be, wishing kind of stuff.

This is going to happen. It already is happening, and it will continue to happen. And for us to continue to maintain our nation’s

leap in technological and biomedical innovations to translate in

terms of these types of advances, in terms of my end of public

health, we have got to be able to successfully balance these types

of funding and get away from them being normally separate but

merge them together.

So absolutely. All three of those types of funding levels can exist

together nicely and do.

Mr. HALL. My time is up, and I hope Dr. Stodieck and Dr.

Knipling will answer my questions in some other people’s five minutes here in a little bit.

But I would say to you, Mr. Pickens, that your comparison of

railroads to space really goes from the bottom to the top, and it is

a good comparison. You know, I vote for Amtrak and all that, and

the dang thing goes to New York about 35 times a day and goes

to Philadelphia about 40 times, 38 times a day, but, hell, they don’t

even whistle going through my district a lot of times, but I vote for

railroads because we relied on rail during national emergency and

war times and things like that. Thanks for that good comparison.

I yield back my time.

Chairman UDALL. Everybody here understands why Judge Hall

is known as a statesman, although in some quarters, well, statesmen are dead politicians. We are glad to have a living statesman

here among us today, and infrastructure is so important to our——

Mr. HALL. Maybe you will give me another five minutes.

Chairman UDALL. That is going too far.

The Chair recognizes the great Member, the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee from Texas, Mr. Lampson.

He is also known, although there would be others that might want

57

to wrestle him for the title, as the man from NASA. He looks after

NASA with the passion and consistency. Mr. Lampson, five minutes.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have to agree

with some of the words that have been said. This is something that

can drive a great deal of the enthusiasm of this country when we

make our commitment to it and consider the return that we are

going to, that we have always gotten from our investment in space

and in science.

I have had a number of conversations of late with Mr. Pickens,

and one of the things that has impressed me specifically that you

said was about how we seem to have gotten away from our concentration on science and relied more on the idea of if we build a

craft, we can figure out what we do with it. We sort of get the cart

before the horse. Really and truly our use of space should be about

what we can learn from it, what we can get from the science. And

then whatever craft we have to put together, then so be it. We go

and do it.

And I know that you have done some specific work, Mr. Pickens,

and I will pick on you because you do have SPACEHAB, which is

in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas, and we are proud of

the work that you do there and——

Mr. PICKENS. We are proud to be there.

Mr. LAMPSON.—the many employees that you have there. But let

me start with you and ask you to continue your comment that you

made a minute ago about due diligence. You have done something

I think that is out of the ordinary with regard to how you looked

at what potential there was for commercial activity.

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AT THE ISS

Can you discuss that a little bit? What did you do that may have

been different in your findings as related to the potential for scientific research at the International Space Station?

Mr. PICKENS. As CEO of SPACEHAB, there, I am in a very

unique situation. I am on a platform where I can access all of the

thousands of people, billions of dollars, research, white papers, scientists, all those people will always end up responding to me. I

have access to those people, they are excited about having the discussion with somebody, especially in the commercial sector, and as

a CEO of SPACEHAB, I think I am the only guy that has the kind

of access and that kind of position probably oddly enough in this

country and maybe even in the world.

Most of the other aerospace engineering companies are aerospace

engineering companies. SPACEHAB sent 1,500 experiments to

space over a 23-year period of time. We had intimate knowledge of

how to do that, and I use that platform and trained in New York,

I consider myself quite a professional in due diligence, and I don’t

stop until I hear glass break as my granddad used to say.

And I just keep going and going and going, and these guys, some

of them on this panel right here, they are sick of me, and that is

usually when I start to slow down is about the time they do get

sick of me.

But I have found that there is a lot of value up there. There is

billions of dollars worth of value in terms of commercial value. In

58

this, you know, environment that we are in that seems so appropriate where we should also be cognizant as commercial enterprise

leaders of commercial companies, we also need to take care of

things like environment and people and whatnot. It is just such a

great added benefit to also be able to have the opportunity to save

millions of lives with what we see as opportunities in microgravity.

This thing is for real. I think just in summary to you, Congressman, is this is for real. This is the real deal, is that there is a huge

amount of value in microgravity. It wasn’t given all the attention

that it was, that we would have hoped, but we were, again, constructing a skyscraper in space.

So I think that, you know, what needs to happen now is that I

think Louis is very, is being very conservative in terms of the

amount of investment that should go up there. We end up in our

barter arrangement that we ended up by taking and transferring

the Columbus Module, which is the ESA Module, the European

Space Agency Module, and the Kibox Module, with the Japanese

Space Agency Module. We get half of their space because we transported that on our Space Shuttle. That is the deal. It was a barter

agreement.

We have so much laboratory space up there it is unbelievable.

With ours, with theirs there is lots of space available. I would like

to see billions of dollars go into the basic science of this, and I

think that it deserves it, and with aging of America and with

health being such a big issue right now, there isn’t any excuse not

to. We should fund NASA more. We should give them more money,

and we should put them on that focus to go get that done and exploit that $100 billion asset up there.

UNCERTAINTY PERTAINING TO LONG-TERM RESEARCH

Mr. LAMPSON. I have got less than a minute left, so let me just

ask whoever would like to start on this question of the panel. What

impact does, I am concerned that we are not going to fully use the

ISS, especially after we retire the Shuttle. What impact does the

uncertain status of the ISS past 2016, have on potential users

being able to plan long-term research using the Station?

Dr. NICKERSON. Well, I think there are two questions there, but

first I would focus on what we can get done before 2016, which if

we get the kind of appropriations and funding in here we need to,

we can learn an enormous amount up until that point in time. So

let us not underestimate the tremendous impact that that can

make up until then.

After that point in time it is going to depend on access and access to space through other venues and how we can continue to use

the microgravity environment after that. But up to that point in

time I am more focused on what we can do on a consistent basis

to maximize that space and utilize our potential to lead to these

new technology advances.

Mr. LAMPSON. If it, Mr. Chairman, can anyone else comment before I yield my time back?

Dr. STODIECK. And I just want to add that I think, you know, in

fact, that 2016, is frankly much too close a horizon for us to be

planning it. It seems ridiculous to even be thinking about the decommissioning of Space Station before it has even been completed.

59

But in reality, of course, that is what you are really asking, and

I think that we need to already begin the planning, and I think,

of course, appropriations looks at, you know, five-year timeframes.

It is not too soon to really be thinking about extending the service

life of the Space Station, and I think we need to go out to at least

2020, and frankly, I think, you know, when we start to get the kind

of productivity and the results that I expect to see, then I think

there will be a lot of interest and extended beyond that.

But I think we need to recognize that without the Space Shuttle

that the, you know, the clock really starts ticking for Space Station

because it will become more and more difficult to maintain it and

service it. So starting that productivity as soon as possible and

using it for as long as we can.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thanks. Dr. Knipling, anything?

Dr. KNIPLING. I believe my comments will reinforce what has

been said. I think much can be accomplished in the near term to

validate these concepts that we have talked about. And we are very

confident that they will be validated one way or the other. We can

adapt to what we learned, but I think that the promise of what we

learn will actually provide testimony for further extension in the

further of the Space Station in one way or another.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman UDALL. Thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, who is one of the most dedicated and consistent supporters of this, and he always has his back peering over the horizon and bringing some really creative thinking to NASA and how

we promote our space program both in the private and public sectors.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Let me note that I have supported Space Station. I see the Space Station as a success in the

sense that we have learned how to build structures in space. Humankind is to advance, if we are going to conquer this frontier, we

have learned how to cooperate with other countries in achieving

that.

I am not sure even from the testimony today, however, that the

accomplishments that are being talked about have been accomplished in terms of medical research. All along we were told that

there would be these great accomplishments. It has been a long

time.

Frankly, they have not been validated yet. I have heard a lot of

rhetoric today, but I have been listening to that rhetoric for 20

years. I am satisfied with the fact that we now have the capabilities of building structures in space. I would hope they are not just

pyramids. I hope this isn’t just a pyramid that will be historic, a

historic structure. I hope that there is something that comes out

of it in terms of a cure for a disease. Believe me, I have been listening to that for 10 years. I haven’t seen it yet.

ISS LAB COMPATABILITY

Your comment, Mr. Pickens, about that there is plenty of lab

space up there and value to be made from that. I appreciated that.

Are these, is the research facility that is in the Space Station, the

60

various labs that you have talked about, are they outfitted for the

type of research that is necessary to validate the things that we

have heard today?

Mr. PICKENS. The way they have it set up is is that other than

the fact that the Columbus Module has an X-ray crystallography

machine that they have sent up with that so you don’t, you can actually do the defracture from the crystals off the protein crystal

growth from that piece of equipment. Basically what they did is

they set up these things that they call express racks, which are

really data feeds, power feeds. They are just set up for you, and

what they do is they take it out of whatever the visiting, you know,

vehicle is, and then they put it in, and they slide it in there, and

they flip on a button, and then from that they control everything

from the ground operations.

And, yes, it is all there. I mean, they put that very modularly

in place, and they have done that. So, yes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that the same answer I am getting from

the other panelists, too? Is—are these labs properly outfitted?

Dr. Nickerson, you have been very optimistic about these great

achievements that are about to happen. Are we outfitted up there

to make sure that we can actually achieve those things?

Dr. NICKERSON. There were, of course, a number of cuts that

were made to important research infrastructure that was supposed

to be installed on ISS, the centrifuge, things like that. It would be

very nice if those things could be up there.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you give me a couple of examples of

that?

Dr. NICKERSON. In terms of how they could be used?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. In terms of what needs to be replaced so

we can start thinking about financing it.

Dr. NICKERSON. So it would be nice to have the centrifuge facility

up there.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A what now?

Dr. NICKERSON. Centrifuge.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Centrifuge. Okay.

Dr. NICKERSON. It would be nice to have some very nice imaging

capabilities on-board in terms of abilities to image very small cells

like microscopic imaging. It would be very nice to have that up

there so we can see in real time exactly how these cells are manifesting their changes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are there any plans to put microscopic imaging, I know about the centrifuge.

Dr. NICKERSON. There were, but those plans were scrapped, and

it was being, those plans were in place, but I know those funds

were cut. For a long time I know with the MELFI there was a

question, and we need to be able to have for long-term work on

ISS, you know, capabilities to store at minus 80, and I know after

much time the MELFI, I think, is finally fully operational up there

in terms of the freezer capabilities.

But when we are going to be on terms of long-term research on

ISS, we need those kinds of capabilities, some samples we want to

store, some we want to keep viable. And when we store them, we

need to make sure that they are stored viably, and their integrity

is preserved.

61

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So we need storage and something to

do microscopic imaging, and I know that the centrifuge debate was

a big debate early on.

Dr. NICKERSON. Right.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And an imager, it is not just a small

investment——

Dr. NICKERSON. Right.

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—there. It is huge. But——

Dr. NICKERSON. That is one reason, though, that leads to, and

your question was well founded, is that you have heard about this

rhetoric for a long period of time. It is going to lead to these advances, it is going to lead to these advances, but in all honesty, the

reason you haven’t seen that is some of those capabilities are now

being able to be put in place and be done. And with our study it

was a biological first. It was the first time that space flight had

ever been looked at as ability to affect disease-causing potential. It

was the first time that a pathogen had ever been looked at in

terms of a complete molecular global profiling and look at changing

its virulence.

So those kinds of things, you know, until you can translate that,

and we just, by the way, repeated that so we do have biological validation on the STS–123.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh. As I say, I think we learned a lot on how

to build structures.

Dr. NICKERSON. Right.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that in and of itself is for humankind

and how to cooperate internationally——

Dr. NICKERSON. But to have those additional capabilities would

be helpful.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is good. But I would sure hope that we

see some of the things that you have been talking about. I have

heard this before, and I hope it is validated like we say, and if we,

Mr. Chairman, if we need a couple of things to add to the Space

Station to see that it actually accomplishes the $100 billion that we

have spent, if we are talking about tens of millions of dollars to get

some of these things up there—thank you very much.

Chairman UDALL. I thank the gentleman from California for his

insightful questions and commentary.

Unfortunately, we need to move to the second panel. I know everybody on the dais here could spend another hour directing questions to the panel, and we hope to bring you back. We also will direct some additional questions to you all for the record.

I did want to take an additional moment, Dr. Nickerson had

mentioned that in the town of Alamosa, which is in the St. Louis

valley, South Central portion of our state, important agricultural

area. It is also an area in which we are planning to develop a lot

of alternative energy technologies. They had to shut down their

water supply system recently. You may have read the story. It

made the national news because of Salmonella somehow infiltrating the system, and it, over 300 people were taken ill in a town

of about 15,000 people.

So your work is an area in which there may be real applicability.

So I look forward to watching and learning from what you discover

about Salmonella.

62

Dr. NICKERSON. Thank you. I look forward to giving you updates.

Chairman UDALL. At this time we will excuse the panel. Again,

thank you for being here and providing us with such informative

testimony.

We will ask the second panel to take their seats as quickly as

we can, and we will move to the second round.

Let us move to our second panel of witnesses. I would like to introduce each of them in turn.

Dr. William Gerstenmaier, who is the Associate Administrator of

the Space Operations Mission Directorate at NASA. Next to Mr.

Gerstenmaier is Cristina Chaplain, who has been a visitor to our

committee before, and she is the Director of Acquisition and

Sourcing Management at the GAO, has a great rooting in NASA

and many aspects of the NASA world. And then finally we have Dr.

Jeffrey Sutton, who is the President and Director of the National

Space Biomedical Research Institute. Welcome to the three of you.

As you know, our spoken testimony is limited to five minutes,

after which Members of the Subcommittee will have five minutes

each to ask questions.

We will start with Mr. Gerstenmaier and his five minutes. Welcome.

Panel 2:

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER, ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE OPERATIONS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Thank you. I have addressed your questions

specifically in my written testimony, and I won’t spend much time

with my verbal discussion.

I would just say there is a couple of areas I think are really important to stress here, and first of all, they were discussed earlier

a little bit. The international achievement of the Space Station is

really unprecedented in my mind. The fact that we are actually operating internationally today with the laboratories on-board Space

Station is a huge testimony to this team that has worked internationally to continue to build Space Station and has guided it to

this point.

And we have also done a lot of engineering evaluations and tests

and evaluation of Space Station. It fits well as we move into exploration of the components, the hardware, the systems, the engineering analysis that we are working and developing on Space Station

today that we used to assemble it. Those are directly applicable to

what we are going to be doing as we go to the Moon and Mars, running pumps for long time, doing fluid circulation, operating computers, working internationally, all those things have direct application to what we are going to do as we go, move beyond low-Earth

orbit and move to the Moon and Mars. And that is a first step in

the engineering sense.

I would also say Space Station provides a commercial opportunity as Mr. Pickens talked about a little bit earlier. It clearly

does for transportation. As we look to transportation in the future

as the Shuttle retires, we are looking to commercial transportation

for Space Station. We have recently put out a request for a proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
63

posal to commercial industry to provide transportation for Space

Station. We think that provides a tremendous opportunity for the

commercial sector to step up and provide transportation of the materials needed for the research, for the investigations, as well as for

the basic supplies of Space Station.

We recently had the Automated Transfer Vehicle from the European Space Agency dock to Space Station. That shows that we are

able to do the rendezvous docking. We are able to take a brand new

spacecraft, take it through developmental test program, and actually dock it to Space Station so that gives credibility and shows

proof to the commercial sector that this can be done and is very

achievable and they are ready to move forward.

We have also looked at a new thing, a new way of acquiring

hardware on Space Station. We are using a Sabatier reaction,

which takes waste carbon dioxide and waste hydrogen, combines

those, makes water, and generates methane that gets dumped

overboard. We will save about 2,000 pounds of water with that system. We acquired that commercially for the first time. We didn’t

pay the typical development way we do. It is not a cost-plus contract. It is a fixed-price contract, and we get paid for the water or

the contractor gets paid for the water that is generated. So they

take the risk, and NASA is not involved in the development. We

are not attending their design reviews. They show us the hardware

is safe to fly in orbit. If it generates water, they receive revenue

from that. If it doesn’t generate water, they have lost their investment. So it is a new creative way of utilizing the commercial sector

to provide services that we need. And that is another evidence of

what the Station can do.

And lastly, the previous panel talked a lot about the research

avenues. There was a lot of discussion on the biological aspects. I

think there is a lot of other areas of Space Station that can be

used. There is a combustion research rack that is going up, there

is material science activities, there is fluid physics, and low temperature physics.

The unique thing about Space Station is it gives us a different

lens to look at all these phenomena, be it biological, physical, or

materials processes. It gives us a chance to learn about things that

we experience here on the Earth in a different way. Some of the

Apollo astronauts talked about that we went to the Moon to learn

about the Earth. I think in the same sense we are going to Space

Station and with the different lens of microgravity, we are going

to learn more about processes on the Earth and directly impact

what is going on in the very physical sense.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today to discuss the status of the International Space Station

(ISS) Program. It is a pleasure to report to you the good year we have had in the

human space flight program, and the progress we are making in support of the Nation’s exploration goals. I would like to give you an update on the ISS, discuss the

challenges over the next five years, and report to you some of our success stories.

First, I would like to share with you how the ISS is helping to prepare us for our

next steps in exploration.

64

International Space Station—Experience in Exploration

The Space Station is a place to learn how to live and work in space, which we

need to do, and over a long period of time. It is also a place to conduct the research

we would like to do in a better way than was possible in the more confined places

we have flown in before.

Through the years of ISS design, development, test, assembly and operations,

NASA has acquired the experience necessary for operating complex, multinational

space vehicles. In areas ranging from international collaboration to research and

technology development, crew operations, spacecraft system operations, and crewsystem interfaces, the knowledge gained from the ISS can be applied directly to future long-duration exploration missions.

International Collaboration

Since 1988, the ISS international partnership has established an unprecedented

level of global cooperation among the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan, and in

1998, Russia formally joined in this worldwide endeavor. During the 17 Expedition

missions to date, for nine and a half years on-orbit, and over seven years of continuous human presence, we have together assembled a research facility designed and

produced around the world that now resides some 250 miles above the Earth. It is

the largest spacecraft ever built; it will be 925,627 pounds at completion and measure 361 feet end-to-end. It is the length of a football field with pressurized volume

greater than a five-bedroom house. By 2010, the international partnership will have

managed over 80 assembly and logistics missions (including 26 Space Shuttle missions to date through STS–123), with crew rotations and cargo transfer flights on

five different vehicles that will have included over 50 crew members from around

the globe. Over 650 hours of assembly and maintenance activity have been performed during extra-vehicular activity outside the ISS. Today, the ISS is approximately 70 percent complete and has a mass of 261 metric tons.

The technical challenges of assembly, operations, and logistical re-supply have

been met through the coordination of more than 100,000 workers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, and Russia, including numerous contractor facilities in the U.S.

and over a dozen other countries. The globally distributed control centers supporting

ISS operations will ultimately coordinate daily operations among Russia, Germany,

France, Japan, Canada, and three locations in the United States—Alabama, Florida,

and Texas. In addition, Kazakhstan and French Guiana support launch and landing

operations. The structural, electrical power, thermal control, data and voice communications, and environmental and life support systems have been designed and produced across international boundaries. We continually monitor ongoing challenges

to safe and successful systems inter-operability due to different industry and safety

standards; varying life cycle development philosophies; the need for common standards during development; conversions between English versus metric units for production tooling; development of common terminology; unique engineering and management practices; export control constraints; and cultural and language differences.

The ISS international partnership has risen to all challenges thus far and forged

the strong, positive relationships necessary for the next great steps in human space

exploration.

Research and Technology Development

The ISS is NASA’s only long-duration flight analog for future human lunar missions and Mars transit. It provides an invaluable laboratory for research with direct

application to the exploration requirements that address human risks associated

with missions to the Moon and beyond. It is the only space-based multinational research and technology testbed available to identify and quantify risks to human

health and performance, identify and validate potential risk mitigation techniques,

and develop countermeasures for future human exploration.

The ISS research portfolio includes human research and countermeasure development for exploration. The ISS crew is conducting human medical research to develop knowledge in the areas of clinical medicine, human physiology, cardiovascular

research, bone and muscle health, neurovestibular medicine, diagnostic instruments

and sensors, advanced ultrasound, exercise and pharmacological countermeasures,

food and nutrition, immunology and infection, exercise systems, and human behavior and performance.

The ISS also provides a testbed for studying, developing, and testing new technologies for use in future exploration missions, including advanced life support systems, environmental monitoring, energy storage batteries, strain gauges on the

truss structure to measure structural loads, light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, materials exposure experiments, cabin air monitoring and environmental monitoring,

65

robotic construction systems, and photographic inspections surveys of external surfaces and components. In the physical and biological sciences arena, the ISS is using

microgravity conditions to understand the effect of the space environment on the

physical processes of fluid physics, combustion and materials research, as well as

environmental control and fire safety. Finally, the Station is an ideal platform for

observing the Earth and performing educational activities, including activities and

investigations which allow students and the public to connect with the ISS mission

and inspire students to excel in science, technology, engineering, and math.

Crew Operations

High performing crews are critical to successful long-duration missions. The development of specialized skills and training for international crew members, as well as

advanced protocols, procedures, and tools, will reduce the risks to future exploration

missions. Maintaining crew health will be critical to long-duration flights, and the

ISS provides a demonstration platform through the continuous operation of life support and medical systems. While much has been learned about crew health systems,

crew medical care, environmental monitoring, and exercise systems critical to maintaining crew fitness, more must be learned before we undertake long-duration missions to the Moon or to Mars. Next Spring, we will have on-board the ISS all of

the life support, habitability and crew health maintenance hardware (water/urine

processing, treadmill, galley, toilet, crew quarters, backup carbon dioxide removal)

required to support six-crew operations—a continuous human presence in space that

exceeds all prior human space flight programs.

Effective on-board training is another key to future long-duration exploration missions. The ISS provides a platform to develop efficient methods for conveying new

information to crew members and influence the volume and types of preflight crew

training. Computer-based training can be utilized to supplement ground training

and provide refresher training for the on-orbit crew.

Exploration missions will also require advances in Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA)

suits, technologies, capabilities and procedures. To date, Station and Shuttle crews

have performed 109 U.S. and Russian assembly and maintenance EVAs, totaling

more than 650 hours. Our evolving EVA procedures enable us to set the standard

for in-space assembly, repair, and maintenance.

The interaction of the crew with Mission Control is another element critical to

mission success. The ISS provides an environment to improve the interaction between crew and ground to make missions safer and more effective through planning

and communication. The evolving operations protocols and support tools are increasing crew autonomy and reducing ground support infrastructure. The coordination of

the Station support facilities is all the more remarkable because the launch, operations, training, engineering, and development facilities are dispersed around the

globe.

Spacecraft Systems Operations

The ISS provides a unique opportunity to flight test components and systems in

the space environment and to optimize subsystem performance. Station is the only

space-based testbed available for critical exploration spacecraft systems such as

closed-loop life support, EVA suit components and assemblies, advanced batteries

and energy storage, and automated rendezvous and docking. Efficient, reliable

spacecraft systems are critical to reducing crew and mission risks. Characterizing

and optimizing system performance in space reduces mission risks and yields nextgeneration capabilities for long distance and autonomous vehicle and systems management.

As a direct result of the ISS Program, the inventory of space-qualified materials,

piece-parts, components, assemblies, subsystems, and systems has expanded rapidly

to serve future exploration needs. These include:

• The ISS environmental control and life support systems include water electrolysis for oxygen generation and carbon dioxide removal.

• The thermal control systems include heat rejection and management using

multi-layer insulation, heat exchangers, strip heaters and radiators.

• The electrical power system includes energy collected by solar arrays and

stored in nickel hydrogen batteries.

• The command and data systems include computer systems using standard

1553B data buses and networks using the 802.4 Ethernet protocol.

• The U.S. Control Moment Gyroscopes (CMGs) and Russian motion control

systems provide guidance and propulsion.

66

• Station communication and tracking systems use S Band, Ku Band, UHF,

global positioning satellite system (GPS), and Russian capabilities.

• The robotics capabilities include a seven-degree-of-freedom robot arm.

• The EVA systems include U.S. and Russian airlocks and suits, tools, translation aids, and training facilities.

Demonstrating and developing confidence in systems for water and waste recovery, oxygen generation, and environmental monitoring technologies is important as

the distance and time away from Earth is extended. U.S. and Russian life support

systems represent dissimilar yet redundant capabilities for carbon dioxide removal,

oxygen generation, and waste management. The ISS is currently recycling approximately 14 pounds of crew-expelled air each day and using the processed water for

technical and drinking purposes. The ISS is well on the way to demonstrating

closed-loop life support for oxygen generation and water recovery systems following

the oxygen generation system activation in July 2007, in conjunction with the water

recovery system demonstration targeted for October 2009. In 2010, the ISS plans

to incorporate a Sabatier system that will combine carbon dioxide and excess hydrogen from the oxygen generation system to produce water for the generation of oxygen. When the closed-loop life support system is operational, it will reduce the

amount of consumables needed by about 80 percent. This demonstration is critical

for future exploration missions.

To generate power, the ISS has the largest solar arrays ever deployed on a spacecraft. Understanding how these arrays and other power system components perform

is important to moving toward longer stays on the Moon and transiting to Mars.

The solar arrays cover an area of 27,000 square feet (an acre of solar panels, and

arrays with 240-foot wingspans) and are generating approximately 76 kW of electrical power, or 708,000 kW hours per year—enough to power 50 homes. Forty-eight

nickel hydrogen rechargeable batteries are used for energy storage, and gimbal

mechanisms allow solar tracking and thermal radiators to maintain battery temperature. The operating experience being accrued on the ISS in solar arrays, mechanical gimbal, and rotary joint technologies will be directly applicable to future

power systems in space.

Crew-System Interfaces

Demonstration and validation of the human-machine interfaces enable sustained

spacecraft operations over long periods of time. Advances in crew and robotic operations, on-orbit maintenance and repair, in-space assembly, and demonstrations of

new crew and cargo transportation vehicles are essential to expand human activity

beyond low-Earth orbit. Many of the techniques used to assemble hundreds of ISS

components in space are applicable to the assembly of components on the Moon, or

at other locations in space.

Assembling six major truss segments, eight solar array wings, and four laboratory

modules with interconnecting nodes demonstrates the precision and coordination

necessary for in-space assembly of large structures. Autonomous rendezvous and

docking capabilities, essential to complex future space missions, are demonstrated

routinely in the global evolution of launch vehicles that transport crew and cargo

to ISS. These vehicles currently include the Space Shuttle, Russian Soyuz and

Progress spacecraft, and the new European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV). In

the future, other transportation systems currently in development will also support

the ISS. They will include the Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), U.S. Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), and the U.S. Orion Crew Exploration

Vehicle.

The ISS robotic arms provide the ability to assemble large elements in flight,

while ground control of certain robotic activities enables the more efficient use of

valuable crew time. The Station’s 55-foot-long robotic arm can move 220,000 lbs.—

the mass of the Space Shuttle. Canadian, Japanese, and European robotic arms

work on different portions of the ISS and can be commanded via the ground or by

the crew on-orbit. These multi-national robotic operations are carefully

choreographed between the ISS crew and the global operations teams.

Development of displays and controls is important for future spacecraft system designs. Software tools play a role in helping crews virtually practice EVA or robotic

tasks before they ever don spacesuits or power up the robotic arms. The ISS has

more than 50 computers to control on-board systems, and uses some 2.5 million

lines of ground software code to support 1.5 million lines of flight software code.

Standardized communication protocols control crew displays and software tools,

while common and standardized flight software products, tools, interfaces, and protocols enhance operational practices.

67

ISS provides a real-world laboratory for logistics management and in-flight maintenance and repair concepts for future spacecraft. These techniques demonstrate an

ability to evolve and adapt through daily operations. We have designed and implemented systems to manage limited re-supply capabilities, stowage, and consumables

for long exploration journeys. Common component designs simplify sparing systems

and are used to minimize the number of spares to be stored on-orbit (e.g., common

valve design). Our inter-operable hardware systems include the common berthing

mechanism, utility operations panel, international-standard payload racks, common

equipment and orbital replacement units, crew equipment, and robotic grapple fixtures.

Through thousands of days of operating experience, the ISS is demonstrating the

maintainability and reliability of hardware components. Models used to predict this

reliability and maintainability are enhanced by measuring the mean-time-betweenfailure performance on hundreds of components, including pumps, valves, sensors,

actuators, solar arrays, and ammonia loops.

ISS crews have had to demonstrate repair capabilities on internal systems and

external systems and components, as well as hardware not originally designed for

on-orbit repair. The on-orbit crews have repaired malfunctioning space suits and

Russian computers; replaced CMGs, treadmill bearings, Russian Elektron oxygen

generator and Vozdukh carbon dioxide removal system subassemblies, solar array

system components, beta gimbal assemblies (BGAs), and remote power control

mechanism (RPCM) circuit breakers. The Expedition crews and their ground maintenance counterparts have devised unique solutions that have kept the ISS functioning, including remote maintenance and sustainability procedures, and inspection

and repair techniques. This experience has helped identify design flaws and re-deploy systems and hardware to orbit.

The ISS provides valuable lessons for current and future engineers and managers—real-world examples of what works and what does not work in space, creating valuable lessons for current and future programs. The ISS gives us a glimpse

of how our international partners approach building spacecraft, and NASA is learning many lessons from our partner countries in building, operating, and maintaining

spacecraft as cooperative endeavors. Working for months with crew members from

other countries and cultures is an important aspect of the ISS program. Developing

methods to work with our partners on the ground and in space is critical to providing additional capabilities and solutions to design challenges.

National Laboratory Opportunities

While the ISS continues to meet NASA’s mission objective to prepare for the next

steps in human space exploration, it will also offer extraordinary opportunities for

advancing science and technology to other U.S. Government agencies, non-profit research foundations, and private firms. The National Institutes of Health entered

into an MOU with NASA in October of 2007 and plans to issue a formal research

announcement in 2008 for use of the ISS in the post-assembly period. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, is evaluating a similar arrangement and may enter into an MOU in the near future for plant- and animalrelated research. In the private sector, two Space Act Agreements are currently

under development for pursuing proprietary research in biotechnologies, and another agreement is pending with the University of Colorado’s Bioserve Center for

ISS-based research.

International Space Station Assembly and Resupply Operations

At this point, ISS is approximately 70 percent complete, and the only major structural elements left to be flown are the remaining two components of the Japanese

Kibo laboratory; the final truss segment, Node 3; and the cupola, which will provide

observation capabilities for operations such as docking/undocking, space walks,

robotic activities, and Earth/celestial observations. In addition to flying these components, the Shuttle will also provide important logistics support to the Station, delivering EXPRESS Logistics Carriers and spares.

NASA’s Station and Shuttle teams have proven resourceful and effective at addressing challenges that have arisen in both programs, from using new solder points

to resolve the Shuttle’s recent Engine Cut-Off (ECO) sensor issue, to performing a

space walk to free the snagged Space Station solar array last November. In endeavors which are complex both in terms of engineering and organization, there will always be the potential for events that could impact planned schedules. Currently, the

Shuttle Program is addressing challenges connected to the manufacture of External

Tanks (ETs). This series of tanks includes the first set of entirely new ETs that

have been built since Hurricane Katrina, and we are experiencing some delays in

68

the processing flow, though this issue now has been largely resolved. NASA has a

history of successfully dealing with such eventualities, and the Agency has built

margin into the Shuttle manifest to minimize impacts from these events. NASA is

on track to complete assembly of the ISS and retire the Space Shuttle by the end

of FY 2010.

Over the past year, there have been 12 flights to the ISS, including two crewed

Soyuz flights, four Progress cargo flights, five Space Shuttle assembly flights, and

the initial flight of the European ATV, which successfully docked to the ISS on April

3, 2008, in its initial attempt. Over the past year, including the launch of the Expedition 17 crew aboard the Soyuz 16 on April 8, there have been 44 people aboard

ISS from 9 countries, including the U.S., Russia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan,

France, Malaysia, and South Korea (the latter two countries represented by Space

Flight Participants flying under contract with Russia).

The June 2007 flight of Atlantis on STS–117 added a truss segment and new solar

arrays to the starboard side of the Station to provide increased power. In August,

Endeavour brought up another truss segment and supplies, and became the first Orbiter to use a new power transfer system that enables the Space Shuttle to draw

power from the Station’s solar arrays, extending the duration of the Shuttle’s visits

to Space Station. On the same mission, STS–118, teacher-turned astronaut Barbara

Morgan conducted a number of education-related activities aboard the Space Station, inspiring students back on Earth and realizing the dream of the Teacher In

Space Project for which she and Christa McAuliffe trained more than two decades

ago. In October 2007, Discovery flew the STS–120 mission, which added the Harmony node to the Station and featured a space walk to disentangle a snagged solar

array.

The STS–120 mission paved the way for Station astronauts to conduct a series

of ambitious space walks and operations using the Station’s robotic arm to move the

Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 and Harmony node in preparation for the addition of

the European Columbus laboratory and the Japanese Kibo laboratory in 2008.

These space walks were particularly challenging and impressive, as they were carried out entirely by the three-person Expedition crews, without benefit of having a

Shuttle Orbiter, with its additional personnel and resources, docked to the Station.

NASA continues to expand the scientific potential of the Space Station in 2008,

a year in which we are delivering and activating key research assets from two of

our International Partners. In February, Shuttle Atlantis delivered the European

Columbus laboratory during STS–122; while the recently completed STS–123 mission featured the delivery by Shuttle Endeavour of the experiment logistics module

portion of the Japanese Kibo laboratory, along with the Canadian Special Purpose

Dextrous Manipulator, or Dextre. Dextre is a small, two-armed robot that can be

attached to the Station’s robotic arm to handle smaller components typically requiring a space-walking astronaut. At the tip of each arm is a ‘‘hand’’ that consists of

retractable jaws used to grip objects. This will allow astronauts to conduct operations and maintenance activities from inside the Space Station, rather than via

space walks. In May, STS–124 will deliver the pressurized module component of the

Kibo lab.

The European ATV vehicle, which is currently docked to the ISS, is a welcome

and vital addition to the ISS cargo transportation system. On its maiden voyage,

the ATV rendezvoused and docked to the ISS nearly flawlessly. It is carrying crew

supplies, fuel, water, and air that are required to sustain the crew and on-orbit operations of the ISS. The ATV technologies and capabilities that were flight-demonstrated represent a significant accomplishment for the European government and

industry aerospace community. It is also a testament to the level of trust and cooperation between multiple international partners.

NASA is planning to address the issue of Space Station crew transportation and

cargo resupply after the retirement of the Space Shuttle in FY 2010 through a variety of methods. On April 11, 2008, NASA submitted a proposed amendment to Congress to extend the exception under the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) that allows the Agency to pay Russia for Soyuz crew transportation and rescue services. Under the proposed amendment, this relief would be extended until the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle reaches Full Operational Capability (planned for 2016) or a U.S. commercial provider of crew transportation and

rescue services demonstrates the capability to meet ISS mission requirements. The

proposal would also continue to allow payments, in cash and in kind, for Russianunique equipment and capabilities through the life of the Station; these would include sustaining engineering and spares (for example, acquiring Russian equipment

for use in training in the U.S., and hardware, such as spares, to outfit the Russianbuilt, but U.S.-owned, Zarya module).

69

NASA is not seeking INKSNA relief to purchase Progress cargo capability beyond

2011, however. The Agency is encouraging the development of U.S. commercial

cargo resupply capabilities through the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services

(COTS) effort, and released a Request For Proposals (RFP) for commercial resupply

services on April 14, 2008. We also have agreements for use of the European ATV

and the Japanese HTV. In using multiple service providers, NASA hopes to minimize the risk to continued Station viability and promote the development of a competitive, low-Earth orbit space economy, which will grow as both government and

non-government users increase the demand for on-orbit services. If U.S. commercial

cargo capabilities are not available as early as desired, the Agency will depend solely on the cargo up-mass capability of the ATV and HTV and rely on pre-positioned

important spares, delivered by the Shuttle before its retirement in 2010, until U.S.

commercial cargo capabilities are available.

The ISS Program continues to evaluate the up-mass requirements and spares procurement strategy to sustain nominal system and research operations. Evaluations

are based on actual flight performance of on-board systems as well as estimates of

component lifetimes. Internal and external system performance continues to perform better than expected except for a few notable components, including the CMGs,

Beta Gimbal Assembly and the Solar Array Rotary Joint. Further reductions in upmass requirements and crew time allocations required to maintain safe on-board operations continue to be aggressively pursued.

Conclusion

Recent ISS assembly accomplishments are the direct result of years of careful

planning, diligence through tragedy and challenges, and the efforts of a worldwide

human space flight community dedicated to the completion of a goal—to build and

operate a world-class research facility in low-Earth orbit. The ISS Program has been

successful because of the flexibility and resourcefulness of the Partnership in adapting to changing environments, including challenges such as the retirement of the

Space Shuttle in FY 2010, elimination of habitation and centrifuge facilities, and

schedule delays with Space Shuttle flights and the deployment of new transportation capabilities.

The efforts of thousands of people around the world over the past two decades are

about to pay off. The ISS Program is entering its intensive research phase. The

same careful planning, diligence, stable goals, and dedicated efforts that have resulted in the accomplishments to date are now required to be employed in the development of a robust U.S. research program. The Agency will continue its explorationrelated research at the same time that we are progressing to expand the use of the

ISS to other Government agencies as well as commercial users. NASA’s National

Laboratory effort is key to this expansion of U.S. research utilization aboard the

ISS. Yet, the U.S. is not alone in utilizing the ISS for research; Station partners

Japan and Europe have maintained a broad-based research program in basic physics, material sciences, pharmaceuticals, biology, technology, and other areas. The

groundwork for the U.S. utilization of the ISS is being laid today. The continued

stability of the Program is important to both the realization of the research potential of the Station and to the development of commercial transportation services that

can serve Government and non-government users in the new space economy.

NASA’s leadership has been instrumental in developing and maintaining a truly

remarkable worldwide partnership in human space flight. The ISS is currently

being operated from the ground from six countries: Russia, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, and the United States. This partnership has demonstrated its ability

to be flexible and take on challenges when required to do so by unforeseen circumstances. As the ISS is completed later this decade, not only will the Partnership

have completed its goal to build a world-class orbiting research platform, but it will

also have built an unprecedented global community committed to human space

flight exploration. The ISS has played a key role in advancing U.S. leadership in

space operations and has the potential to provide an even larger role in the commercialization of space transportation and research. ISS is an invaluable training

ground for the next generation of space explorers and researchers.

I would be happy to respond to any question you or the other Members of the

Subcommittee may have.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you.

Ms. Chaplain.

70

STATEMENT OF MS. CRISTINA T. CHAPLAIN, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Thank you for asking me to discuss our work on

challenges related to completing and sustaining the International

Space Station. This program has clearly achieved significant successes in engineering, technology development, as well as in building effective international partnerships. The logistical and technical problems that have been overcome in just the last year are

a testament to the program’s agility and ingenuity under extreme

pressures.

However, the ISS has also struggled with significant cost growth,

scheduled delays, redesigns, as well as changes in requirements

and content. Such challenges, in fact, have forced cutbacks and

planned capabilities and scientific research.

A recent change with wide-ranging impacts on the program is, of

course, the decision to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010. This was

considered necessary to enable NASA to develop new launch and

transportation vehicles needed to support the President’s vision for

space. But it leaves NASA with little flexibility in the Shuttle

schedule more at risk for not completing the Station as planned,

more at risk for not being able to effectively support the Station,

and more dependent on other countries.

The schedule for completing the Station, for example, is only

slightly less demanding than it was prior to the Columbia disaster

when the agency launched a Shuttle every other month with a

larger fleet. Though there is some reserve, the schedule leaves little

room for the kinds of weather-related technical and logistical problems that have delayed flights in the past.

NASA remains confident that the current manifest can be accomplished within the given time, and there are tradeoffs NASA can

make in terms of what it can take up to the Station should unanticipated delays occur. However, failure to complete assembly as

currently planned could further reduce the Station’s ability to fulfill its research objectives and short the Station of critical spare

parts that only the Shuttle can deliver.

In the event that NASA completes assembly of the Station on

schedule and pre-positions an adequate number of spares, the

agency still faces a host of challenges in sustaining the station

until its retirement.

Simply put, there is no other vehicle available with the capacity

of the Shuttle to deliver supplies. Instead, the program will rely on

vehicles developed by its international partners, the commercial

sector, and NASA under the Ares and Orion Programs.

While it seems that NASA has an array of options, there are substantial limitations. One, only the Russian vehicles have proven capability, though the recent operational tests of the European vehicle is a good indication that this will not continue to be the case.

Two, all vehicles currently or nearly available have mass capacities far below the Shuttles.

Three, only the Soyuz vehicle can carry crew.

Four, neither the European, Japanese, or Russian progress vehicle can take experiments or other materials back down to Earth.

They are expendable vehicles.

71

Five, more capability is planned for the COTS vehicles, but their

schedules are considered by many to be highly optimistic and

schedule slips have already occurred.

Six, NASA’s Orion vehicle is not expected to come on line until

2015, and we have found that it is not certain that this date will

be met due to inherent technical complexities and production challenges.

Within this context it is our understanding that NASA would

like to rely solely on commercial vehicles to take cargo to the Station beginning in 2013. The aim is to fully incentivize the commercial industry to develop capabilities that are needed to support the

Vision in the long-term. There is merit to this objective as commercial suppliers are being counted on to reduce the costs of access to

space and to introduce new concepts and capabilities needed to sustain our country’s technical edge.

But there are also risks with this approach, particularly if the

commercial efforts are unsuccessful and more established vehicles

cannot be brought back into production quickly. NASA is well

aware of the predicament it faces both in completing and sustaining the Station, and it has weighted options and tradeoffs. It

is important in going forward that flexibility continue to be maintained as events impacting schedule occur and that contingencies

be well thought out and planned so that results can be maximized.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I am happy to

answer any questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaplain follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRISTINA T. CHAPLAIN

NASA: Challenges in Completing and Sustaining the

International Space Station

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here to discuss challenges that the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) faces in completing and sustaining the International

Space Station (ISS). After delays and redesigns, efforts are under way for a longenvisioned expansion of the station so it can support a larger crew and more scientific research. NASA officials estimate the entire cost to complete the station will

total $31 billion, and another $11 billion will be needed to sustain it through its

planned decommissioning in fiscal year 2016.

The Space Shuttle has been and is critical to completion of the space station and

re-supplying the station. The Shuttle remains the only vehicle capable of transporting large segments of the station into orbit for assembly. NASA plans to complete ISS assembly duties and retire the Shuttle fleet in 2010 in order to pursue

a new generation of space flight vehicles for exploration. To that end, NASA has

begun the process of making key decisions on suppliers that will no longer be needed. NASA officials told us that in many cases, restarting suppliers after these decisions are made would be cost prohibitive and time consuming. However, a new

NASA vehicle will not be available until 2015 at the earliest, when the Crew

Launch Vehicle (Aces 1) and Crew Exploration Vehicle (Orion) are expected to fly.

To fill the gap following retirement of the Shuttle and provide crew rotation and

logistical support, NASA plans to rely on a variety of spacecraft developed by the

commercial sector and other countries.

In July 2007, we testified on a number of challenges NASA was facing with regard to completing the ISS within the time constraints created by the Shuttle’s retirement. Those challenges are still relevant. In light of these issues, we examined

the risks and challenges NASA faces in (1) completing assembly of the ISS by 2010,

and (2) providing logistics and maintenance support to the ISS after 2010.

72

1 In 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up as it returned to Earth after 16 days in orbit.

After the accident of Columbia, the Shuttle fleet was grounded for approximately two and onehalf years. During that the time, U.S. crew and supplies were launched in the Russian Soyuz

and Progress.

In short, our work continued to find that NASA’s plans to complete assembly of

the International Space Station prior to the scheduled retirement of the Space Shuttle at end of fiscal year 2010 require much to happen and very little to go wrong.

While NASA believes the schedule is still achievable, the flight rate that NASA is

projecting is only slightly less aggressive than it was prior to the Columbia disaster1

when, from 1992 to 2003, the agency launched a Shuttle every other month. At that

time, NASA used four vehicles to maintain its flight schedule. To complete the station by 2010, NASA will need to maintain a similar flight rate with fewer Shuttles

and with a Shuttle fleet that is aging and continuing to face fuel sensor challenges.

NASA remains confident that the current manifest can be accomplished within the

given time, and in fact, it has several months of reserve time in its manifest. However, agency officials readily admit that the schedule is aggressive. If delays continue, NASA may need to reduce the number of flights to the station, which could

prevent delivery of items currently scheduled for assembly and the pre-positioning

of critical spares. Further, while NASA still expects to be able to increase crew capacity from three to six persons, changes it may need to make to the space station’s

configuration could limit the extent of scientific research that can be conducted onboard the ISS or quality of life for the crew.

After assembly is completed and the Shuttle is retired, NASA’s ability to rotate

crew and supply the ISS will be impaired because of the absence of a vehicle capable

of carrying the 114,199 pounds (or 51.8 metric tons) of additional supplies needed

to sustain the station until its planned retirement in fiscal year 2016. NASA plans

to rely on Russian, European and Japanese vehicles to service the station. Even

with these vehicles, this shortfall remains. While the Russian vehicles are already

in service, the European vehicle just completed its first operational test flight, and

development efforts are still under way on the Japanese vehicle. In addition, these

vehicles were designed to augment the capabilities of the Shuttle, not replace them.

Both the European and Japanese vehicles were designed to deliver supplies to the

station but their capacities are not equal to the Shuttle’s 37,864 pounds of capacity.

Furthermore, aside from a single Russian vehicle that can bring back 132 pounds

of cargo and rotate crew, no vehicle can return cargo from the International Space

Station after the Shuttle is retired. NASA plans to rely on commercially developed

vehicles to address some of these shortfalls and has pledged approximately $500

million for their development. NASA expects one of these vehicles will be ready for

cargo use in 2010 and crew use in 2012. However, no vehicle has successfully been

launched into orbit and their development schedules may leave little room for the

unexpected. If these vehicles cannot be delivered according to NASA’s current expectations, NASA will have to rely on Russian vehicles to maintain U.S. crew on the

International Space Station until the new generation of U.S. spacecraft becomes

available.

To conduct our work, we reviewed documents and testimonies by NASA officials

relating to the challenges associated with ISS completion, the delivery schedule for

ISS assembly and replacement units, and the Space Shuttle manifest. We reviewed

key ISS budget and strategic maintenance plans, the ISS Independent Safety Task

Force Report, and previous GAO reports relating to the ISS. We visited and interviewed officials responsible for ISS operations at NASA Headquarters, Washington,

D.C., and the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. At NASA Headquarters, we

met with officials from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and the Space

Operations Mission Directorate, including representatives from the International

Space Station and Space Shuttle programs. We met with ISS and Space Shuttle officials at the Johnson Space Center. We also talked to a commercial developer of

space vehicles and met with representatives of foreign space efforts. Complete details of our scope and methodology can be found in Appendix I. We conducted this

performance audit from July 2007 to April 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions

based on our audit objectives.

Background

The International Space Station program began in 1993 with several partner

countries: Canada, the 11 member nations of the European Space Agency (ESA),

73

2The manifest includes 18 total flights, but one of the launches is reserved for repairs to the

Hubble Space Telescope.

Japan, and Russia. The ISS has served and is intended to expand its service as a

laboratory for exploring basic questions in a variety of fields, including commercial,

scientific, and engineering research. The first assembly flight of the station, in

which the Space Shuttle Endeavor attached the U.S. laboratory module to the Russian laboratory module, occurred in early December of 1998. However, since the program’s inception, NASA has struggled with cost growth, schedule delays and redesigns of the station. As we reported in the past, these challenges were largely due

to poorly defined requirements, changes in program content and inadequate program oversight. Due to these challenges, the configuration of the station has devolved over time. In the spring of 2001, NASA announced that it would make major

changes in the final configuration of the ISS to address cost overruns. In 2003, the

National Academies reported that this reconfiguration greatly affected the overall

ability of the ISS to support science. NASA estimates that assembly and operating

costs of the ISS will be between $2.1 billion to $2.4 billion annually for FY 2009–

FY 2012. The ISS as of February 19, 2008, is approximately 65 percent complete.

The Shuttle program and the ISS program are inherently intertwined. The Shuttle has unique capabilities in that it can lift and return more cargo to and from orbit

than any other current or planned space vehicle. Figure 1 shows the capabilities of

the Shuttle in various configurations. Most segments of ISS cannot be delivered by

any other vehicle. For example, the Columbia disaster in 2003 put ISS assembly on

hiatus as NASA ceased Shuttle launches for two and one-half years while it investigated the safety of the fleet. During this period, the Russian Soyuz became the

means of transportation for crew members traveling to and returning from the ISS.

In a major space policy address on January 14, 2004, President Bush announced

his ‘‘Vision for U.S. Space Exploration’’ (Vision) and directed NASA to focus its future human space exploration activities on a return to the Moon as prelude to future human missions to Mars and beyond. As part of the Vision, NASA is developing new crew and cargo vehicles, with the first crew vehicle currently scheduled

to be available in 2015. The President also directed NASA to retire the Space Shuttle after completion of the ISS, which is planned for the end of the decade. Based

on that directive, NASA officials told us that they developed a manifest consisting

of 17 Shuttle launches to support ISS assembly and supply between 2005 and 2010.2

Nine of these have taken place. In response to the President’s Vision, NASA formally set September 30, 2010, as the date that the Shuttle program will cease because agency officials believe that continuing the program beyond that date will

74

3This cost is based on hardware, such as the booster rocket, used for the Shuttles.

4This includes one mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope and two contingency flights.

slow development of the agency’s new vehicles—specifically, the agency budget cannot support both programs at costs of $2.5 billion to $4 billion above current budget.

As shown in Table 1, the Shuttle program costs NASA several billion dollars annually and projected funding is phased out in fiscal year 2011. NASA officials stated

that the majority of Shuttle program cost is fixed at roughly $3 billion a year whether it flies or not. NASA officials stated that the average cost per flight is $150 million to $200 million.3

The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the U.S. segment of the ISS as a

national laboratory and directed NASA to develop a plan to increase the utilization

of the ISS by other federal entities and the private sector. In response, NASA has

been pursuing relationships with these entities. NASA expects that as the Nation’s

newest national laboratory, the ISS will strengthen NASA’s relationships with other

federal entities and private sector leaders in the pursuit of national priorities for

the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The ISS National Laboratory is also intended to open new paths for the exploration and economic development of space.

The Retirement of the Shuttle Poses Challenges to NASA’s Ability to Complete the International Space Station

It will be a challenge for NASA to complete the space station by 2010 given the

compressed nature of the schedule, maintenance and safety concerns, as well as

events beyond its control such as weather. Any of these factors can cause delays

that may require NASA to re-evaluate and reconstitute the assembly sequence.

NASA remains confident that the current manifest can be accomplished within the

given time and there are tradeoffs NASA can make in terms of what it can take

up to support and sustain the station should unanticipated delays occur. However,

failure to complete assembly as currently planned would further reduce the station’s

ability to fulfill its research objectives and short the station of critical spare parts

that only the Shuttle can currently deliver.

Shuttle Flight Schedule Is Aggressive

In our July 2007 testimony, we reported that NASA planned to launch a Shuttle

once every 2.7 months. The plan for launches remains aggressive, partly because

NASA plans on completing the ISS with the last assembly mission in April 2010,

with two contingency flights in February and July 2010 to deliver key replacement

units. The five months between the last assembly launch and Shuttle retirement in

September 2010 act as a schedule reserve, which can be used to address delays.

There are eight Shuttle flights left to complete the station and two contingency

flights left to deliver key components necessary to sustain the ISS after the retirement of the Shuttle. There is an average of two and one-half months between each

Shuttle launch.4 Table 2 shows the current Shuttle manifest.

75

5The remaining three Shuttles are the Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavor.

NASA has launched Shuttles at this rate in the past. In fact, the agency launched

a Shuttle, on average, every two months from 1992 through the Columbia disaster

in 2003. However, at that time the agency was launching a fleet of four Shuttles.5

The Shuttles require maintenance and refurbishing that can last four to five months

before they can be re-launched. Launching at such a rate means that the rotation

schedule can handle few significant delays, such as those previously experienced due

to weather and fuel sensor difficulties. Lastly, NASA officials said that Shuttle

Atlantis, which was to go out of service after the Hubble mission, will return to

servicing the ISS for two more flights, which NASA believes will add more schedule

flexibility.

76

Potential Launch Delays Remain

NASA officials stated repeatedly that NASA is committed to safely flying the

Shuttle until its retirement and will not succumb to schedule pressure. However,

the compressed nature of the manifest will continue to test that commitment. Fuel

sensor challenges continue to surface in the Shuttle fleet. For example, the recent

Shuttle Atlantis launch was delayed two months while NASA addressed a fuel sensor problem associated with the Shuttle’s liquid hydrogen tank. This is the same

system that caused a two-week delay in the launch of the Shuttle Discovery in 2005.

There are also challenges associated with the Shuttle launch window. NASA officials told us that the duration of that window is dependent on a number of factors,

which include changes in the position of the Earth and spacecraft traffic restrictions. NASA must consider its traffic model constraints for vehicles docking at the

space station. According to the traffic model for ISS, no other vehicle can dock while

the Shuttle is docked, and each vehicle has constraints on how long it can stay

docked. For example, the Shuttle can dock for a maximum of 10 days, while the

Soyuz can dock a maximum of 200 days. The docking of these two vehicles must

be coordinated and meet other technical restrictions.

In addition, the Shuttle has experienced delays due to severe weather, such as

when Atlantis’s external tank was damaged by a hailstorm in 2007. In this case the

delay was about three months. Figure 3 shows the delays in recent Shuttle launches

related to weather and other causes.

77

6Orbital Replacement Units (ORU), according to NASA officials, are critical spares are necessary to sustain the ISS.

Completion of ISS Needed to Expand Scientific Research

The ISS is scheduled to support a six-person crew as early as 2009 and maintain

that capability through 2016. NASA officials said that equipment essential to support a six-person crew, such as systems for oxygen recycling, removal of carbon dioxide and transforming urine into water as well as an exercise machine will be delivered to the station this fall. In addition, there are two components that have been

planned to hold this and other equipment needed for the six-person crew, which are

scheduled to go up in April 2010. If unanticipated delays occur, NASA may need

to hold back these two components—known as the Node 3 and the Cupola—which

could constrain the ability to conduct research and the quality of life on the station

for the crew.

NASA officials emphasized that NASA’s intent was to have most science conducted on ISS only after the assembly of the ISS was completed. The ISS currently

supports three crew members. NASA stated that the majority of the crew’s time is

spent maintaining the station, rather than conducting scientific study. According to

NASA, the crew spends no more than three hours per week on science. Completion

of the ISS would allow NASA to expand to a six-person crew who could conduct

more research.

Since the ISS is designated as a national laboratory, the expectation is that it will

support scientific experimentation. NASA is in the process of negotiating agreements with scientific organizations to support scientific research on the ISS. NASA

officials told us that they are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the

National Institutes of Health to explore the possibility of scientific experimentation

on-board the ISS. These officials also told us that NASA is in the process of negotiating with at least two other agencies.

The Need to Pre-position Replacement Units to Sustain the ISS May Also Affect Assembly

NASA’s efforts to complete the ISS are further complicated by the need to put replacement units—the spare parts that are essential to sustaining the ISS—into position before the Shuttle retires. The two contingency flights of the Shuttle have been

designated to deliver these key replacement units, which only the Shuttle is capable

of carrying. According to NASA, the original approach to deal with these key components (also known as orbital replacement units—ORU6 ) was to take the ones that

failed or reached the end of their lifetime back to Earth on the Shuttle, refurbish

them and launch them back to ISS for use. As a result of the Shuttle retirement,

NASA will no longer be bringing down ORUs to fix. Instead, NASA officials stated

they have adopted a ‘‘build and burn’’ philosophy, which means that after the Shuttle retires, instead of being brought down to be refurbished, ORUs will be discarded

and disintegrate upon re-entry into the atmosphere. To determine how many replacement units need to be positioned at the station, NASA officials told us they

are using data modeling that has been very effective in determining how long ORUs

will last. Table 3 illustrates the Shuttle manifest. This includes elements needed for

the planned configuration to complete the station and delivery of critical spares.

78

NASA currently plans to use two contingency flights for these replacements because all other flights are planned with assembly cargo. Recently, the NASA Administrator publicly stated that these flights are considered necessary to sustain the

ISS and have been scheduled to carry key spare units.

79

Alternative Vehicle Options to Service the International Space Station Pose

Challenges

In the event that NASA completes assembly of the ISS on schedule and prepositions an adequate number of critical spares, the agency still faces a myriad of challenges in sustaining the research facility until its retirement, currently planned for

fiscal year 2016. Without the Shuttle, NASA officials told us that they face a significant cargo supply shortfall and very limited crew rotation capabilities. NASA will

rely on an assortment of vehicles in order to provide the necessary logistical support

and crew rotation capabilities required by the station. Some of these vehicles axe

already supporting the station. Others are being developed by international partners, the commercial sector, and NASA. (See Figure 4) Furthermore, some of these

transportation services may face legal restrictions, and still others face cost, schedule, and performance issues that raise serious questions about their development

and utilization. These issues will challenge NASA’s ability to close the sustainment

gap between the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010 and the availability of the Crew

Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in 2015. Failure of any or some of these efforts would

also seriously restrict NASA’s options to sustain and maintain a viable space station.

Russian Vehicles

With the exception of the Shuttle and the recently completed demonstration flight

of the ATV, the only vehicles currently capable of supporting the space station are

the Russian Progress and Soyuz vehicles. NASA officials stated that both of these

vehicles have provided reliable service to the ISS. From the Columbia disaster in

2003 until return to flight in 2005, the Russian vehicles were the sole source of

logistical support and crew rotation capability for the station. The Progress provides

atmospheric gas, propellant, water, and pressurized cargo. It also has the capability

to use its thrusters to change the Station’s altitude and orientation. The Soyuz provides crew delivery and rescue capability for three crew members. Progress vehicles

are expendable and offer no recoverable return capability, but provide important

trash removal capabilities. Soyuz vehicles have a limited recoverable cargo capacity.

However, some NASA officials have suggested that their limited capabilities restrict

the capacity of the station to move to a six-member crew and significantly limit the

scientific research because the vehicles cannot bring experiments to Earth for assessment. NASA currently purchases crew and cargo transport services from Russia

through a contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos).

NASA officials told us that after the initial ISS contract between Roscosmos and

NASA expired, NASA entered into another contract that runs through 2011. However, according to NASA, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 restricted certain

payments in connection to the ISS that may be made to the Russian government.

In 2005, NASA requested relief from the restrictions of the Act, and Congress

80

7The 2005 Amendment to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 altered the Acts definition

of ‘‘extraordinary payments in connection with the International Space Station.’’ NASA refers

to this amendment as its ‘‘exemption.’’ 8 NASA and Roscosmos have negotiated quantities and prices for services through calendar

year 2011. According to NASA it will require additional relief from the restrictions of the Act,

currently entitled the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act.

amended the Act.7 Through this amendment, NASA and Roscosmos have negotiated

quantities and prices for services through January 1, 2012.

NASA officials anticipate the use of four Soyuz flights per year and approximately

six Progress flights beginning in approximately 2010. While NASA officials stated

that they are making every effort to limit amount of fees they pay for usage of Russian vehicles, to date, NASA officials told us that they anticipate that from fiscal

year 2009 to fiscal year 2012, NASA will spend $589 million on cargo and crew services from the Russians.8 NASA officials also told us that the Roscosmos has suggested that it will charge NASA higher fees for usage of its vehicles.

European and Japanese Vehicles

NASA has stated it will use its international partners’ vehicles to conduct some

supply activities. Specifically, Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) H–II

Transfer Vehicle (HTV) and the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) vehicles will be used for bringing up cargo. NASA’s reliance on

the ATV and HTV assumes that these vehicles will be ready to service the ISS by

the time the Shuttle stops flying in 2010.

The new vehicles being developed by the European and Japanese space agencies

are very complex. The ATV had a development timeline of 20 years. Its first operational test flight to the ISS was in March 2008. NASA has stated that both the

European and Japanese vehicle development programs experienced technical hurdles and budgetary constraints, but are committed to fulfilling their roles as partners in the ISS program. NASA officials told us they have confidence the European

vehicle will be available for ISS operations before retirement of the Shuttle, but they

are not as confident about the Japanese vehicle’s being ready by that time. The Japanese vehicle is still under development and has faced some setbacks. NASA officials told us that the HTV’s first test launch is planned for July 2009.

81

International Partner Vehicles Have Constraints in Ability to Ferry Crew and Cargo

to and from the ISS in Comparison to the Shuttle

In addition to potential development challenges, the international partner vehicles

have constraints in terms of what they can take to and from the ISS in comparison

to the Shuttle. NASA’s current plans to manage the gap after the Shuttle retirement do not take into account the possibility of delays in the development of these

vehicles, and even if they do come on line on time, NASA officials estimate that

there will be a significant shortfall to the ISS of at least 114,199 pounds (or 51.8

metric tons) in cargo re-supply capability. These vehicles were designed to augment

the capabilities of the Shuttle and have significantly less capability to deliver cargo

to the ISS. The Shuttle can carry a maximum cargo of close to 38,000 pounds

(17,175 kg.). In comparison, the European ATV’s maximum capability is 16,535

pounds (7,500 kg.) and the Japanese HTV’s average capability is 13,228 pounds

(6,000 kg.). The HTV and ATV are expendable vehicles. NASA can use them for

trash removal, but cannot carry cargo or scientific experiments back to Earth because the vehicles disintegrate when re-entering the atmosphere.

The Russian Progress and Soyuz vehicles also have very limited cargo capacity.

For example, the Progress has an average capability of 5,732 pounds (2,600 kg.)—

roughly one-seventh the Shuttle’s capability. The Progress, like the ATV and HTV,

is an expendable vehicle. The Soyuz can transport three crew persons to the ISS

and can serve as a rescue vehicle capable of taking three crew members back to

Earth. Unlike the ATV and HTV, the Soyuz does have the capacity to bring down

cargo—roughly 132 pounds (60 kg.). NASA officials have stated that until NASA deploys its new crew exploration vehicles or commercial vehicles become available,

NASA will be dependent on the Russian vehicles for crew transportation services

and on the Japanese and European vehicles for limited cargo services whenever

they become available.

Figure 7 compares the up mass capabilities of the various vehicles.

82

9 COTS agreements are Space Act agreements issued pursuant to NASA’s other transactions

authority. These types of agreements are not contracts, and are therefore generally not subject

to those federal laws and regulations that apply to government contracts. NASA has budgeted

$500 million in fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2010 as an investment for the demonstration of

commercial orbital capabilities and will be executed in two phases. The first phase consists of

technical development/demonstration funded by the Space Act agreements. The second phase

may include the competitive procurement of orbital transportation services.

Commercial Vehicles

NASA is working with the commercial space sector through its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to develop and produce vehicles that

can take equipment and crew to and from the space station. NASA expects that

these vehicles will be ready for cargo use in 2010 and crew use in 2012. However,

these vehicles have yet to be successfully launched into orbit, and some NASA officials have acknowledged that their development schedules leave little room for the

unexpected.

Under the COTS program, NASA has pledged $500 million to promote commercial

opportunities for space transportation vehicles. Using Space Act agreements9 instead of traditional contracting mechanisms, NASA will make payments to companies based on the achievement of key milestones during the development of their

vehicles. These agreements are both funded and unfunded, For the two funded

agreements that have been reached, NASA stated that the commercial suppliers for

space transportation services will have customers outside of ISS, including NASA’s

Constellation program, which plans to send humans back to the Moon and eventually Mars. The COTS program will occur in phases. In the first phase companies

will demonstrate the vehicle launch and docking capabilities with the ISS. The second phase is the procurement of services for transportation of cargo and crew to the

ISS, which is scheduled to begin sometime in the 2010 timeframe.

NASA had seven COTS agreements through the Space Act. NASA signed five unfunded Space Act agreements, which facilitate the sharing of technical and ISS integration information between commercial companies and NASA. NASA has funded

83

two companies, Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) and Space Exploration Technologies

(SpaceX). NASA officials stated that through the funded Space Act agreements,

SpaceX has received $139 million for its project and is still working on successfully

launching a vehicle that can reach low-Earth orbit. The company successfully completed a critical design review in August 2007 and told us that it is planning its

first orbital demonstration test flight for June 2009. NASA officials told us that RpK

received $37 million in funding, but then forfeited the remainder of its share because it did not meet certain financial development milestones. When NASA began

to redistribute these forfeited funds, RpK filed a bid protest with GAO, which GAO

denied. NASA officials then moved forward and awarded $170 million to Orbital

Sciences Corporation in February 2008.

NASA officials acted quickly to award the forfeited money and expect that SpaceX

will have cargo capability available in 2010 (by the time the Shuttle is retired) and

crew capability 112012. While SpaceX has been meeting key milestones in the development of its vehicle, some officials at the Johnson Space Center were skeptical that

COTS would be available on the current projected schedule. Additionally, the International Space Station Independent Safety Task Force (IISTF) reported that design,

development and certification of the new COTS program was just beginning and

that ‘‘if similar to other new program development activities, it most likely will take

much longer than expected and will cost more than anticipated.’’ In our opinion, the

schedule is optimistic when compared to other government and commercial space

programs we have studied. We will be studying the COTS program and schedules

in more detail in response to a request of Members of Congress.

Ares I and Orion

NASA is under pressure to develop its own vehicles quickly as the Space Shuttle’s

retirement in 2010 means that there could be at least a five-year gap in our nation’s

ability to send humans to space. Among the first major items of NASA’s development efforts to implement the Vision program are the development of new space

flight systems—including the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Ares I and Orion are currently targeted for operation no later

than 2015. NASA plans to use these vehicles as they become available to service

the space station.

However, we recently testified that there are considerable unknowns as to whether NASA’s plans for the Ares I and Orion vehicles can be executed within schedule

goals, as well as what these efforts will ultimately cost. This is primarily because

NASA is still in the process of defining many of the project’s performance requirements and some of these uncertainties could affect the mass, loads, and weight requirements for the vehicles. Such uncertainty has created knowledge gaps that are

affecting many aspects of both projects. For example, a design analysis cycle completed in May 2007 revealed an unexpected increase in ascent loads (the physical

strain on the spacecraft during launch) that could result in increases to the weight

of the Orion vehicle and both stages of the Ares I.

NASA recognizes the risks involved with its approach and it is taking steps to

mitigate those risks. However, given the complexity of the Orion and Ares I efforts

and their interdependencies, any significant requirements changes can have reverberating effects and make it extremely difficult to establish firm cost estimates and

schedule baselines. If knowledge gaps persist, programs will cost more, fail to meet

their schedules, or deliver less than originally envisioned. Ultimately, NASA’s aggressive schedule leaves little room for the unexpected. If something goes wrong

with the development of the Crew Launch Vehicle or the Crew Exploration Vehicle,

the entire Constellation Program could be thrown off course and the return to

human space flight further delayed.

Concluding Observations

The decision to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010 has had profound effects on the

ISS program. It leaves little flexibility in the Shuttle schedule. Any delays could require NASA to choose between completing the station as planned and the pre-positioning of needed critical spares, The decision also leaves NASA dependent on Russia for crew rotation services until other vehicles are developed and demonstrated.

And even with the development of these vehicles, NASA still faces a significant capacity shortfall in its ability to provide logistical support to the station. The shortfall

may well impact support for a six person crew and the quality of research that can

be conducted on the ISS. At the same time, it also provides opportunities to commercial suppliers to demonstrate capabilities that could have long-term benefits for

future U.S. space exploration and development. We are not making recommendations as a result of our review as NASA is well aware of the predicament it faces

84

with the station and has weighed options and trade-offs for the remainder of the

schedule manifest. However, it is important that flexibility continue to be maintained as events impacting schedule occur and that decisions be made with the goal

of maximizing safety and results.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any

questions that you or the other Members may have at this time.

Individuals making key contributions to this statement include James L. Morrison, Greg Campbell, Brendan S. Culley, Masha P. Pastuhav-Purdie, Kea

Vongvanith, and Alyssa B. Weir.

85

Appendix I:

Scope and Methodology

To identify the risks and challenges NASA faces in completing assembly of the

International Space Station by 2010, we

• analyzed key documents and testimonies by NASA officials relating to the

challenges associated with ISS completion. This included: the delivery schedule for ISS parts for assembly and the delivery schedule for replacement

units, the Space Shuttle manifest, budget documents and the strategic maintenance plan, the ISS Independent Safety Task Force Report, and previous

GAO reports relating to the ISS.

• interviewed NASA mission officials to obtain information on the status of the

ISS. We also discussed these issues with the International Partners (Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration

Agency) to get their perspectives.

To determine the risks and challenges NASA faces in providing logistics and

maintenance support to the International Space Station after 2010, we

• analyzed documents related to the up-mass and down-mass capabilities of the

International Partners and SpaceX vehicles, the shortfall in ISS up-mass for

re-supply and sustainment, the new vehicles that will support ISS NASA’s

plans for using Russian vehicles to support ISS through what NASA refers

to as its ‘‘exemption,’’ and the impacts to the utilization of the ISS.

• We interviewed key NASA officials from NASA Headquarters, the Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation

Services program, and the ISS program officials, and interviewed officials representing the International Partners.

To accomplish our work, we visited and interviewed officials responsible for the

ISS operations at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and the Johnson Space

Center in Houston, Texas. At NASA Headquarters, we met with officials from the

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and the Space Operations Mission Directorate, including representatives from the International Space Station and Space

Shuttle programs. We also met with ISS and Space Shuttle mission officials at the

Johnson Space Center.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to April 2008, in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CRISTINA T. CHAPLAIN

Ms. Chaplain currently serves as a Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She has responsibility for GAO

assessments of military and civilian space acquisitions. Ms. Chaplain has also led

a variety of DOD-wide contracting-related and best practice evaluations for the

GAO. Before her current position, Ms. Chaplain worked with GAO’s financial management and information technology teams. Ms. Chaplain has been with GAO for

17 years. She received a Bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, in International Relations from Boston University and a Master’s degree in Journalism from Columbia

University.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you.

Dr. Sutton.

STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFREY P. SUTTON, DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL SPACE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Dr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, Judge Hall, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify

here this morning.

86

I have the distinct honor of serving as the Director of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute or NSBRI. And NASA

established NSBRI in 1997, and was charged to lead a national effort for accomplishing the integrated biomedical research necessary

to support a long-term human presence development and exploration of space. That mission has not changed since inception.

And over the past decade NSBRI has brought unprecedented intellectual and institutional resources to help NASA address and reduce high-priority biomedical risks. And the focus has been on the

team approach to develop counter measures or solutions to healthrelated problems in the physical and psychological challenges that

men and women face on long duration space flights.

NSBRI is a success story for NASA. The Institute attracts outstanding scientists, physicians, and engineers across the country

and coordinates them to advance in a cost-effective way biomedical

science and technology for space and to apply results to enhance

life on Earth.

We are excited by a number of things. We are excited by the scientific and technological achievements, by the growing number of

young people who are participating in the science and education

programs, and also by the accomplishments of the talented people

in this endeavor. And we are particularly proud at this moment,

Dr. Michael DeBakey, from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston,

and Dr. DeBakey is a world-renowned heart surgeon, innovator,

military veteran, leader, and humanitarian, and we are privileged

that he is a dedicated and active member of the NSBRI Board of

Directors. And yesterday in a magnificent ceremony in the Rotunda, the President and Congressional leadership presented Dr.

DeBakey with the Congressional gold medal, the most distinguished award bestowed by the United States Congress, and on behalf of NSBRI, I thank you for your support of the award to Dr.

DeBakey.

In my written testimony there are responses to a series of

thoughtful questions posed by the Subcommittee concerning biomedical research and the ISS. What I would like to do here is to

talk about three points that cut across the questions and the responses.

Now, the first is that ISS is critical to biomedical research needed to prepare for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

The second point is that there is a vibrant portfolio that exist

right now in ground base biomedical research that is maturing toward flight studies for ISS.

And the third is that biomedical research for exploration leads to

advances that enhances life on Earth. Let me talk about these

three points in turn.

There is a broad range of human health risks associated with extended operations in the microgravity environment of space, and I

know that Members are familiar with these examples being accelerated bone loss, muscle atrophy, changes in cardiovascular function, altered immune responses, sensory motor adaptations, issues

concerning habitability, and a variety of other issues. And also how

to deliver medical care, to provide medical capabilities in this environment.

87

We are familiar with how imaging has impacted medicine on

Earth, the ability to make accurate diagnoses, to provide treatment. During missions in remote harsh environments, whether on

Earth or in space, it is important to make the best possible assessment in the event of a medical contingency.

Since treatment decisions pertain not only to the affected crew

member but also to the other crew members, the consumables and

possibly the mission itself, in a collaboration involving academia,

government, and industry, ultrasound training for non-physician

crew members aboard the ISS has led to several scientific publications demonstrating the utility of ultrasound for health monitoring

and medical imaging in space.

The findings and subsequent lessons learned unquestionably required ISS crew and resources could not have been done without

ISS, and this project exemplifies how the ISS provides unique and

invaluable capabilities. Their applications to Earth in military

medicine, in the ability to make diagnoses in remote settings, air

ambulances, and also applications to sports medicine, and in fact,

the technologies were used during the last Olympic games.

The second point that I wish to make pertains to the way in

which the NASA’s human research program and NSBRI are working together. There is a significant portfolio of projects involving 70

universities in 26 states that are moving the way through a pipeline of counter-measure and technology development from research

to development, to testing, to evaluation, and eventual operational

integradation. There is a user panel of astronauts, current and

former and flight surgeons, who are working together. I agree with

Mr. Rohrabacher’s statement that there is a need to conduct research on Station. This is why NSBRI was created, from the standpoint of NASA leveraging off the Nation’s investment and biomedical research and being able to move projects to testing in the

Space Station.

The third point that I wanted to make concerns the spin-offs, the

first panel eloquently addressed this issue in the context of unique

conditions of space, leading to novel insights and discoveries and

also to spin-offs. And I want to echo the comments of the other witnesses and thanking NASA and the engineers for their ingenuity,

hard work, and expertise in making ISS a reality. There is really

an unprecedented opportunity here from the perspective of biomedical research, and that this endeavor will be collaborative international and would advance our nation as we build upon our legacy

of innovation, discovery, and leadership.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sutton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. SUTTON

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of ‘‘NASA’s International

Space Station Program: Status and Issues.’’ Since 2001, I have had the privilege to

serve as the Director of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI),

a non-profit consortium competitively selected and supported by NASA to address

and develop countermeasures for high-priority biomedical risks associated with longduration human exploration of space.

The International Space Station (ISS) provides a unique, invaluable resource for

the U.S. and its international partners to conduct scientific research, develop and

88

demonstrate innovative technologies, test and evaluate procedures, protocols and

products, and operationally integrate hardware, software and other components to

advance space exploration goals. Designation of the U.S. segment of the ISS as a

National Laboratory, as specified in Section 507 of the NASA Authorization Act of

2005 (Public Law 109–155), underscores the importance of ISS as a facility for research and a means to enable exploration.

In the ‘‘Vision for Space Exploration,’’ presented by President Bush on January

14, 2004, the use of ISS to support space exploration goals is highlighted, with one

focus being to understand how the space environment affects astronaut health and

capabilities and to develop countermeasures. The potential of ISS as an essential

platform for biomedical and technology research to support long-term human exploration of space has been described in several recent reports, including but not limited to (1) ‘‘Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station,’’ prepared by

the National Research Council in 2006, and (2) ‘‘NASA Report to Congress Regarding a Plan for the International Space Station National Laboratory,’’ submitted in

May 2007.

It is prudent for the U.S. to foster scientific and technological achievements utilizing the unique attributes of the ISS. Innovation and discovery contribute to American leadership and economic growth. Accomplishments in space help inspire the

next generation of scientists, physicians and engineers, support U.S. competitiveness, facilitate partnerships and international cooperation, and lead to advances

that enhance life on Earth. NASA and the Nation face many challenges. As construction of the ISS nears completion and three scientific laboratories become operational, the time is ripe to capitalize on our country’s investment in the ISS and

all that it has to offer.

The present hearing examines the status of the ISS and issues related to its operation and utilization, including the planned and potential uses of the ISS to meet

both NASA and non-NASA research needs. This testimony concerns itself with responses to a series of biomedical questions posed in the Subcommittee’s invitation

letter.

What biomedical research is needed to prepare for exploration beyond lowEarth orbit?

In the 47 years since the first human flew in space, a significant amount of

knowledge and experience has been acquired relating to the inherent risks associated with human space travel. Missions in low-Earth orbit, especially long-duration

flights aboard Skylab, Mir and ISS, have given insights into a broad range of

human health risks associated with extended operations in the microgravity environment of space. Accelerated bone loss, muscle atrophy, changes in cardiovascular

function, altered immune responses and sensorimotor adaptations occur. There are

issues concerning proper nutrition, human-machine interfaces and habitability,

neuro-behavioral and psycho-social factors, performance, sleep and chronobiology,

radiation and medical care capabilities, including ineffectiveness of medication.

Some risks, such as dust from the lunar or Mars surfaces, are unique to missions

beyond low-Earth orbit. Not all astronauts are affected equally by the same risk or

countermeasure, and individual differences need to be taken into account.

An understanding of the risks and issues is critical to determining what biomedical research is needed. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, ‘‘Safe Passage:

Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions,’’ released in 2001, recommended that all

relevant epidemiological data on astronauts be captured, and that a long-term, focused health care research strategy be pursued concerning health risks and their

amelioration.

The Bioastronautics Roadmap (http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov), developed over

the past decade by NASA in collaboration with the external biomedical research

community, is consistent with this perspective. The Roadmap provides a framework

for identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of crew exposure to the hazardous

environments of space. It identifies 45 risks and assigns priorities to these for three

reference missions: a one-year mission to the ISS; a month-long stay on the lunar

surface; and a 30-month round-trip journey to Mars.

NASA and its non-government organization partner, NSBRI, have used the Bioastronautics Roadmap as a framework to build a biomedical research portfolio focused on high-priority areas, such as accelerated bone loss, radiation, neuro-behavioral and psycho-social factors, and exploration medical care. More recently, the

partnership has been elucidating a level of detail necessary to prioritize risks across

physiological disciplines and to compare strategies for how to manage a given risk

across mission operational architectures.

Research on the ground and in space is needed to elucidate processes but the importance of accelerating countermeasure and technology development is also critical,

89

2 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission ¥pages/station/science/experiments/Human¥Research.html)

as emphasized in an IOM report released in 2005 entitled ‘‘A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space.’’ To prepare for exploration beyond low-Earth

orbit, the report stresses the need to establish safe radiation exposure levels for all

relevant risks. This sentiment is echoed in a 2008 report from the National Research Council entitled ‘‘Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space

Exploration.’’

By its nature, research needs are dynamic as knowledge about risks matures and

countermeasures and other risk-reduction strategies are implemented. ISS as a research platform provides an unparalleled resource to define requirements for exploration needs and to support research, development, testing, evaluation and operational integration of deliverables to support crew health and well-being.

What progress has been made to date?

Progress in biomedical research and development has been made in space and in

ground-based investigations. Skylab, Space Shuttle (including dedicated life science

missions such as STS–90 Neurolab), free flyers and the ISS have all pushed the

frontier of biomedical knowledge and technology. Beginning with the arrival of Expedition 1 to the ISS in November 2000, and extending through the current Expedition 17 (launched April 8, 2008 with an expected return to Earth in October 2008)

and Expedition 18 (expected launch and return in October 2008 and April 2009, respectively) missions, NASA reports a series of experiments devoted to human research and countermeasure development for exploration.2

A summary of these experiments with Earth applications follows:

• Bone and Muscle Physiology in Space Experiments include research seeking

to understand the effects space flight on bone loss and muscle fatigue, kidney

stone prevention, and developing countermeasures, such as the use of medicines and exercise. Potential Earth benefits include treatments and/or cures

for diseases such as osteoporosis and spinal cord injuries.

• Cardiovascular and Respiratory Systems in Space Experiments include research to understand orthostatic intolerance, decompression sickness, and

blood delivery to the brain. Earth applications include improved treatment of

low blood pressure and prevention of cardiac deconditioning.

• Human Behavior and Performance Experiments include research on crew

interaction, understanding behavioral issues and sleep cycles. Earth applications include improved treatment of insomnia and improved behavioral performance of people in high-stress situations.

• Immune System in Space Experiments include research on developing new

wound healing technologies, understanding and monitoring immune system

functions, and studying stress-induced reactivation of viruses. Earth applications include wound and tissue repair techniques that could prevent limb loss

for military and civilian populations and rapid detection of stress-induced viruses, such as herpes, and improved treatment.

• Integrated Physiology Studies Experiments include research on development

of telemedicine strategies, nutrition, and archiving of biosamples that will

provide future research opportunities. Earth applications include remote medical diagnosis and treatment capabilities for rural health care and greater understanding of nutrition on health.

• Microbiology in the Space Environment Experiments include research on development of hand-held technology to detect biological and chemical substances, understanding the threat of pathogens inside spacecraft, and studying the effect of reduced gravity on pathogens. Earth applications include advances in vaccine development, new treatments of drug-resistant virus

strains, and diagnosis for potential sources of microbial contamination.

• Neurological and Vestibular Systems in Space Experiments include research

on facilitating recovery of functional mobility after long-duration space flight,

understanding hand-eye coordination difficulties in space, and studying medications to treat motion sickness. Earth applications included improved treatment of neurological diseases, more effective motion sickness treatment, and

reduced risk of falling in the elderly.

• Radiation Studies Experiments include research on the radiation environment, effects of radiation on the brain, and assessing the risk of genetic damage caused by radiation. Earth applications include benefits for brain tumor

90

3See http://www.nsbri.org/Research/index.html for a complete listing of projects. 4 Radiology 2005; 234(2):319–322.

treatment, insight on the origin of specific gene mutations, and improved radiation protection on military and civilian aircraft crews.

A significant step forward by NASA in implementing an integrated biomedical research program to support the long-term human presence, development and exploration of space occurred slightly more that a decade ago. In 1997, NASA competitively awarded, and has funded in increments based on performance, a cooperative

agreement (NCC 9–58) to the National Space Biomedical Research Institute

(www.nsbri.org). NSBRI works in partnership with NASA’s Human Research Program, that is part of Advanced Capabilities within the Exploration Mission Systems

Directorate. NSBRI leverages the Nation’s substantial investment in biomedical research and brings unprecedented intellectual and institutional resources to solve

problems for NASA. The focus is on a team approach to developing countermeasures

and deliverables in close collaboration with NASA (see Attachments A and B).

NSBRI is a virtual institute that currently supports approximately 65 coordinated

and openly competed science, technology and education projects at 70 universities

in 26 states. There is a well established pipeline of products, maturing through

countermeasure and technology readiness levels, in preparation for flight testing,

evaluation and, if appropriate, operational integration. Some projects have matured

to flight, while the bulk of the effort is ground-based and serves as a source of biomedical research for the ISS National Laboratory.

As a nationally acclaimed translational research institute, NSBRI adds unique

value to NASA’s Human Research Program. NSBRI is governed by 12 consortium

members, with combined annual biomedical funding in excess of $3B from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). There are strong productive collaborations not

only with institutes within the NIH, in the spirit of the recent NASA–NIH Memorandum of Understanding, but also with programs within the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, U.S. Naval Academy, and other entities. More than

one-third of NSBRI projects actively engage industry, and there is an excellent education and outreach program spanning elementary through high school, undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral education, and continuing medical education

efforts related to space. There is an eminent Board of Directors (Attachment C) and

active involvement of current and former astronauts and flight surgeons (Attachment D).

Examples of NSBRI supported science and technology projects include:3

• Understanding the harmful effects of space radiation in exacerbating bone

loss caused by microgravity, with implications on Earth for patients receiving

radiotherapy;

• Investigation of pharmacological countermeasures to limit hand and muscle

fatigue in space, with applications on Earth to lessening muscle weakness following injury or surgery;

• Development and testing of a needle-free blood and tissue monitoring device

for health assessment, science and medical care in space, with applications

on Earth for use in ambulances, intensive care units, battlefield settings and

monitoring of vascular function in diabetics;

• Research and applications of blue light to affect the human circadian pacemaker, performance and adaptation to shifts in work schedule, with applications on Earth to shift work;

• Delivery of a miniaturized time-of-flight mass spectrometer for environmental

monitoring and medical assessment in space, with applications for homeland

security;

• Research, development, testing and evaluation (aboard the NASA Extreme

Mission Operations underwater habitat) of a psychomotor vigilance test for

the objective assessment of fatigue and stress in mission-critical activities

(Principal investigator awarded a NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal

in 2007);

• Development of a microdosimeter instrument, tested aboard the MidSTAR–

1 satellite, for real-time personal radiation monitoring, with applications to

radiation assessment on Earth;

• Ultrasound training for non-physicians aboard the ISS for health monitoring

and medical imaging resulted in a NSBRI/NASA/contractor collaboration

leading to the first scientific publication from space,4 with applications on

Earth for remote-guided medical evaluation and sports medicine;

91

• Development and testing of a high-intensity, focused ultrasound technique for

non-invasive, bloodless surgery, with applications in space, emergency rooms

and on the battlefield;

• Studies to determine oxygen requirements and means to concentrate oxygen

in hypoxic, harsh environments, with applications on Earth to emergency and

military medicine.

What role will the International Space Station play in addressing those

questions?

While short-duration flights and ground-based research, including the use of analog environments, contribute to biomedical research for space exploration, the ISS

provides the only resource with the capabilities to conduct certain types of research

and to advance countermeasures and technologies. There are two immediate strategic goals the ISS can fulfill in the area of biomedical research to address exploration needs. It will serve as a proving ground for scientific and technological product development of deliverables currently in the pipeline. These deliverables may

address specific standards and requirements. Secondly, access to the ISS would foster new project opportunities that leverage off the portfolio of projects currently addressing exploration needs.

What is needed to maximize the utility of the International Space Station

for conducting the necessary biomedical research?

Affordable and reliable access to and from the ISS is key to the success of conducting the necessary biomedical research. Critical to this access is the availability

of cost-effective transportation services.

Given adequate access to and from ISS, it is essential to have a robust management structure and leadership for conducting and integrating science. Research

aboard the ISS should be of the highest merit, with ample preliminary work to ensure success. There should be clear justification as to why the ISS is the best, or

perhaps only, laboratory to conduct the research. Some biomedical research is fundamental and can only be performed in a microgravity environment. However, much

of the necessary biomedical investigations for space are translational. They mature

through a pipeline from research, to development, to testing, to evaluation, to operational integration. To maximize the utility of the ISS in this context, it is wise to

link the ISS National Laboratory to the full spectrum of space-related research

being conducted throughout academia, industry and government.

Lastly, a countermeasure advancement process, developed specifically for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory, would be helpful to facilitate key research moving through the pipeline of development to advance to validation in space. Such a

process will require strong program oversight and management rigor to assess the

operational need and feasibility of the research, thereby maximizing the return on

investment.

What, if any, critical enabling biomedical research for exploration cannot

be done on the International Space Station and will have to be addressed

by other means?

While many areas of biomedical research for exploration would benefit from access

to the ISS, some research is not suitable for ISS and needs to be addressed by other

means. Four examples follow:

Radiation Studies—Studies toward countermeasure development against the acute

and chronic effects of radiation cannot be fully conducted in low-Earth orbit, given

the presence of the Van Allen belts. The radiation spectrum beyond low-Earth orbit

can be emulated utilizing beams of high-energy heavy ions, such as those found at

Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Long-duration Exposure to Reduced Gravity—The effects of microgravity on the

body during long-duration missions are well documented (e.g., approximately one

percent bone loss per month). However, the effects of long-term exposure to reduced

gravity are not known. Gravity on the Moon is one-sixth of Earth’s gravity and on

Mars it is three-eighths of Earth’s gravity. There are many open questions, such as

whether extra-vehicular activities in these gravitational environments obviate the

need for supplemental exercise countermeasures.

Lunar Dust—Dust, such as on the Moon, poses an environmental risk that could

result in mechanical failures in spacesuits and airlocks. Lunar dust is exceedingly

small, making it easy to get deep into the lungs. The dust is littered with bonded

shards of glass and minerals known as agglutinates, which have not been found on

Earth. It is not known whether they can be expelled efficiently if inhaled.

92

Medical Emergency Management—Through the use of a high-fidelity patient simulator, astronauts and ground personnel involved in mission operations can practice

management of medical emergencies. Ground-based simulation of medical contingencies complements activities to advance medical care capabilities that could be

tested and evaluated aboard the ISS.

In closing, as ISS construction nears completion, there is an unprecedented opportunity to conduct biomedical and other research, and to test and validate critical

technologies for human exploration of space. This endeavor will be collaborative,

international and will advance our nation as we build upon our legacy of innovation,

discovery and leadership.

93

Attachment A

94

95

96

97

BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY P. SUTTON

Jeffrey P. Sutton, M.D., Ph.D., is President and Institute Director of the National

Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). He was unanimously appointed to

this position in 2001 by the NSBRI Board of Directors. NSBRI partners with NASA

to support science, technology and education at more than 70 universities across the

U.S., with a focus on developing solutions to health-related problems associated with

human space exploration. NSBRI also has extensive partnerships with industry,

U.S. Government programs and international collaborators.

Dr. Sutton guided the maturation of NSBRI into a premier, internationally acclaimed institute of excellence in translational biomedical research. Under his leadership, NSBRI has developed and continues to generate important and operationally-relevant countermeasures and deliverables to enhance health in space and on

Earth. Partnerships with government and industry have tripled, and NSBRI is now

a main portal to the extramural community for NASA-sponsored human research.

NSBRI’s portfolio of projects is team-based and addresses high-priority areas, innovation and successful product development.

Dr. Sutton has been at the forefront of several award-winning education and outreach initiatives in science, medicine and engineering. These programs inspire and

support the next generation of space explorers, within the U.S. and abroad. He has

streamlined business practices, and enhanced efficiencies and entrepreneurship.

Dr. Sutton was born in New York City and holds an M.D. degree (1982), an M.Sc.

in medical science (neuroscience, 1985) and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics (1988), all

98

from the University of Toronto. His residency training was at Harvard Medical

School. He is a Diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and

a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He practiced

medicine for 19 years.

Prior to his present position, Dr. Sutton was NSBRI Smart Medical Systems

Team Leader from 1999–2001, and also served as interim Team Leader for the

NSBRI Technology Development Team. He established and from 1995–2002 was Director of the Neural Systems Group at the Massachusetts General Hospital and the

Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. Dr. Sutton was on the

faculty of Harvard Medical School from 1991–2002. He is currently on the faculty

of Baylor College of Medicine and has been an affiliate faculty member in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, since 1995. During his career, he has taught and mentored many students and physicians at various levels of training.

Dr. Sutton’s research expertise is in smart medical systems, computational neuroscience and neuroimaging. He has made significant contributions to these fields, is

the author of numerous scientific articles and holds several patents. He has received

many accolades, including a National Institutes of Health Scientist Development

Award, a President’s Citation from the Society of NASA Flight Surgeons, and a Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology Award for Clinical Medical

Education Excellence. He has been a founder of several start-up informatics companies and holds a variety of advisory positions with academia, government and industry.

DISCUSSION

Chairman UDALL. I thank the panel for that very important set

of presentations.

We are going to move right now to the first round of questions.

I am going to recognize myself for five minutes.

COST OF ISS OPERATIONS

I want to start with Mr. Gerstenmaier. In the interest of clarification, I wanted to ask you how much will the taxpayer, our taxpayers invest in the Station, including Shuttle flights? There were

some comments made in the previous panels about the numbers.

I want to make sure we had the correct number for the record.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Are you talking about the basic Space Station sustaining an operations budget on an annual——

Chairman UDALL. I am talking about all, I think the capital

costs, the operational costs. There was a number of $100 billion

mentioned in the last panel. I am not sure that is correct, and I

wanted to at least——

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I would like to take that question for the

record so we can get the details of what goes into that. There is

a range of numbers that sits out there, and I would like to get a

common basis and provide a detail.

Chairman UDALL. That would be helpful to the Committee, and

if you would include the Shuttle flights, I think, in total. You could

break those out, it would be useful.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. And we can include that with transportation, with all the various pieces in there so then you could see

what the investment is. But it would be, it is much better to do

written than——

Chairman UDALL. I would agree.

99

LOGISTICS FLIGHTS

Let me continue questioning Mr. Gerstenmaier. I wanted to follow up on your statement that the approach will, to the Shuttle

will, to the Station, I should say, will require living off spares flown

up by the Shuttle and taking some limited degradation and ISS capabilities if there is a delay in the commercial services.

In your engineering judgment, how do you pinpoint to analyze

the contingency of logistics flights to bring critical spares to the

ISS? Are they needed? If so, why?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we have two contingency flights that

sits in our manifest. Those flights deliver critical spares as you described, and the purpose of those spares are essentially to give us

some margin if the commercial re-supply services are delayed a little bit, those spares are in place, so if a component fails, that critical component has a ready spare available on station to go ahead

and replace it.

It allows the commercial re-supply sector to be a little bit later

in their delivery. So I consider those flights to be critical to us, very

important for us.

We also are monitoring actively what components are failing, and

we are going to change kind of in real time exactly what components we put on those flights. So we have a candidate list of things

we would like to fly today, but we reserve the right to change that

around a little bit after we see how the actual hardware operates.

And we have just activated a lot of our systems on the outside

of Space Station. We are getting more runtime on the equipment,

learning how to balance that, and we will position the proper

spares that will give us the most longevity of Space Station to

allow research to occur.

Chairman UDALL. Could you speak further to the risk, the level

of risk that we incur if we didn’t fly those two Shuttle flights?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It is difficult to quantify exactly. It is a function of how this, the current equipment operates and how well it

performs. We see some components do very well, actually operate

much longer than we have anticipated. We have seen some not

work quite as well. The beta gimble, a large motor that rotates that

tracks the sun with the outboard rays, and then there is a large

alpha joint, a big joint about 10 foot diameter, a steel ring that rotates that has some degradation in it. We are probably going to

have to make some changes there. The control moment gyros that

provide attitude to station, it was supposed to last about eight

years. We have lost two of those in two or three years.

So there is significant degradation in some components but then

other components have run much longer than we have anticipated.

Our judgment has to be how do you anticipate what those failures

are, place them on the Shuttle, and then that gives us the

robustness to continue.

Chairman UDALL. Are those flights a part of the manifest?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Those flights are, we treat them as part of

the manifest. They are shown there. We don’t have approval to fly

those yet. We still need to seek approval to do that. They are budgeted, and we are planning those actively to be in the manifest, but

100

they need to occur. We need to justify that they need to occur. Then

they need to occur before the——

Chairman UDALL. Any back-up plan if we weren’t to fly those

two logistic flights?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, if for some reason those flights had

to be dropped for some reason or they didn’t occur for some reason

or we weren’t approved, given approval to fly those, we would anticipate what hardware we lose and then we would, again, provide

back to the community the risks associated with not having those,

that hardware based on the latest data at that time, and we would

make an informed judgment about what we should do.

Chairman UDALL. Ms. Chaplain, do you care to comment?

Ms. CHAPLAIN. I agree with what has been said. I would also

comment that if this does get pushed off to when the COTS vehicles are available, they might not necessarily have that kind of capability to take up some of these larger spares, and that would also

constrain their ability to carry other things up to the Station, and

that is already a tight area right now.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you for that insight.

I see my time is expired. I want to recognize Congressman Hall

for five minutes.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the risks if we didn’t fly those two

flights, and I am sure you are talking about the flights that they

have said they intend to fly. We just don’t know their status. I

think you pretty well straightened that out.

SOYUZ SAFETY ISSUES

I guess my question is what if we do fly some flights, and Mr.

Gerstenmaier, with NASA’s reliance on Soyuz during the five-year

gap and could you provide us with the details of the two previous

re-entry problems? And I think I was one of the, among the first

to insist on some escape module money for the four birds, and I

was always told it was either too heavy or too expensive. I couldn’t

accept too expensive, but too heavy I had to accept it.

But we have that in the new bird that is coming along, and so

I think reliability and safety are as much as what if we don’t fly

them that I am interested in. I guess if you give us the details of

the two previous re-entry problems and what actions are being

taken by the Russians to ensure the continued safety and reliability of Soyuz and is Soyuz a safe vehicle, and what insight does

NASA have into the Soyuz Program?

In five minutes.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Okay. I have talked a little bit about both

of those flights. Both of the flights had a ballistic entry on the

Soyuz vehicle and by ballistic entry instead of the Soyuz actively

flying and controlling the trajectory with the lift vector pointed in

a specific direction, it essentially just spins the capsule much like

a bullet coming out of a rifle shell, and then essentially provides

stability for the Soyuz and ends up significantly shorter in location

on the Earth where it lands on the trajectory, but it is stable in

the sense that it is on track. It is just short by 400 kilometers, and

that is what we saw in both of these cases.

101

It also appears that on both of these Soyuz vehicles we saw a

failure of the instrumentation module and propulsion module to

separate from the Soyuz vehicle. When the Soyuz departs from

Space Station, it does a de-orbit burn, removes velocity from the

spacecraft. It starts to re-enter then goes into an attitude in the orbital section, comes off, and the propulsion and instrumentation

section also comes off and then it is just a little return capsule that

returns.

It appears that that lower section did not properly release. We

saw that, the Russians saw that, and they showed us the data that

conclusively that that was still attached. We had telemetry going

across a cable that should have severed when that came loose. So

we know for sure on the previous Soyuz that that occurred.

On the most recent one it is subjecture that that has occurred.

We need to get the capsule back to Moscow to understand that. The

Russians will do that. The Russians have given us very good insight into their program. They understand the risk of what is going

on. They are as concerned as we are about this event. The fact that

we have similar occurrences of something that we thought we understood on two vehicles calls into question some design problems

or maybe a manufacturing change, something has changed in the

vehicles. The Russians will work that. They performed an independent commission. They will provide us with the results of that.

We will, before we use the Soyuz for any other critical activities,

we will make sure we have looked at the safety, we have looked

at what we understand from this event that occurred, and we will

make sure that we understand the risks that is going forward to

our crews.

Mr. HALL. With that I thank you. I want to ask you one other

quick question. You may have to answer it in writing if I don’t

have the time.

EXCEPTION TO INKSNA

As you well know, in order for NASA to continue buying Soyuz

spacecraft from the Russians during the upcoming so-called gap,

Congress has to provide a new exception to the Iran, North Korea,

Syria, Nonproliferation Act called INKSNA, and that is a place

where your recommendations and of these two groups here and

Congress have to come together, and we have to do something together.

What would be the consequences if this Congress were to fail to

provide that exception this year? And would NASA be able to place

a timely order with the Russians if legislative relief were provided

by say next spring?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We really need that relief now so we can

complete the negotiations with the Russians. The time that we understand and the Russians have provided to us, which we agree

with, is about three years to have those vehicles manufactured. We

need to get those contracts in place. We need that relief this summer so we can complete those negotiations and have the vehicle

there.

They are mandatory for us to keep a U.S. crew presence on-board

Space Station. We need a U.S. crew presence on-board Space Station to operate the U.S. segments. The U.S. segment then provides

102

power, cooling, water, air circulation for the other partner modules,

including some of the Russian segments. So we need a U.S. presence there to maintain the Space Station so we need our crew

members there. The only way to get them there when the Shuttle

retires, initially is the Soyuz vehicle. So we need that relief. It is,

and it is mandatory this summer.

Mr. HALL. And another alternative is that we might have to

abandon the ISS. We don’t want to do that. And the affect it has

on our international partners. It is very, very important.

I thank and I yield back my time.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Congressman Hall.

The Chair recognizes Congressman Lampson.

ALPHA-MAGNETIC SPECTROMETER

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I may sound like a broken record, Mr. Gerstenmaier, when I talk

about the AMS, the Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer, but that is one

of the things that there has been a great deal of hope that would

go to the International Space Station. And presently it does not

have a location on the manifest for a Shuttle flight.

So I hope, first of all, that the two so-called contingency flights

so, indeed, get funded and are made to happen. I think they are

critically important.

But is there a possibility first that the AMS can go up on a Shuttle before we end the use of the Shuttle Program? And I guess beyond that, what other experiment, either facilities or hardware that

have been developed to support research investigations, have been

completed but are not planned for a flight? And what, if any, plans

does NASA have to fly that hardware to the ISS, free flyers or

other microgravity platforms?

Is there a lot? And who has participated in those things? Can

you elaborate some on that for me?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes. In terms of the AMS, right now we

don’t see a spot in the current Shuttle manifest remaining ten

flights to fly the AMS, and that is because of the discussion we just

had on the criticality of the spares. The problem is if I took those

spares off and replaced it with AMS, then I have hurt the basic infrastructure that is needed on-board Space Station to support the

AMS.

So in other words, AMS needs power, it needs data, it needs cooling. If I don’t fly the spares that could provide power, data, and

cooling and have to take those off for AMS, then AMS is on-orbit,

but it may not be able to be supported by Space Station.

So I need those flights to fly the spares.

Mr. LAMPSON. But now those don’t include the two contingency

flights?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. No. Those two contingency flights are for

those spares I just described.

Mr. LAMPSON. They are full. So even beyond the contingencies we

don’t have a place for the AMS.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Not in the existing manifest with those two

contingencies.

Mr. LAMPSON. What if——

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. There is not room.

103

Mr. LAMPSON.—what about the other facilities and experiments

and such?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The other facilities, I don’t think there is

any facility that is actually on the ground ready to be flown. There

are ones that have been cancelled earlier like the large centrifuge

module that was talked about earlier. That was cancelled very

early in its development phase or not very early but in its development phase, and it is in nowhere ready condition to go fly.

We do have many facilities scheduled on the remaining Shuttle

flights on the multi-purpose logistics flights. There is a combustion

rack that is going to go up. There is a window observation facility

that will fly.

So the basic research racks that were originally designed are still

present on the manifest, and they are still there. Our goal is to outfit Space Station with the best racks we could to provide a wide

variety of research capability for Space Station, and that is the goal

we are still on, and we still have plans for those equipment.

But I will take it for the record to go investigate a little bit deeper to see if there is anything that is completed that is not getting

to fly. But my recollection is there is none.

Mr. LAMPSON. But is it worth this Congress giving consideration

to the additional money necessary to get those things, even if it is

just down to the AMS, and I think there are some other things related and otherwise. Is it worth our country to look at the potential

investment necessary for the hope of the return that would come

from these things?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, that is tough for me to pass judgment

on. I am an engineer who builds the basic laboratory. I think it

would be better posed to the scientists and the researchers associated with AMS than to myself.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. Thank you for that. The candor. I appreciate it. I really think that we have set some unfortunate policy

along the way, and we really have been shortsighted on a number

of things that we have done. Perhaps if we would have finished the

crew return vehicle when we did the X-38, if you all remember

that, that we shut down prematurely, we were at the end of its development, and we actually spent more money to shut it down than

we would have to fly it. And perhaps that could have been used

today to have been the crew return, I mean, crew exchange vehicle.

So I hope that we are getting our ducks lined up properly. I

would sure like for us to give consideration as this panel and as

a Congress to what we can do to identify other of those pieces of

hardware, and I think we also have to consider what we have done

as far as relationship is concerned of the nations that spend more

than a billion dollars just on that one project, for us to renege on

our promise to help put it up there to completion.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to editorialize there at the end.

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield just one moment?

Mr. LAMPSON. I would indeed.

Mr. HALL. Part of the problem is the expectations of a lot of universities that have put considerable work and requests in and were

promised certain things on certain flights——

Mr. LAMPSON. Yeah.

104

Mr. HALL.—that have not been flown. Where it is important to

go with our international allies, it is also important to keep the

word with the universities. That is the reason we need these two

flights if we can get them. Texas A & M being one in particular

that you are very interested in protecting.

Mr. LAMPSON. Absolutely.

Mr. HALL. And I yield back my time.

Mr. LAMPSON. And reclaiming my time. Thank you very much.

I think it is critically important for our reputation among other nations of the world and if we are going to entice countries to want

to work with us on other science-related activities, that if we say

we are going to do something, we ought to keep our word. We

ought to do it. And I guarantee you that when we make that commitment, the return to us is going to be no different than what it

was during the Apollo years. We will get so much back, more or

beyond the investment that we make to make those things happen.

It will be extremely worth our while.

I hope and pray that we don’t lose our position to other nations

in this space race.

I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Lampson. It has been said you

give two Texans a lever, you can move the world. We are going to

continue to try to find you all a lever, so you can do so.

The Chair recognizes Congressman Rohrabacher for five minutes.

RUSSIAN COOPERATION AND CAPABILITIES

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe you could tell us about the willingness

now of the Russians and their cooperation to meet the challenges

that the Space Station, or excuse me, the retirement of the Shuttle,

are going to present? Is there a willingness on the part of the Russians or a lack of willingness on the part of the Russians to expand

our cooperation to make up for that loss?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think we have really come to work together

as an international partnership. When we had the Columbia tragedy and the Shuttle was lost, and we lost our transportation capability to Space Station for a temporary period of time, the Russians

rose to that challenge and provided us with Soyuz vehicles and

Progress vehicles that essentially kept Space Station viable during

that period. So during those two years when we were not flying the

Shuttle, if it were not for the Russians and their support to us, we

would not have had a Space Station.

As we go to the future, they need our crew on-board Space Station as much as anyone does because I described, you know, we

provide power to their segment, and we provide attitude control for

the entire Space Station, which saves them propellant. We have

many synergistic things that we share with them back and forth,

so they need our U.S. crew presence there. They recognize they

can’t maintain the U.S. segment on their own.

So they will help us in that venture, but, again, they are going

to want compensation in terms of financial contract with us, and

we will work with them to work out the details.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are they capable of delivering spare parts

and the other type of things that are necessary to maintain the

Station?

105

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. They are capable of delivering the spares

needed for their segment and to keep it operating. For our segment

we will use the commercial re-supply services to deliver those components to Space Station for our equipment that needs to be——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If it is, we don’t have that capability now.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We do not have that capability now. We can

also use the Automated Transfer Vehicle that the Europeans are

building and the Japanese are building an——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Which they don’t have the capability now.

The only people now who have got the capability are the Russians.

Is that correct?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. No. The ATV recently docked to Space Station. We brought it up so we have proven at least one time that

that is a good capacity. It performed exactly the way it should. We

flew it in within 10 meters, backed it back out, flew it back and

successfully docked, and it is viable.

The Japanese have a full up test, propulsion test article they are

test firing in Japan. Their vehicle is scheduled to fly next year.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But this is, I am talking about something

that is online, not something that we have done once.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The thing that is online is the ATV.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And so that will, that capability will

permit us then once the Shuttle is retired, to deliver these spares

that we need?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We are going to need a combination of services when the Shuttle is retired. We are going to need the ATV, the

HTV, and commercial re-supply.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let me note that to the degree that we

are not, that we have been shortsighted, and to the degree that we

have been shortsighted in some of the decisions that we have been

making, number one, we, of course, it was hard to project that we

would lose Shuttles as we have. And also let me just note that Congress, this body here, this committee no differently, and others

have been unwilling to prioritize. It is not that there is not enough

money being spent. It is just we have not prioritized what spending

would be, so whatever it is that we are lacking, I think that we

could trace it back to the fact that there are things that we are unable to say no to that should have less priority than, for example,

the successful completion of this space station mission, this project

that we endeavored to move forward on 20 years ago.

ADDITIONS TO THE ISS

We heard about today microscopic imaging and storage would be

two things that would be added that would help us be, utilize this

great asset to a way that we could actually achieve more.

Are there any thoughts of what it would cost to provide that to

the Station?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have a micro, we have a minus 80 degree

freezer that is currently on-board Space Station that can provide

I believe the cold storage. We need to talk to Dr. Nickerson and understand exactly what her needs are.

We also have some small centrifuges, not large, but small, that

may provide some other information that she could use. So we have

some dialogue I think we need to have with her and her needs to

106

see what is already available. They may not be our equipment.

They may be European equipment or maybe Japanese equipment

that we have access to. We need to work with the Committee to

make sure we understand what their needs are and see what is

available.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And indeed, if these things will, if there are

additions to the Space Station, that will have great value as we

heard from Mr. Pickens today. There is a great value to be

achieved from what we have constructed. Now, if by adding a couple million dollars of a piece of equipment here or there to achieve

billions of dollars worth of return, it would seem to me that we

need to codify that and to go down and understand it and perhaps

even the private sector might be interested in investing a $10 million piece of equipment or something like that that cost a certain

amount to put it on the Station. If there is going to be a return

from the private sector, maybe these private sector entities might

even be willing to invest in that.

We should be thinking creatively out of the box and especially we

should be thinking about how we can work with the Russians.

Oh, we have another round of questions, so that is, but we

should be thinking of a way we could work with the Russians constructively.

Mr. Chairman, I will be visiting Russia at the end of May, and

I am meeting with their space people, also meeting with the space

people in Berlin, and any type of guidance that NASA would like

to throw in my direction as to what we can do to try to further the

cooperative spirit that would be mutually beneficial, I am open to

suggestions.

So thank you very much.

Chairman UDALL. I thank the gentleman. I would note that we

have about 10 minutes left. We have to vacate the hearing room

around 12:30 to prepare for another hearing at 1:00. That will

leave us 10 minutes of a round of questions from the Chair and

from the Ranking Member if he so desires.

Let me turn—so the Chair does recognize himself for five minutes.

INKSNA AMENDMENT

Let me go back to what Chairman Hall mentioned. Mr.

Gerstenmaier, NASA’s amendment would remain in effect until the

end of the International Space Station’s life. What would be the impact if a shorter time period were written into the statute, for example, January, 2016?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have two aspects we need. We need the

crew transportation, and we need that until either a commercial

capability comes on line or our CRV comes on line, and we could

no longer need that exception after those vehicles are available.

For other small things such as docking mechanisms, some of our

toilet activities, those kind of things that we purchased from the

Russians, we need some small sustaining stuff. We do some small

engineering studies with the Russians. Those kind of activities

need to be around for the life of Space Station.

So they are small. They are very low-dollar value, but there are

some engineering analysis, studies sustaining engineering kind of

107

thing that need to be there throughout the life of Station. So we

have tried to structure our language such that it meets those two

requirements. It ends when we no longer need the capability, but

the exception continues for those other small items that are needed

for the life of Station.

Chairman UDALL. I need to pursue this line of questioning further. The proposed amendment would exclude from the exception

any payments for crew transportation or rescue services provided

by Soyuz vehicle once, number one, the U.S. Orion crew exploration

vehicle reaches full operational capability, or a U.S. commercial

provider of crew transportation rescue service demonstrates the capability to meet ISS requirements.

When do you envision full operational capability for the CEV vehicle?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think our current planning shows it being

in 2016, or so. The first flights are in 2015, and then about one

year of other things until we get to full operational capability. I

know that is at the end of the Space Station life, but we would see

how that comes about.

We are looking at some things to see if there is some things that

we can do to advance. We have some internal schedules that are

looking—we will see how that plays out. And commercial, it is really probably better asked to the commercial sector what they think

their schedules are for this.

Chairman UDALL. Regarding the possibility of U.S. commercial

crew transportation and rescue services, what specifically would

those providers need to demonstrate to meet the provision? I know

you have spoken to that, but I want to make sure we are as clear

as possible for the record.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think the recent Soyuz experience

has shown us how difficult this environment is we are flying in.

This return was, you know, the Shuttle, the Soyuz vehicle has been

around for 30 years or so. This is a tough environment going from

17,000 miles an hour down to zero landing on the Earth. And it

is not trivial. They need to show us that there is robustness in

their systems designed to take and accomplish that re-entry, that

it is safe to return. They need to show us that they can stay docked

on-board Space Station for a six-month period, and then perform

that re-entry exercise.

So there is many engineering assessments and evaluations that

we need to see, as we would for our own vehicle to make sure that

the vehicle is really viable in performing the design it wants, and

it can safely transport our crew to and from Station.

Chairman UDALL. Amendment would also allow NASA to obtain

ancillary goods and services from Russia in addition to crew transport and rescue. Just how important is it for NASA to be able to

purchase unique tools from Russia, and would the safe operation

of the Station be in jeopardy if those services were not available?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Those services are extremely important to us

or are mandatory for us. There are in a whole variety of areas. We

use an air-safe pump that actually pumps down the atmosphere of

our air lock to go do space walks. That is a Russian-provided pump.

We need to keep that up and operating so we can continue to use

the air lock to go out and do space walks.

108

So and there is a variety of components I can give you that are

small but are Russian provided that need to be there for the life

of the Station. So I would say that that is critical to the long-term

viability of Space Station.

Chairman UDALL. NASA has indicated that relief through the

life of the ISS may be necessary even after a U.S. commercial capability is available because some potential providers have Russian

contractors, Russian-supplied hardware, or other relationships with

the Russian entities that could trigger INKSA’s extraordinary payment prohibition.

Would you provide any specifics?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Some of the potential bidders for the commercial re-supply services, they use Russian components, they use

Russian engines, and they would, I think be subject to the INKSA

legislation, so they are going to need relief in that same manner.

So some of these things, even Atlas V uses an RD–180 engine underneath it. If that becomes one of the options for the commercial

re-supply that gets bid back to us in this request for proposal, then

that would potentially fall under this INKSA restriction, and they

would require relief as well.

SOYUZ LANDING PROBLEMS

Chairman UDALL. I have completed this line of questions. I

would, I just have a few second. I wanted to, kind of a personal

interest. You talked about the Soyuz landing 400 kilometers short

of the designated landing area. This is on the plains of Cossack, the

high steppes. I couldn’t help but think about Colorado. If you landed 400 miles, 400 kilometers short of the landing zone, you have

1,400 foot peaks on the western side of Colorado, about 400 kilometers from where I think you would try and land. That could

cause an additional problem, but in the high steppes you have a

lot of open terrain I assume.

Could you identify the situation for me a bit more?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. There is a lot of land that is open.

Chairman UDALL. And I know you were just there, so you can

speak from personal experience.

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It is not nearly as pretty as the mountains

of Colorado, but it is nice for landing. It is nice and flat, and there

is not much out there. I think there is one power line. They did

land near some farmers that were burning some grass off the

steppes, which added a little more interest.

Chairman UDALL. Yes. The story was the astronaut team opened

the hatch, peered out, and immediately closed the hatch again as

this fire moved toward them. Is that right?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That is true. They saw the burning, and we

are still not sure exactly what caused the burning. The parachute

itself was consumed. It appears that it blew down into an area

where the grass had been previously burned, and the parachute

caught on fire. The crew saw the fire, closed the hatch, waited until

the fire extinguished itself, and then opened the hatch. And by that

time the Cossack farmers in the area were there to help the crew

and assist them——

Chairman UDALL. Thank you for that——

Mr. GERSTENMAIER.—exiting the spacecraft.

109

Chairman UDALL.—narrative. We have about five minutes left. I

want to recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes to wrap

things up from his point of view, and then we will conclude the

hearing.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir, and I will take the five minutes. I just

want to compliment this group here. Thank you very much.

You know, I have counted one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

eight, nine past Chairman of this committee, and I have worked

with seven of them. I think the one I didn’t work with was Olin

Tiger Teague, who first started really the NASA thrust. And my

kids think I was here with Overton Brooks, but I wasn’t here in

the teens.

But I want to recognize Mr. Gerstenmaier. You have carried out

the book on you. You are the best doggone NASA program manager

we have ever had, and I want to thank you and thank for your,

for the gifts of all three of you and the other members.

I yield back my time. Thank you, sir.

Chairman UDALL. I thank the Ranking Member.

The previous panel, Judge Hall talked about longevity of the

human lifespan and the health challenges we face, but I think they

ought to put you in the program to find out why you are so robust

and so engaged and so energetic. We may not need to know more

from outer space if we can study you.

Mr. HALL. You know, if the dean of the United States House of

Representatives is the oldest, I am the dean.

Chairman UDALL. You are the dean in my book.

Mr. HALL. And I run three miles every morning, do about 50 situps, and I can outwork any of the rest of those guys over there.

Chairman UDALL. I should probably leave it there. I think Judge

Hall, though, probably meets the requirement. My father-in-law

lived to be 90, and I asked him for his secret. He used to like to

drink a little wine, eat a little chocolate, but he got up every morning and walked two or three miles and worked out, and he said,

my secret is everything in moderation, including moderation, and

I think maybe that fits what I know of Judge Hall.

Again, on a less serious note, I want to thank all the witnesses

for being here today. This is very, very important testimony, helpful to the Committee as we move forward.

If there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional

statements from the Members and for answers to any follow-up

questions the Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses.

Without objection, so ordered.

In addition, I would also like to include a statement for the

record that the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology is submitting for today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered.

This hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(111)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

112

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. What do you see as the most significant challenges with respect to the Department of Agriculture’s involvement in the ISS National Laboratory and how

should those challenges be addressed?

A1. The two major challenges to USDA’s participation in research on the ISS are

funding and relevancy. Although the program is designed to provide free access to

the ISS, considerable funds must be expended by the USDA to develop the experiment intellectually and physically. Technical expertise for working in microgravity

would have to be developed by USDA scientists. This work is not currently programmed; therefore, any additional funds would have to be obtained from other programs or industrial partners. Relevancy of many possible experiments is difficult to

assess because of the unfamiliar potential of work in microgravity.

Q2. How can the use of the ISS National Laboratory help improve American agriculture?

• Is the research that USDA intends to conduct on the ISS at the level of basic

research, applied research or both?

• What type of outcome would the USDA require in order to characterize its ISS

utilization as successful?

A2. The level of work discussed by USDA is at both basic and applied levels. Successful ISS utilization would ultimately be characterized by USDA as having solved

a problem for American agriculture. Interim success would be characterized by

USDA as having developed new scientific knowledge that demonstrates significant

promise for solving a problem of American agriculture.

Q3. How significant is the need to be able to return cargo from the Space Station—

for example, research samples or lab equipment—for the type of research initiatives you expect to pursue on the ISS? What are the implications if this return

cargo capability is not available?

A3. Some experiments would benefit from the return of cargo to the Earth. For example, one hypothesis proposes that cells induced to grow into a functioning organ

in microgravity would transform to cells capable of doing the same at Earth gravity.

Returning the cells to Earth would be the only way of evaluation. On the other

hand, behavioral tests of insects or documentation of plant growth would not require

the return of any material to Earth.

Q4. There has been no commitment by the current Administration as to how long

the U.S. will participate in the International Space Station program, although

the Administration’s budget plan for NASA would end funding for the program

after 2016. On the other hand, NASA has indicated in previous testimony that

it sees no technical or operational barriers to continuing ISS operations until

2020. What service life do you think would be optimal or required for the types

of research activities that you envision the Station being utilized for?

A4. The longer service life of the ISS (until 2020) would be better for agricultural

research. Very little agricultural research has been done in microgravity, therefore

more study will be required to move from elementary to advanced studies.

Q5. Dr. Stodieck indicated in his prepared statement that three actions are required

for the ISS National Laboratory to be successful:

1) creation of an independent management organization;

2) provision of modest funding to support utilization; and

3) assurance of reliable and frequent transportation to and from the ISS.

• Do you agree that these are required actions necessary to ensure the Laboratory’s success?

• If not, could you please discuss the priority steps that you believe need to be

taken?

• What, in your view, would be an effective mechanism for coordinating and

managing the use of the ISS National Laboratory?

113

A5. The creation of an independent management organization might be useful to

promote the best research on the ISS; however, other organizational models (e.g.,

a department within NASA) would probably also function well. ARS generally does

not have sufficient unobligated funding to pay for the development of experiments

for the ISS, and thus provisions for funding augmentation to support ISS utilization

would be helpful. Those experiments will require payload costs ($20K per kilogram)

and engineering costs to develop automated, self-contained experimental systems

(likely at least $200K per experiment). Regular and frequent transportation to the

ISS would be necessary for continuous experiments, but not for the single-use experiments discussed so far.

The priority steps for developing agricultural experiments on the ISS are:

1) Define the technical parameters of work on the ISS; specifically, the space

available, the potential time frames of experiments, and the possibility of

manual participation by astronauts.

2) Identify experiments and strategic research directions that are considered

mutually valuable.

3) Find funding for priority experiments.

4) Integrate the experiments into the program requirements of ARS.

The ARS portion of research on the ISS could be effectively managed by a committee formed from ARS National Program Staff with representatives from NASA.

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no—or very limited—ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and other materials

from station. What are your thoughts about the usefulness of ISS as a laboratory

if there is no down-mass capability? Will the inability to return research samples

to Earth seriously jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What steps can research take to compensate?

A1. The lack of a down-mass capability will not inhibit many kinds of experiments

that are more oriented toward basic science rather than product development. Experiments that gather data in place and that do not involve returning samples to

Earth could have good relevance.

Q2. Several witnesses recommended. that NASA identify an organization to manage

research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage ISS research today, and

how would a newly established research management organization differ from

the current model?

A2. ARS is unable to answer this question, since it concerns NASA management.

From an ARS perspective, the current National Program Staff would be the logical

administrative mechanism for coordinating research.

114

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Louis S. Stodieck, Director, BioServe Space Technologies; Associate Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado at

Boulder

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. Your prepared statement notes that the success of the ISS National Laboratory

will require ‘‘regular, reliable and frequent transportation access to and from the

ISS.’’

Q1a. What level of frequency and reliability in access to the ISS do you anticipate

will be needed and why?

A1a. As the ISS is nearing completion, it is important to consider how to utilize this

world-class facility in ways analogous to that of ground-based facilities. On the

ground, research investigations can be designed, carried out and data analyses completed with a comparatively short turnaround. This allows results from each investigation to be fully incorporated into the next so that progress to a final result or

product can occur within a reasonable timeframe. It also allows for investigation

failures to occur, whether due to human error, flawed experiment designs, equipment problems and so forth, such that an investigation can be promptly repeated.

To be most productive, transport of research equipment, supplies and samples to the

ISS should occur at a minimum frequency of four times per year. A greater frequency would be even better.

In the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and biomedical fields, the ability to analyze

samples on board the ISS remains very limited. As such, return of materials processed on orbit will be essential for the foreseeable future. Ideally, the frequency and

quantity of transportation return from the ISS (down-mass) should be 75–90 percent

of the transportation to the ISS (up-mass).

It is also important to try and provide a certain degree of reliability in transportation access capabilities. Reliable transportation refers to a number of important

aspects including reliably meeting a launch schedule (launching on time), reliably

delivering utilization cargo to the ISS (successful rendezvous and docking) and reliably returning materials to Earth. Ideally, reliable transportation should include

late stowage and early retrieval access for time sensitive biological materials. Finally, the process for approving samples and equipment for transport to the ISS

should be streamlined so that the transportation manifest can be kept flexible as

late in the timeline as possible. This will accommodate late-breaking research results and optimized equipment and samples. In essence, the reliability goals and

services for transportation access to and from the ISS should be viewed in a similar

manner to commercial carriers such as Federal Express and the UPS.

Q1b. What are the implications if this return cargo capability is not available?

A1b. Productivity on the ISS will be highly dependent on the frequency, range of

services and reliability of available space transportation carriers. Without return capability, research studies will be limited to those that produce electronic data on the

ISS that can be down-linked to investigators on the ground.

To give an example in the life sciences, modern sample analysis methods have become substantially based upon molecular analyses of messenger ribonucleic acid or

mRNA expression. So called gene expression data or closely aligned protein analysis

data have become a mainstay of modern biology. In theory, these data could be generated on board the ISS. However, to do so, samples must be processed using hazardous chemicals, multiple fluid addition and removal steps, centrifugation and

heating and cooling steps to produce the final preparation that can then be analyzed. The analysis might be done using a spectrophotometer, plate reader, gene

chip reader or another piece of similar equipment. Because of the use of hazardous

chemicals, all steps must be done with redundant levels of containment in place to

protect the crew member carrying out the process. Crew members will require extensive training on the sample processing and analysis protocols or will need to be

trained life scientists. Some work has been done by NASA to develop automated

methods for relatively simple molecular analyses in space but these technologies are

still too limited to be of much value for a productive ISS laboratory. Without a significant investment in new sample processing hardware, the complexity of these

analyses will dictate that the samples are processed on the ground by highly trained

personnel.

Conducting modern biotechnology and biomedical research and development on

the ISS will be severely hampered without a sample return capability. If sample reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
115

turn after the retirement of the Shuttle is limited to the small down-mass capability

of the Russian Soyuz vehicles, then the ISS will be unable to meet any significant

commercial or academic R&D demand. The return sample requirements of NASA’s

exploration program alone will almost certainly exceed the Soyuz transportation capability. This will create a severe bottleneck for research and discourage potential

users whether they are researchers from industry, universities, the NIH, the USDA

or any other government agency. Effectively, the productivity of the ISS National

Laboratory will be reduced to a fraction of what otherwise would be possible.

In addition to trying to minimize this risk by fostering the development of commercial transportation capabilities, NASA could do more to support the development

of flight certified equipment that could enable on orbit modern analytical methods.

Q1c. Could you please elaborate on how you arrived at 20–25 percent as a potential

figure for volume on ISS supply missions that is devoted to National Laboratory work?

A1c. Research investigations, samples and equipment are currently typically housed

within mid-deck lockers on the Space Shuttle. Experiments are either stowed within

a NASA—provided locker or the locker can be removed and replaced with a customer—provide payload. A mid-deck locker ‘‘package’’ is often referred to as a middeck locker equivalent or MLE. Each MLE can weigh or carry up to 32 kg in total

mass. Based on the history of the Space Shuttle program during the 1990’s when

it was used extensively for research and not being used to assemble the ISS, flight

of research equipment and materials exceeded 50 to 75 MLEs per year. This range

of transportation need would enable productive use of the ISS National Lab and

would equate to 1.6–2.4 metric tons (MT) of research utilization supplies and equipment per year.

NASA recently released a Request for Proposals for ISS Commercial Resupply

Services (CRS). Within this solicitation, NASA included a model task order that estimated the requirement for pressurized cargo delivery to the ISS of 7.4 MT per

year. Assuming that this figure does not include ISS National Lab requirements, the

estimate for ISS National Lab users would need to be added to NASA’s logistics and

exploration research requirements. This equates to a range of 18–25 percent of the

total ISS transportation requirements. Again, to be most effective as a National Lab,

delivery should be distributed across a minimum of four to five flights per year.

Q2. There has been no commitment by the current Administration as to how long

the U.S. will participate in the International Space Station program, although

the Administration’s budget plan for NASA would end funding for the program

after 2016. On the other hand, NASA has indicated in previous testimony that

it sees no technical or operation barriers to continuing ISS operation to 2020.

• What service life do you think would be optimal or required for the types of

research activities that you envision the Station being utilized for?

A2. The answer to this question depends on a number of key assumptions:

• Transportation of research to and from the ISS will not be overly constrained

after the Space Shuttle is retired.

• Demand from multiple end users (commercial, government and academic) will

grow as the ISS assembly is completed and the benefits of conducting research in space are clearly recognized.

• Resources, including funding, to support productive use of the ISS will be

available.

• No major technical or operational problems will occur to prevent continued

use of the ISS.

• A six-member crew will be available to support a robust research and development utilization program on the ISS.

Based on these assumptions, then a 10-year operational life for the ISS after the

assembly is complete should produce a high yield of products, technologies and scientific data. This would suggest that utilizing the ISS through 2020 would be appropriate. By 2020, the development of commercially viable alternatives to the ISS for

space-based R&D could reasonably be expected to be available. If so, and if the continued cost of maintaining and operating the ISS are high, then ending the ISS Program would seem appropriate. Of course, the ISS lifetime can be evaluated on an

ongoing basis and adjusted as necessary.

If one or more of the assumptions listed above do not come to fruition, then productivity of the ISS will be limited and the return on investment to the Nation will

116

be reduced. In this case, consideration should be given to an operational lifetime beyond the 2020 timeframe.

Q3. Given your experience as director of a research center that deals with universities, federal agencies, and industry in conducting space life sciences research,

what factors do you believe are essential for the management of the ISS National Laboratory? What should NASA consider as it explores options for managing the ISS National Lab?

A3. A key responsibility for the management organization will be to form partnerships and agreements with commercial, academic and government agency organizations that wish to access the ISS National Lab. A number of additional key responsibilities for the ISS National Lab management organization were outlined in written testimony. In brief, these additional responsibilities include:

• Performing outreach across multiple disciplines and multiple organizations to

educate scientists and managers on the benefits of conducting research and

development in space.

• Working to seamlessly integrate and fly research as a turn-key process so the

researchers can focus on the research and not on the processes to get their

research flown on board the ISS.

• Working closely with the ISS Payloads Office to streamline the process of integrating and certifying research for flight.

• Maintaining a database with key specifications for all available space flight

research hardware that might be used on the ISS.

• Assisting NASA to archive results from work performed on the ISS and effectively communicating these results to the public.

To carry out these responsibilities, the ISS National Lab management organization would need to have a number of technical discipline experts who understand

the type of research that can be done on the ISS, the processes that must be followed for the research to be successfully executed on orbit and the capabilities (and

limitations) that exist in available flight hardware. In other words, this organization

will need to consist of scientists and engineers working side by side to support the

many university, government and commercial end users of the ISS. Thus, the most

critical factor for success of an effective management organization will be in developing an organization consisting of scientists, engineers and managers with space

flight research expertise.

Currently, NASA has formed an ISS National Lab management office within the

Space Operations Mission Directorate. This organization is effectively developing

partnerships across the various academic, government and industry sectors. However, more could be done to grow the demand for ISS utilization and to support

those organizations that are interested but do not know how to conduct research on

the ISS. NASA should consider growing this organization within the agency or partner with outside organizations to assume more of the responsibilities and expertise

described above.

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no—or very limited—ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and other materials

from station. What are your thoughts about the usefulness of ISS as a laboratory

if there is no down-mass capability? Will the inability to return research samples

to Earth seriously jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What steps can researchers take to compensate?

A1. These questions have largely been addressed above. Indeed, having limited ability to return samples to Earth during the gap period will seriously jeopardize the

ISS National Lab concept. Commercial users will be unable to pursue any reasonable business development activities. Non-NASA academic or government scientists

will be unable to have any reasonable level of scientific productivity and will be discouraged from even trying to use this national asset.

As mentioned above, if modern analytical techniques could be employed on the

ISS, then data could be produced and down-linked to researchers on the ground. For

this to work, investment by NASA and/or other agencies would be needed now so

the required equipment could be developed and pressed into operation on the ISS.

The protocols and equipment required to prepare and analyze samples on orbit

would not be easily obtained but could be an effective alternative to inadequate

sample return capacity.

117

Q2. Several witnesses recommended that NASA identify an organization to manage

research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage ISS research today, and

how would a newly established research management organization differ from

the current model?

A2. As indicated above, NASA has formed an office within the Space Operations

Mission Directorate that is focused on developing the ISS National Lab. This NASA

office currently is working on identifying and forming agreements with prospective

ISS National Lab end-users including those from industry, non-NASA government

agencies and academic institutions. The goal of this office is to provide access to the

ISS for research and development once the assembly of the station is complete. To

date, NASA has Memoranda of Understanding and Space Act Agreements with a

number of government agencies and companies and with our university.

The ISS National Lab Management office at NASA Headquarters works closely

with the ISS Payloads Office at NASA–Johnson Space Center. The JSC Payloads

Office supports all NASA and non-NASA users of the ISS by prioritizing payloads,

manifesting Shuttle transportation and integrating payload hardware and operations requirements across all NASA and non-NASA payloads. The Chief Scientist

of the Payloads Office also supports scientific and public outreach.

These NASA offices work well together and do an excellent job of supporting the

full range of science being conducted on the ISS. However, these offices are limited

in their ability to market the unique and outstanding R&D potential that the ISS

represents. With the completion of the ISS only two years away, NASA must continue to develop a broad ISS user community that can take advantage of what the

ISS has to offer.

It is important to remember that a large research user community had been developed by NASA through the former Office of Biological and Physical Research.

This office and the community that it supported was vastly reduced and reorganized

under the current Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. As a result, the nonexploration user community of the ISS National Lab now has to be effectively reformed from sponsors outside of NASA. The potential certainly exists for the NIH,

USDA, DOD, DOE, ED, NSF, universities, colleges, foundations and various industry sectors to benefit through R&D conducted on the ISS. Many of these organizations have already recognized this potential and have formed or are in the process

of forming agreements with NASA to utilize the ISS. The ISS National Lab user

community should be re-established through the sponsorship of these many organizations.

As the demand for the ISS grows, one of the most critical issues in supporting

a robust and productive set of R&D activities on the ISS will be funding. The organizations that are interested in benefiting from the ISS should not have to redirect

funds from other high-priority, ground-based research programs. Rather, new funds

should be made available to support the translation of high-potential R&D to the

ISS National Laboratory operating in orbit. This point cannot be overly stressed.

The demand is now growing and should be grown even further. Congress should

make strategic investments through NASA and the non-NASA agency sponsors of

the envisioned ISS R&D.

By expanding the ISS National Lab office at NASA and/or through the development of appropriate partnerships, an ISS National Lab management organization

could assume some of the additional responsibilities described above that are not

currently being supported by any NASA office. As an example, our center continues

to provide support for scientists who are conducting space-based research so that

they can focus on their research and not on learning how to develop, flight qualify,

integrate and operate a payload or experiment on the ISS. While our center is

happy to provide this level of service to enable flight research, this set of services

will need to be expanded if the ISS is to become even more productive after the assembly is complete. It will probably be inefficient for the NIH or the USDA or a

commercial user to develop such in-house expertise. Establishing an organization

that can support both science and engineering aspects of a broad space research program would help assure ultimate success of the ISS National Lab.

118

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Cheryl A. Nickerson, Associate Professor of Life Sciences, School of Life

Sciences, Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. Up until now, your experiment return needs have been met by the Shuttle. With

the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010, this will no longer be available to you.

How significant is the need to be able to return cargo from the International

Space Station—for example, research samples of lab equipment—for the type of

research initiative you expect to pursue on the ISS? What are the implications

if this return cargo capability is not available?

A1. The loss of down-mass resulting from the retirement of the Shuttle will have

a dramatic impact on the types of analyses performed and the information gathered

from ISS scientific research. Ground based analysis of samples has historically allowed more thorough analyses and ‘‘real time’’ changes in procedures to optimize

and maximize research findings. Loss of down-mass will especially affect research

that requires equipment which cannot be easily miniaturized or multiple pieces of

equipment to fully evaluate the sample. While not preventable, scientific losses can

be mitigated, in part, by the provision of flight hardware that can be utilized by

multiple investigators. Examples include laboratory basics, such as centrifuges and

specialized microscopes that would prevent the need for repetitive up-mass for individual experiments. In addition, the development of specialized hardware for flight,

such as miniaturized molecular genetic analysis equipment, will allow experimental

samples to be analyzed during flight by the crew.

Q2. There has been no commitment by the current Administration as to how long

the U.S. will participate in the International Space Station program, although

the Administration’s budget plan for NASA would end funding for the program

after 2016. On the other hand, NASA has indicated in previous testimony that

it sees no technical or operational barriers to continuing ISS operations until

2020. What service life do you think would be optimal or required for the types

of research activities that you envision the Station being utilized for?

A2. The International Space Station is a unique facility that will likely not be reproduced in our lifetimes. Accordingly, every effort should be made to extend the

life and scientific use of this one-of-a-kind laboratory as long as possible. The field

of microgravity research has only begun to be investigated and holds enormous potential for ground-breaking biotechnology and biomedical innovations and discoveries to globally advance human health. ISS will be a critical platform for research

(exploration and non-exploration) as long as it remains operational.

Q3. Dr. Stodieck indicated in his prepared statement that three actions are required

for the ISS National Laboratory to be successful:

1) creation of an independent management organization

2) provision of modest funding to support utilization

3) assurance of reliable and frequent transportation to and from the ISS

Q3a. Do you agree that these are required actions necessary to ensure the Laboratory’s success?

A3a. I believe that key modifications are needed to the actions proposed by Dr.

Stodieck.

Q3b. If not, could you please discuss the priority steps that you believe need to be

taken?

A3b. Dr. Stodieck’s proposal for the creation of an independent management organization for the ISS National Laboratory would appear at first glance to be beneficial;

however, the development and operation of such a board is not a trivial matter.

Many complex issues would have to be addressed by such an organization in a clear,

concise and non-biased manner for such an approach to be even marginally effective.

For example, how would they ‘‘integrate’’ with NASA, the European Space Agency,

etc.? How would this board interact with and coordinate interdisciplinary research

between multiple scientists—or between commercial investors/investigators? How

would intellectual property and conflict of interest issues be handled? Who determines the merit of the research to fly and when it will be manifested on ISS? What

are the research priorities? Both Exploration (mission applied) and non-Exploration

119

(non-mission/terrestrial-driven) research goals should be funded—how does the

board make these decisions? What is the composition of the proposed management

organization—NASA, other Federal Government agencies, academic, commercial?

Regardless, this board would still have to interact closely with NASA flight operations, so the establishment of another level of complexity in the scientific process

is not inherently an improvement over the current paradigm. Alternatively, could

the current NASA management paradigm be modified to be more effective in operation—thus precluding the need for another complicated and perhaps detrimental

level of management.

Dr. Stodieck’s second recommendation was for modest funding to support ISS utilization. This language is of serious concern to me, as ‘‘modest’’ funding levels do

not work well for robust life sciences research programs on Earth, much less for

flight experiments. While this type of language may appear more palatable, the correct phrase is ‘‘appropriate funding.’’ You get what you pay for—and hypothesisdriven, innovative, cutting edge research requires investment. The goal is not to fly

something simply to say that it has flown in space, but rather, to use the novel enabling research platform of space flight to translationally advance our understanding

of biological and physical phenomenon that will provide long lasting return to the

protection of humans as they explore space and for the general public here on

Earth. Accordingly, experimental requirements and applications for space research

should be clear and the funding adequate for successful completion. Running a

space research program on a ‘‘shoestring budget’’ is not the way to conduct cutting

edge science that is critical for exploration, nor is it the way to maintain US leadership in space exploration. Exploration drives science and science drives exploration—the two cannot be separated. Unfortunately, the currently adopted paradigm

has negated the critical value of space research as an essential component of NASA.

This has led to slashing the already minimal life support funding system for space

research—and in so doing, has both decimated and alienated a large segment of the

U.S. space life sciences research community and has seriously undermined the position of the U.S. as the world’s leader in space exploration. Our nation’s Vision for

Space Exploration is dependent on the space life sciences community to generate

knowledge leading to solutions to ensure safe passage for humans beyond Earth, to

train the future workforce to maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration, and to

translate findings from this work into human health benefits for the general public

on Earth.

Q3c. What, in your view, would be an effective mechanism for coordinating and

managing the use of the ISS National Laboratory?

A3c. NASA’s current structure provides an acceptable mechanism for the operation

of the ISS National Laboratory; however, several changes at NASA would benefit

the science that can be performed. First, the direction of the fundamental science

that is performed should be guided by long-term, well coordinated goals to benefit

general science. NASA has previously assembled ‘‘blue ribbon’’ panels that have

made recommendations regarding the vision, direction and priority of research

goals, (including commissioned Decadal Studies by the National Academy of

Sciences). However, NASA’s commitment to these collective expert recommendations

over time has been inconsistent. Thus, in order to provide meaningful vision, direction and continuity of research over time, a standing science advisory board with

members representing NASA, other federal agencies (e.g., NIH, USDA, etc.), and

academia should be established. This board would guide fundamental research (both

mission and non-mission-oriented) and should not be confused with NASA’s own research goals to benefit the exploration of space. For example, the development of

countermeasures to protect crew health during flight would remain under the purview of NASA. Second, scientific collaboration and resource sharing should be facilitated with the international partners of the station. While other factors do govern

the exchange of funding and intellectual property, NASA should be provided some

exception to these constraints to fully utilize this unique resource. Finally, it is critical to stress that consistency in both access to the ISS and funding for research

is key for any successful utilization of the ISS as a National Laboratory.

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no—or very limited

ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and other materials from

station. What are your thoughts about the usefulness of ISS as a laboratory if

there is no down-mass capability? Will the inability to return research samples

to Earth seriously jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What steps can researchers take to compensate?

120

A1. Yes, lack of down-mass will limit use and jeopardize the usefulness of ISS as

a laboratory. It will drive a need for improved and self sufficient analysis equipment

and other resources needed to complete the work on orbit in the future (i.e., without

the need to return payloads)—for example, microscope with greater imaging and

functional capabilities, easy access to knowledge of available and functional hardware for research use (this is currently difficult information for researchers to obtain), molecular genetic tools, and available space. These self-sustaining in-flight research technologies will be critical to leave low-Earth orbit, when lack of resupply

is a critical issue!

*Also, please see response to Question #1 from Chairman Udall above.

Q2. Several witnesses recommended that NASA identify an organization to manage

research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage research today, and how

would a news established research management organization differ from the

current model?

A2. * Please see response to Questions 3b and 3c from Chairman Udall above.

121

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Thomas Boone Pickens, III, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

SPACEHAB, Inc.

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. What do you see as the most significant challenges with respect to SPACEHAB’s

involvement in the ISS National Laboratory and how should those challenges

be addressed?

A1. SPACEHAB’s announcement of a Space Act Agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for use of the International Space Station

(ISS), for research, development and industrial processing purposes removed one of

our most significant challenges. This agreement will provide SPACEHAB with flight

opportunities on the Space Shuttle for the remaining assembly phase of the ISS, as

well as appropriate on-orbit ISS resources during both the pre- and post-assembly

phases. The largest remaining challenge for SPACEHAB is the uncertainty of flight

opportunities to the ISS following the final Shuttle flight, currently scheduled for

2010.

Q2. How significant is the need to be able to return cargo from the Space Station—

for example, research samples or lab equipment—for the type of commercial initiative you expect to pursue on the ISS? What are the implications if this return

cargo capability is not available?

A2. The commercial initiatives we are pursuing, including vaccine development and

protein crystal growth, require return cargo capability from the ISS National Laboratory. While research and development could occur on the ISS, the samples would

need to be returned to Earth in order for this research to be commercially viable.

If the return cargo capability is not available, it would change the direction of

SPACEHAB’s current commercial initiatives in space. Our research has indicated

that most identified research and development would require return cargo capability.

Q3. What types of results would SPACEHAB and the broader investment community

need to see in order to gain confidence in the use of ISS for commercial drug

development or other initiatives? On what timescale would they need to see these

results?

A3. SPACEHAB is already seeing results of microgravity research with our recent

discovery of a salmonella vaccine target giving us a great deal of confidence for further research and development through the use of the ISS. Our successful flights

prove that scientists can continue to rely upon the development of microgravity

products on the ISS for years to come.

Q4. What are the implications for your business model if NASA decides not to operate the ISS past 2016?

A4. This would take away an incredibly valuable national resource that has already

proven to save lives on earth with our salmonella vaccine discovery work however

we have just begun and many more experiments need to be conducted. We reviewed

over 2,000 experiments that have already been sent to microgravity and have chosen those that have showed the most commercial near-term value. We saw many

experiments that had great promise but needed more work on-orbit before we could

get comfortable with an acceptable level of risk/reward. Therefore, the longer the

ISS is in service the more experiments will fly and the more commercially viable

products will be discovered. It is simply a ratio between having access to microgravity and continuing to discover products that will enhance and save lives on

earth. Having spent 15 years and over $100 billion on this unique environment, it

seems a shame to have it fully operational for only five or six years when mankind

could benefit from its service for many decades.

Q5. You discussed SPACEHAB’s involvement in the Space Technology and Research

Students (STARS) program. What do you believe has been the impact of the

STARS program on STEM education?

A5. The STARS program gave students a heightened enthusiasm for STEM by giving them the opportunity for hands on participation in microgravity research. By

utilizing the allure of space, STARS is able to attract students to STEM that might

otherwise not show an interest in these areas.

122

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. During the upcoming five-year gap, it appears there will be no—or very limited—ability to bring back research samples, experiments, and other materials

from station. What are your thoughts about the usefulness of ISS as a laboratory

if there is no down-mass capability? Will the inability to return research samples

to Earth seriously jeopardize the attractiveness of using ISS to carry out research? What steps can researchers take to compensate?

A1. See response to question two from Chairman Udall.

Q2. Several witnesses recommended that NASA identify an organization to manage

research conducted on ISS. How does NASA manage ISS research today, and

how would a newly established research management organization differ from

the current model?

A2. Working with NASA to fly samples on the Shuttle is an add hock process that

offers no assurances as to participating organizations and making it nearly impossible to convince the investment community that there is assured access to microgravity. While NASA has been very accommodating to date, there is a lack of confidence that we will make the next flight, even up to the final hours prior to liftoff. This makes it very difficult to attract and commit capital for the expensive preflight processing when all would be lost if we were told we would not be on the next

flight due to cargo priorities.

It would therefore be very helpful if there was a policy that required NASA to

fly both pre-commercial experiments and commercial samples to microgravity. Previous attempts to promote commercial uses of space by NASA have been largely unsuccessful as we feel the more people that are involved slows down and complicates

a process that is already very understood and streamlined. Therefore, in response

to the question, we would recommend only a change in the NASA policy to be mandated to send these payloads without exception but use the existing structure of selection and flight safety review as this seems to be appropriate at this time.

123

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space Operations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. How much will NASA have spent in total developing, building, and operating

the International Space Station when it is completed in 2010? Please provide the

direct costs for development, operations and utilization, cargo and crew transport, Shuttle transportation costs, and other costs to NASA.

A1. The total direct cost of the International Space Station (ISS) from FY 1994

through assembly complete in FY 2010 is estimated to be $47.0B. This includes

$14.0B for development, $16.0B for operations and utilization, $1.0B for cargo and

crew transportation, $13.0B for Space Shuttle transportation costs, and $3.0B in

other costs to NASA. These figures exclude costs for phases A, B, and C (i.e., the

Freedom Program) and International Partner costs.

Q2. What, if any, mechanisms exist for ISS users to communicate their transportation requirements to potential and future ISS commercial cargo providers, or

do you expect individual researchers to be working directly with commercial

companies?

A2. International Space Station (ISS) user transportation requirements for both

NASA users and non-NASA, National Laboratory users must first be integrated into

a cohesive, time-phased delivery plan before being passed on to future ISS commercial cargo providers. This ensures that user payloads are scheduled for deployment

and operation on the ISS during a period when payload resources and accommodations are actually available. The ISS Payloads Division within NASA’s ISS Program

Office collects all U.S. domestic user transportation requirements in order to accomplish this function. This is done through the formal ISS Payload Integration Agreement process. The ISS Program Office then integrates U.S. user payload transportation requirements with requirements for payload and system operations and maintenance from Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and the U.S. The result is a timephased cargo transportation plan that is optimized across the international mixed

fleet of transportation vehicles, in order to both maintain the ISS system successfully and operate payloads productively within the user resource allocations specified in the international agreements. This function is accomplished through regular,

periodic Technical Interchange Meetings across the ISS partnership.

Individual users may also work directly with commercial companies in order to

ascertain possible future transportation costs and available physical accommodations during the transport phase. In the future, some portion of the available commercial transportation capacity may be set aside on commercial flights for the service provider to market directly to paying customers; however, user payloads bound

for the ISS must first be assigned physical accommodations and operating resources

before being manifested for flight. As this scenario evolves, it will be important that

the ISS Program Office continues to work closely with the commercial service providers, so that all payloads arriving at the ISS can be physically integrated and productively operated.

Q3. How does NASA plan to validate vendors’ claims that they can meet the Agency’s ISS cargo requirements in a credible and safe manner?

A3. NASA released an ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) Request for Proposals (RFP) on April 14, 2008, for resupply and return of ISS and utilization cargo.

Proposals were due back to NASA at the end of June 2008, with an award expected

at the end of calendar year 2008. The RFP identifies the specific criteria that NASA

will utilize in evaluating industry proposals. The criteria that NASA will utilize includes evaluating such areas as: the offeror’s capability to meet the statement of

work based on the level of development maturity of those capabilities; the production and annual delivery capability, and processing lead times; how the offeror’s

schedule and planning for ISS integration will impact the delivery of services under

this contract; the offeror’s understanding of the risks of providing the ISS resupply

services, completeness in identifying risks, and the appropriateness of their mitigation plans; and, the offeror’s approach for safety (range, ground, flight, etc.), reliability, maintainability, supportability, quality, software assurance, and risk management for completeness and effectiveness at meeting the contract requirements.

124

Q4. What effect will the increase to a six-person crew on ISS have on crew time to

support research and other utilization activities? Will the time available for research double?

A4. In the early 2009 timeframe, when the ISS is still operating with three crew,

there will be approximately 40 crew-hours per week available, on annual average,

to operate, maintain and utilize the U.S. Operating Segment (USOS). This assumes

that 1.5 of the three crew members is working on the USOS, and that each astronaut works approximately 32.5 hours per week. This is equivalent to approximately

48.75 crew hours per week, and is reduced to approximately 40 crew-hours per week

after joint Shuttle-Station assembly period operations are subtracted out. Also during this timeframe, 37-40 crew hours per week will be needed for USOS systems

operations and maintenance. Under these circumstances, up to three crew-hours per

week are estimated to be available for USOS utilization.

By late 2009, ISS crew complement will increase to six and, assuming three of

the six astronauts are working on the USOS, will yield approximately 85 crew hours

per week to operate, maintain and utilize the USOS. By this timeframe, the remaining assembly elements will have been integrated and it will then require approximately 65 crew-hours per week to operate and maintain the USOS, and there will

be approximately 20 crew-hours per week available to utilize the USOS. The time

available for research in the USOS increases from up to three hours per week (three

crew) to 20 hours per week (six crew).

During the post-assembly period, the crew time capability for the USOS is estimated to further increase to approximately 100 hours per week because there is no

longer the need for joint Shuttle-Station assembly operations, while the requirement

to operate and maintain the USOS remains constant at 65 hours per week. At this

stage, approximately 35 hours per week are projected to be available for USOS utilization.

The table below summarizes this evolution in USOS crew time capability, reflected in hours per week.

Q4a. How will crew time be allocated for ISS utilization activities?

A4a. Crew time will be allocated according to payload operating priorities as determined by the tactical level, multilateral Research Planning Working Group in accordance with strategic level NASA Headquarters policy direction and international

Memorandum of Understanding provisions.

Q4b. Do ISS crews need to be trained in advance to support research and other utilization activities occurring through the National Laboratory? If so, how much

lead time is required for this crew preparation and when would NASA need

to know what research would be flown?

A4b. Yes, virtually all utilization activities require some level of crew familiarization and training. These requirements vary widely depending on payload complexity. Nominally, a two-year planning horizon is desired so that specific utilization

activities can be identified in the Increment Definition and Requirements Document;

however, the Space Station Program is currently integrating relatively small (e.g.,

mid-deck locker scale) experiments within six months of launch, particularly when

re-flights of flight-certified apparatus are involved. Future utilization demand appears to be evolving largely in the direction of the life sciences and biotechnologies

where experiments are being planned at the cellular and molecular levels. In these

cases, locker-scales are common and integration is relatively straightforward.

Q5. Regarding cargo transport to the ISS, your testimony notes that ‘‘The ISS Program continues to evaluate the up mass requirements and spares procurement

strategy to sustain nominal system and research operations.’’

125

Q5a. When does NASA anticipate being able to provide firm up mass requirements

to potential commercial providers?

A5a. NASA issued a Commercial Resupply Services Request for Proposals in midApril of this year, and proposals were due by the end of June. Following proposal

evaluation, NASA plans to enter into firm fixed-price contracts for commercial

transportation services by the end of calendar year 2008. These contracts will specify up-mass requirements.

Q5b. Will those requirements include down-mass?

A5b. The contracts will also include down-mass requirements for those service providers that can deliver the capability.

Q5c. How much additional up-mass and down-mass would be included in NASA’s

requirements to support ISS National Lab users?

A5c. The specific transportation requirements for National Laboratory users have

not yet been defined in detail because the U.S. Government agencies and private

firms that have entered into agreements with NASA to use the ISS are just beginning to plan their respective research programs. NASA has estimated that a

throughput capacity of as much as three metric tons per year could be available on

the International Space Station to support National Laboratory users.

Q5d. When do potential commercial cargo suppliers need to know the full breadth

of cargo requirements in order to assess the potential market and respond accordingly?

A5d. Commercial cargo suppliers have been informed of the full breadth of cargo

requirements throughout the Request for Information and Request for Proposals

processes over the last several years. The International Space Station cargo requirements have been well-defined and stable, and are highly representative of future

needs.

Q6. What is NASA’s timeline for determining a management structure for the ISS

National Lab?

A6. As outlined in the report NASA submitted to Congress in April 2007 regarding

International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory Applications Development,

the strategy to first identify credible and qualified end-users was emphasized. Since

that report, NASA has entered into separate Memorandum of Understanding with

the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service. In addition, two Space Act Agreements (SAAs) with private

firms and one with a state university have been signed, while additional SAAs remain under development. Finally, a self-organizing Biotechnology Space Research

Alliance has been formed in southern California that consists of university, industry

and municipal government partners. As a result of these developments, NASA is

well along in the process of identifying credible and qualified end-users.

In FY 2010, efforts will turn to: (1) defining the respective research programs for

each of the new partners and translating their strategic research objectives into an

executable portfolio of specific payload plans with detailed specification of requirements for ISS resources and accommodations; and, (2) working with the new partners to determine the most effective and appropriate management structure(s) for

the post-2010 real-time operations timeframe. In this latter activity, the ISS Program’s Payload Office will perform a central role in physical, analytical and operations integration, while NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate continues to

manage policy aspects of ISS National Laboratory operations in concert with direction from the Executive and Legislative branches. Decisions regarding ISS operations post 2016 will be made by future Administrations and Congresses.

Q7. Section 2006 of the America COMPETES Act directs NASA to ‘‘develop a detailed plan for implementation of I or more education projects that utilize the

resources offered by the International Space Station.’’ What is the status of

NASA’s work on developing this plan?

A7. Working with the established interagency ISS National Laboratory Education

Concept Development Task Force, NASA has completed a plan in response to the

provisions of Section 2006 of the America COMPETES Act (P.L.110–69) and a report

outlining the plan was submitted to Congress on June 20, 2008. The report identifies a series of specific education projects conceived by the cooperating agencies that

could be conducted using the International Space Station.

Q8. The America COMPETES Act also directs NASA to develop a plan for ISS research that will serve to increase U.S. science, technology, and engineering comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
126

petitiveness and to consult with organizations that have agreements to use the

ISS National Lab in developing the plan. What is the status of this planning

effort?

A8. NASA has brought this provision of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–

69) to the attention of each of the new ISS National Laboratory partners. In each

case, we expect these partners to develop specific research and development (R&D)

plans in the coming year that can be made available to the Congress in direct response to the Act. For instance, NASA is currently cooperating with the National

Institutes of Health (NIH) on development of a Funding Opportunity Announcement

to be issued by NIH by the end of FY 2008. The response to this announcement

and the proposals selected by NIH will represent their initial R&D plan for the ISS.

It is important to note that these plans may be constrained by the availability of

appropriated funds at each partner Agency.

Q9. I understand that you have recently met with the Russian company making the

Soyuz.

Q9a. Do you have any insight into their quality control processes?

A9a. The Soyuz has long track record of success. NASA’s insight into their quality

control process is part of the reporting in the contract and is handled through regular contract progress reviews and anomaly reporting. Additionally, the Russians

have been responsive to specific requests for information concerning the April 2008

ballistic re-entry.

Q9b. Since NASA will be relying on Soyuz during the gap, are you taking any additional precautions following the last ballistic Soyuz re-entry to ensure the safety

of U.S. and partner astronauts using the Soyuz to return from the ISS?

A9b. The International Space Station is an interdependent partnership. NASA and

the Russian Federal Space Agency share the goal of fully understanding mission

anomalies to ensure the safety of all of crew members. NASA will continue to work

closely with Russia on our respective anomaly reporting and correction processes,

during both manufacturing and operations phases.

On July 10, 2008, Cosmonauts Sergei Volkov and Oleg Kononenko performed RS

EVA #20A. The primary task on EVA #20A was the inspection and retrieval of a

pyrobolt from one of the five latches on the Soyuz. This was done to support the

investigation of the ballistic descent of the last two Soyuz vehicles. Kononenko’s

Orlan suit was outfitted with a U.S. Wireless Video System to allow ground specialists to monitor real-time views from his helmet camera during the retrieval. While

no anomalies were observed during the EVA, the pyrobolt will be returned for close

inspection as part of the ongoing investigation process. NASA is working closely

with Roscosmos to thoroughly evaluate all aspects of Soyuz design and operations,

and assist in the performance thermal and structural analyses related to the reentry conditions.

Q10. It has been reported that the Russians will need additional funding to complete

construction of its ISS research facilities.

Q10a. Have the Russians informed NASA of delays to its planned Multi-Purpose

Laboratory Module and Research Module?

A10a. In the most recent review of Russian activities, the Russians reported that

all their modules are on schedule.

Q10b. How do these delays factor into the planning needed to complete ISS construction and begin full operations?

A10b. There is no impact to the U.S. program if the Russian modules are delayed.

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. At the hearing, concern was raised about the future cost of carrying research experiments and samples to and from ISS on cargo flights. Specifically, the research community fears that the cost of integrating the experiment for launch

to and from ISS, plus the cost of the operations and safety certification, and

transportation on cargo flights, could prove to be too expensive for many researchers. What are NASA’s plans with respect to managing and pricing experiments to be conducted on ISS?

A1. There are six categories of cost related to conducting research and development

(R&D) projects within the utilization capacity of the International Space Station

127

(ISS) USOS U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) in its role as a National Laboratory.

The ‘‘user community’’ consists of other U.S. Government agencies (e.g., National Institutes of Health and Department of Agriculture), private firms (e.g., SPACEHAB

and Zero Gravity, Inc.) and universities (e.g., Bioserve Space Technology Center at

the University of Colorado) that have entered into formal Memoranda of Understanding and/or Space Act Agreements for use of the ISS for R&D purposes. Each

of these categories is discussed below.

1. Cost of ISS USOS On-Orbit Resources and Accommodations: NASA does

not intend to charge any user fees for U.S. use of ISS National Laboratory accommodations and resources. These costs are subsumed under the annual operations

and maintenance cost of the ISS USOS.

2. Cost of Participating R&D Personnel: The research community that NASA

has entered into agreements with for use of the ISS as a national laboratory recognizes that it is their responsibility to cover the cost of their own R&D personnel.

In the case of government agencies, this includes the cost of external grant recipients and/or internal research staff. In the case of private firms and universities, this

includes the cost of company personnel and/or university employees and students.

3. Cost of Space Certified Equipment and Facilities: In most cases, R&D

plans will rely on the use of existing payload equipment and facilities that have

been developed and flight-qualified previously in the ISS Program (e.g., Express

racks & pallets, rack-scale special purpose research facilities, mid-deck lockers and

drawers, refrigerators and freezers, etc.). A complete listing of flight equipment can

be found at: http://www.nasa.gov/mission¥pages/station/science/experiments/Discipline.html

4. Cost of Payload Analytical and Operations Integration: These costs include: definition of payload characteristics, properties and requirements in a formal

Payload Integration Agreement; training crew for on-orbit payload operations; and,

final integration of the payload into the on-orbit operations timeline. The ISS Program Office is currently budgeted to perform these functions for full use of the ISS

USOS utilization capacity.

5. Cost of Payload Physical Integration and Safety Certification: The buildup of specific payload configurations, document production, verification testing, and

safety certification is a responsibility of the end-user. NASA has worked aggressively to minimize these costs within the safety and mission assurance environment.

The key to cost containment is the re-flight of previously qualified flight equipment

that can maximize the use of existing hardware/software systems and documentation products. Experienced end-users have developed a close familiarity with the rigors of NASA payload physical integration and safety certification practices, and are

knowledgeable in minimizing the associated costs.

6. Cost of Space Transportation: NASA is currently in the midst of acquiring domestic, commercial space transportation services (Request for Proposals released in

mid-April with plans for award of firm fixed-price contracts by the end of 2008). At

this time, the cost and availability of these services is not clear; however, these aspects will continue to mature in the coming years as U.S. commercial service providers evolve and demonstrate their capabilities and pricing strategies. A transition

period can be anticipated during which end-user payloads are initially transported

in the marginal capacity of ISS re-supply missions purchased by NASA and later

manifested directly by the commercial service provider. The specific prices, practices

and procedures will become clearer as this capability emerges in the post-assembly,

post-Shuttle period.

Q2. The Europeans, Russians, and soon the Japanese, have—or will have—their

own research facilities on-board ISS. What steps are taken among the international partners to ensure there is no duplication of research activities on ISS,

and that the science return is maximized?

A2. Each ISS partner is free to pursue research at its own discretion in accordance

with provisions of the bilateral agreements. Some degree of duplication is anticipated and indeed encouraged, in order to foster unique approaches to solving common scientific issues and advancing the state-of-the-art. Nonetheless, cooperation is

also encouraged where beneficial to both, or all, partners. For example, we establish

arrangements for research from one partner to be conducted in the facilities of another partner to maximize the science return from those facilities on orbit. This is

fostered through scientific working groups in discipline-specific areas, such as life

sciences and microgravity sciences. For example, the International Life and Microgravity Science Working Group (ISLSWG), composed of the Japanese, Canadian,

128

and several European space agencies (ESA, DLR, CNES, ASI), meets twice a year

to discuss and coordinate research activities, many of which will be conducted on

the ISS.

Q3. What options does NASA have in place should COTS not prove viable? Will ATV

and HTV be able to meet station needs until Orion/Ares becomes operational?

A3. Services to deliver cargo transportation requirements are being acquired

through the Commercial Resupply Services competitive procurement, which is open

to all bidders, including existing COTS partners (holders of both funded and unfunded COTS Space Act Agreements). In the event domestic commercial cargo resupply services are delayed, NASA will further optimize its usage of other cargo delivery capabilities, while aggressively managing the degradation in ISS systems and

adjusting U.S. utilization of the ISS until the services become available.

In addition to commercial services, NASA’s strategy is to pre-position ISS system

spares on the flights which remain before Space Shuttle retirement in 2010. NASA

also receives a share of the cargo capacity on all ATV and HTV flights as a part

of the barter agreement for launch of European and Japanese elements to the ISS

on the Space Shuttle. Finally, NASA has contracted with Russia to continue to provide cargo on Progress flights through the end of calendar year 2011.

129

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. Your prepared statement concludes that any delays in flying the Shuttle could

‘‘require NASA to choose between completing the station as planned and pre-positioning of needed critical spares.’’ In your view, what would NASA need to consider in making such a tradeoff?

A1. There would be little value in bringing up additional components to the station,

if the station itself could not operate effectively until 2016 or beyond. Therefore,

NASA would have to consider what spares are vital to sustaining the station that

require the lift capacity of the Shuttle and give them high priority. This is a fluid

situation as NASA is still learning about the lifespan of its spares and is continually

identifying parts that need special attention.

Q2. What does GAO think about NASA’s acquisition strategy for acquiring commercial cargo transportation services? What do you think about the schedule it has

laid out in the ISS re-supply services request for proposal?

A2. On the surface, it would seem that NASA is prematurely awarding a launch

contract given that COTS capabilities have not been demonstrated. However, the

government’s liability for costs is limited by the fact that the contract is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, which provides for an indefinite

quantity of supplies or services within stated limits during a fixed period of time.

More specifically, the government is only obligated to purchase a minimum amount

of supplies or services. Under NASA’s solicitation, the agency may select multiple

vendors to participate in this contract; they all will be subject to NASA insight and

approval for notice to proceed and or approval of requirements, plans, tests, or success criteria; there are stated criteria as to what capabilities need to be demonstrated; and NASA will determine if vendors are successful. Therefore, while

NASA has already awarded the contract to one vendor, it is our understanding that

the vendor still needs to demonstrate capability before more than the minimum

amount of services will be ordered. Moreover, other vendors, including those who

are not being paid under Space Act agreements, can eventually participate in the

IDIQ if they develop capability that would suit the station.

Q3. Your prepared statement indicates that NASA has stated it will use international partners’ vehicles to conduct some supply activities. Since partners have

already committed these significant portions of these vehicles’ capacity to carry

their own cargo, how much additional cargo capacity would NASA have access

to?

A3. NASA is conducting ongoing assessments on how ISS re-supply will be supported by international partner vehicles. International partner vehicles differ in

what cargo they can carry and each has an internal capacity of roughly 2,000 kilograms. However, even with the use of these vehicles in some fashion, NASA still

faces a capacity shortfall of over 50 metric tons between 2010 and 2015.

Q4. In your prepared statement you indicate that if unanticipated construction

delays occur, NASA may need to hold back two components—Node 3 and the

Cupola—which could constrain the ability to conduct research and the quality

of life on the station for the crew. What research would be impacted?

A4. It is difficult to identify what research would be impacted by not installing the

Cupola and Node 3. Both elements are not specific to the conduct of research. However, failure to install these elements would further limit the availability of storage

space on the station. A shortfall in storage capacity could impact research if some

of the laboratory modules are used to store materials and supplies. We will be examining this question more specifically in a follow-on review for this subcommittee.

Q5. In your prepared statement, you indicate that Johnson Space Center officials

were skeptical that commercial transportation services would be available on the

projected schedule. How do you reconcile this skepticism with the accelerated

pace embodied in the schedule for the new Commercial Resupply RFP?

A5. The schedule goals for the COTS program may well be optimistic as our testimony emphasized. However, the launch services RFP itself only obligates the government to purchase a minimum amount of services or supplies.

130

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. What options does NASA have in place should COTS not prove viable? Will ATV

and HTV be able to meet station needs until Orion/Ares become operational?

A1. NASA’s options for servicing the International Space Station (ISS) are limited

if Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) do not prove viable. The European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicle

(HTV), along with the Russian Progress vehicle, can provide limited capabilities to

deliver cargo and supplies to ISS, but NASA predicts a 51.8 metric ton shortfall to

ISS re-supply needs relying on these vehicles alone after Shuttle retirement. The

ATV has a cargo capability of 7,500 kg (primarily for water and atmospheric gas);

the HTV has a cargo capability of 6,000 kg (primarily for water and atmospheric

gas, but also for limited unpressurized external cargo); and the Progress has a cargo

capability of 2,600 kg (including some pressurized cargo). None of these vehicles has

the capability to carry crew members. Additionally, none of these vehicles has a

cargo return capability because they disintegrate during return to Earth. Lastly,

only limited numbers of the ATV and HTV are being produced.

According to NASA officials, without COTS, only Russian Soyuz vehicles can provide for crew rotation and very small cargo return capabilities. Currently, NASA reliance on Russian vehicles for ISS support is permitted under an exemption to the

Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (now entitled the Iran, North Korea and Syria

Nonproliferation Act), which expires January 1, 2012.

131

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Jeffrey P. Sutton, Director, National Space Biomedical Research Institute

Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall

Q1. Your prepared statement refers to ‘‘strategic goals the ISS can fulfill in the area

of biomedical research to address exploration needs.’’ Could you please elaborate

on these goals, the progress being made to date, and what more needs to be done

to achieve these goals?

A1. Two broad strategic goals are outlined in my prepared statement regarding the

International Space Station (ISS) and biomedical research to address exploration

needs. The first goal is that ISS serves, and needs to be utilized, as an invaluable

platform for biomedical science and technology projects that are currently under

way. These projects have substantial promise for yielding results, countermeasures

and technologies that will enable safe human exploration of space. Some of the

projects are ground-based studies that are working their way through a product

pipeline toward ISS flight testing and evaluation over the next several years. Other

projects are presently ready for flight definition and study aboard the ISS. As ISS

nears completion and research capabilities grow, it is strategically prudent to capitalize on investments made in the current portfolio of research and technology development.

A second goal is to take advantage of the efforts associated with the first goal and

foster new opportunities in biomedical research and development for exploration.

One area to look at is emerging partnerships between academia and industry, where

there has been positive activity to share costs on projects. Another area of opportunity lies in the integration and synergy among projects that make up an expanding portfolio of flight studies. Integration among projects is important and adds

value to the scientific enterprise. It is also timely as the depth and breadth of ISS

capabilities as an orbiting, microgravity laboratory expand. Moreover, integration

fosters international cooperation, international crew participation, and can lead to

new, unanticipated discoveries to advance knowledge and countermeasures to complex biomedical risks.

These two goals were presented in the context of the important role the ISS can

have for biomedical research and exploration. There are other considerations as

well. For example, beneficial information for exploration is gained on human performance, psychosocial adaptation and team cohesion while accruing operational experience aboard ISS. Furthermore, it should not be construed that the goals stated

in my testimony are inconsistent with the goals and sub-goals put forth in the ‘‘2006

NASA Strategic Plan.’’

With this clarification in mind, it is laudable that progress in ISS biomedical research has been achieved, given the (1) challenges of conducting biomedical research

in general, (2) constraints imposed by mass, power, volume, cost and crew time, (3)

impacts from the Columbia tragedy, and (4) limitations imposed by performing research within a facility simultaneously undergoing construction. Progress in specific

areas is summarized in my prepared statement, which provides references for the

principal U.S.-sponsored biomedical experiments aboard the ISS. Ground-based

projects that are ready for, or in the process of maturing toward, ISS testing and

evaluation, are also listed with references.

Regarding matters that need to be addressed in order to achieve the goals, it is

vital to have adequate and consistent funding to enable continuity in science and

technology efforts. At present, there is a small but critical mass of outstanding and

dedicated investigators from acrossthe Nation, who are conducting necessary investigations to enable safe human exploration of space. These investigators are scientific, technical and educational leaders, who are at the forefront of their fields and

are at premier academic institutions, biotechnology companies and government laboratories (NASA and other agencies). They have the unique, collective expertise to

drive U.S. achievements in space biomedical research forward, while at the same

time inspiring and training the next generation of scientists, engineers and physicians. It is therefore important that their projects and teaming with each other,

with younger investigators entering the field, and with the operational community

at NASA be sustained and appropriately augmented as ISS capabilities expand.

Along similar lines, as NASA looks to implement memoranda of understanding

with other federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, new appropriations for collaborative ISS research should be considered. These new appropriations are also relevant to the success of the ISS National Laboratory. It is not apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:35 Sep 10, 2008 Jkt 041799 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA08\042408\41799 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
132

1For example, ISS research to address the first risk in the plan, ‘‘Risk of Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member,’’ is scheduled for FY08, FY09 and FY11. It would

be helpful to list all relevant technologies at high readiness levels for flight that are candidates

for testing and evaluation aboard ISS. Near infrared spectroscopy for non-invasive blood and

tissue chemistry, and in-flight blood lab-on-a-chip technology for astronaut health monitoring

are two such technologies. While both projects are currently funded by NSBRI, neither project

is identified in the plan. 2This is important to do now as there is often a significant lead time to procure the needed

studies and mature them to ISS-ready status.

parent how ISS science endeavors can be implemented by relying only on funds redirected from within agencies with relatively flat budgets.

In strengthening the pipeline of biomedical research that requires ISS utilization,

it is further recommended that NASA permit the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) to be more engaged in transitioning and managing science

and technology development for the ISS. The 1996 NASA Cooperative Agreement

Notice 9–CAN–96–01, ‘‘Soliciting Proposals for the Establishment of the National

Space Biomedical Research Institute,’’ states in Section 7.0, and reiterates in Section 10.4, that ‘‘it is NASA’s intent that responsibility for all appropriate NASAsponsored Space Station human experiment opportunities be transferred to the Institute.’’ Although NSBRI is NASA’s primary partner for biomedical research, and

has multiple international collaborations, NASA has not utilized the resources and

expertise of NSBRI to help review, select or manage research for the ISS. This is

an area that should be revisited.

Q2. NASA has developed a Human Research Program Utilization Plan for the ISS,

which identifies the risks for human exploration of space and the research on

the ISS that can help mitigate the risks and lead to the development of countermeasures.

Q2a. Do NASA’s current plans for ISS utilization enable the agency to adequately

address the risks outlined in the plan and to develop countermeasures?

A2a. NASA’s ‘‘Human Research Program Utilization Plan for the International

Space Station’’ identifies 25 human health and performance risks requiring the ISS

in order to perform research needed to quantify the risks and validate countermeasures and technologies. For each risk, there is a brief description of the planned

activities and a top-level schedule, wherein a significant portion of the proposed

work will be completed by 2016. Some risk assessment and countermeasure validation will occur beyond this date.

As stated in the document, the plan is subject to change based on multiple considerations. Nevertheless, in its current instantiation, the plan summarizes important

risks and the development of countermeasures. Some risk areas are described in

more detail than others, but in general, limited information is provided in the document.

NASA’s current plans for ISS utilization enable the agency to address the risks.

The question is what constitutes adequate risk mitigation? It is apparent that a

more detailed, integrated utilization plan is needed to ensure as much progress and

success as possible within the proposed time frame.

Q2b. If not, what else needs to be done?

A2b. Items to be done are listed as recommendations for the Human Research Program Utilization Plan for the ISS:

• Prioritize the risks into categories to identify those among the 25 that are the

most urgent to mitigate utilizing the unique capabilities of the ISS;

• Expand each risk section to provide a more comprehensive listing of proposed

research, countermeasures and technologies;1

• Characterize the current pipeline of biomedical projects feeding into, and already approved as part of, the portfolio of research, development, testing and

evaluation to be conducted aboard the ISS;

• Identify current science and technology gaps in the risk reduction plan utilizing the ISS;2

• Outline the flight resources and manifest opportunities;

• Describe current and planned experiment hardware and associated engineering needs;

133

3For instance, NSBRI is supporting a project to develop an ultrasound catalog for autonomous

medical care. The catalog will provide, among other deliverables, an atlas of normal human

anatomy and physiology acquired using ultrasound aboard the ISS, starting with Expedition 6.

Studies should continue on this project which addresses multiple risks, including but not limited

to the ‘‘Risk of Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member,’’ ‘‘Risk of Accelerated Osteoporosis,’’ ‘‘Risk of Cardiac Rhythm Problems,’’ and ‘‘Risk of Intervertebral Disc Damage.’’ 4 All projects within the Human Research Program can be assigned countermeasure and/or

technology readiness levels. The rate of change of these levels with time provides an estimate

of when projects are ready for flight testing and evaluation. Not all projects mature to flight

and some projects enter the system as flight studies. There are also other measures to characterize the pipeline beyond readiness levels and their time rate of change.

• Discuss opportunities for integration and added value among studies addressing different risks;3

• Depict the roles and extent of industry involvement in the enterprise;

• Estimate the crew time dedicated to participate in research activities;

• Describe the metrics to be used to assess risk mitigation effectiveness and

outcomes for the planned ISS activities;4

• Address plans for data sharing;

• Address plans for how intellectual property will be handled;

• Expand on issues concerning ISS partner participation;

• Discuss how research, development, testing and evaluation will be supported.

Q3. In your prepared statement, you indicate that affordable and reliable access to

and from the ISS are key to the success of conducting biomedical research. You

go on to say that critical to this success is the availability of cost-effective transportation services. How critical is a down mass capability for biomedical research?

A3. The physical return of samples and other materials is critical to the success and

reproducibility of biomedical experiments aboard the ISS. Down mass capability is

essential to guarantee the quality of certain types of biological specimens (fluids,

cells and tissue) being returned to Earth. Access to powered, large-volume, pressurized lockers for transport is necessary.

Given the need for this capability, whenever possible, it is anticipated that onorbit resources would be utilized to characterize findings, and that digital data

would be down-linked to Earth. In my verbal testimony, I referred to the successful

use of on-orbit ultrasound to perform medical imaging on ISS crew members.

Streamed video and still images of clinical quality from a series of studies were obtained without the need for down mass capability.

The U.S. orbiter and the Russian Soyuz have served as the primary means to ensure safe return of biomedical samples from research conducted aboard the ISS.

Both vehicles are capable of providing powered mid-deck locker return, when necessary, for valuable experimental materials. It is desirable to have configurable softpacks when power and/or pressurization is not necessary.

The transfer vehicles in development by international partners (the European

ATV and the Japanese HTV) do not provide down mass capability. Although these

vehicles play an important role in delivery of cargo to the ISS, their utility for transferring experimental samples and other materials from the ISS to Earth is absent.

Similar to the conditions provided by the orbiter and Soyuz, the Space X Dragon

capsule, currently under development for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, is expected to be able to accommodate both pressurized and

non-pressurized cargo in a mid-deck locker-like configuration. Other developments

are also in progress.

Q4. Given your experience in leading an institute that involves universities, federal

agencies, and industry in conducting research to support human space exploration, what should NASA consider as it explores options for managing the ISS

National Lab?

A4. NASA should consider management options for the ISS National Lab that have

been successfully implemented in other large-scale, ambitious research and engineering projects of national and international importance. Within NASA, excellent

examples include the Apollo and Hubble Space Telescope programs. There are many

non-NASA examples, including the Manhattan Project, which exemplify how outstanding scientists have been brought together to work on teams, with an upperlevel management structure guiding and integrating teams to achieve a single common purpose of paramount significance.

134

5The device is reminiscent of the medical tricorder used by Dr. McCoy in the fictional series

Star Trek.

There is not necessarily a single, best way to manage the ISS National Lab. Substantial resources exist, and more are being put into place, aboard the ISS. There

is a wealth of biomedical research and technological infrastructure within universities, medical schools, industry and government laboratories to enable ISS National

Lab achievements. As mentioned previously, there is a cadre of outstanding investigators who have, and students who are acquiring, the necessary skills to generate

productive and meaningful discoveries in space, in partnership with ISS crews.

Funding, reliable access to and from the ISS, and international limitations are challenging issues but fundamentally solvable.

Two items that NASA should focus on regarding management are requirements

and leadership. A strategic and tactical plan that is consistent with, but includes

more detail than the reports presently available on the ISS National Lab, should

be developed, with particular attention paid to requirements. The management options are narrowed by considering only those systems that allow the requirements

to be met. In formulating the strategic and tactical plan, it can be useful to assemble a small working group of NASA and non-NASA experts, whose membership includes experience in leading large scientific institutes, conducting basic and applied

biomedical research in space, partnering with industry and successfully implementing international science and technology programs. Attention should be paid to

the needs and expectations of key stakeholders, and the plan should be thoroughly

vetted before being implemented.

Leadership is a key consideration for success in managing the ISS National Lab.

The Director should possess not only the necessary credentials, experience, skills

and integrity to perform his or her duties, but must also have a bold vision for the

ISS National Lab that is embraced by NASA, other federal agencies, Congress, and

to the greatest extent possible, the American public. The ISS National Lab must

have a strong leadership team to effectively implement the strategic and tactical

plan, and to modify the plan accordingly, in order to achieve maximum return on,

and benefit from, our Nation’s investment in the ISS and its precious resources.

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Q1. At the hearing, you outlined a number of initiatives conducted by the National

Space Biomedical Research Institute related to developing countermeasures for

long-term human exploration of space. Which among these has generated the

most promise, and which, in your opinion, continues to pose the greatest challenges?

A1. Ten NSBRI-sponsored science and technology projects, all generating substantial promise, are highlighted in my prepared statement. Three are described in more

detail here to illustrate the extent of promise within NSBRI’s portfolio. This is followed by remarks concerning an NSBRI initiative, which despite considerable promise, poses great challenges.

NSBRI took a strong position in enhancing near-infrared spectroscopy analysis

and subsequently developing a small, lightweight, portable means of performing

non-invasive blood and tissue measurements for use in space.5 By assessing tissue

pH and lactic acid in real-time during exercise, it is possible to adapt exercise countermeasures and efficiencies for individual crew members. This device has been tested on astronauts exercising at Johnson Space Center, and the technology is maturing toward evaluation aboard the ISS. There are medical applications for space exploration (e.g., assessing tissue viability in the case of a crush injury or exposure

to extreme temperatures) and applications to health care on Earth (e.g., assessing

the microvasculature in diabetics).

Light in the blue part of the spectrum is being used as a countermeasure for performance errors associated with circadian desynchronization, sleep loss and adaptation to shifts in work schedule. NSBRI has sponsored research published in leading

journals, such as Science and Nature, delineating mechanisms associated with blue

light effects. The Institute has also taken the lead in developing, testing and evaluating the countermeasure in operational settings, and in working with NASA to

modify the lighting in designs for the crew exploration vehicle. There are several

applications of this countermeasure on Earth.

NSBRI assessed the utility of several portable medical imaging technologies (dual

energy X-ray absorptiometry, magnetic resonance imaging, diffuse optical tomography and ultrasound) for use in space. In partnership with NASA, a series of elegant studies were performed aboard ISS using ultrasound, which has become the

135

6See http://www.nsbri.org/Research/Projects/viewsummary.epl?pid=158 7 It is worth noting that NASA’s radiation program, within the Human Research Program, is

supported at an amount that is 50 percent greater than the entire NSBRI. To accomplish its

mission, the Institute relies on its ability to leverage resources in innovative ways. 8See http://www.nsbri.org/Announcements/rfa08-02.html

medical imaging technology of choice. NSBRI therefore shifted its portfolio to reflect

the promise of ultrasound, and currently supports novel countermeasure development projects using scanning confocal ultrasound and high-intensity focused

ultrasound (HIFU). HIFU shows particular promise in addressing the risk of inability to adequately treat an ill or injured crew member. NSBRI has co-sponsored, with

the Department of Defense, a small portable ultrasound system capable of sensing

and then (using autonomous image guidance) performing non-invasive surgery with

HIFU.6 This countermeasure, employing an integrated sensor-effector platform, has

applications on Earth in emergency medicine and on the battlefield.

One of the most challenging risks to mitigate, for human space exploration, is the

harmful effects of radiation. A recent report from the National Research Council, entitled ‘‘Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration’’ (2008),

provides an insightful assessment of the risk and efforts to protect against exposure

to space radiation. NSBRI supports NASA’s radiation program in several ways.7 The

Institute funds the development of gas and solid-state dosimeters for real-time assessment of radiation exposure to astronauts. This is particularly important for missions beyond low Earth orbit. A number of projects on NSBRI teams, such as those

dealing with bone and the cardiovascular system, have a radiation component.

Countermeasures are being investigated to protect against the harmful effects of radiation to these and other systems.

Perhaps the most significant contribution of NSBRI in addressing radiation risks

is a new initiative addressing the mitigation of effects due to acute radiation exposure. In February 2008, NSBRI released an announcement ‘‘Research Opportunities

Soliciting an NSBRI Center of Acute Radiation Research for Ground-Based Studies

on Acute Radiation Effects.’’ 8 The goal is to develop countermeasures to acute effects that could potentially compromise crew members and even the mission itself.

Countermeasure development in this area is challenging, but it is an essential part

of supporting long-duration, human exploration of space.

(137)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

138

1 An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs (2006). Review of NASA Plans for

the International Space Station (2006). Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration (2005).

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR

GRAVITATIONAL AND SPACE BIOLOGY

ASGSB PRESIDENT, DANNY A. RILEY, PH.D.

PROFESSOR OF CELL BIOLOGY, NEUROBIOLOGY AND ANATOMY

MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN

The American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology (ASGSB), founded in

1984, provides a forum to foster research, education and professional development

in the multidisciplinary fields of gravitational and space biology. We are a diverse

group of scientists, engineers and students who exchange ideas that bridge basic and

applied biological research in space and gravitational sciences. Our society of ∼350

professionals and students from universities, government, and industry represents

the core community that works with NASA to create and disseminate knowledge

about how living organisms respond to gravity and the space flight environs.

For many years, our members have worked toward the reality of an International

Space Station (ISS) as a platform for conducting the cutting edge research, as described in the multiple National Research Council (NRC) reports.1 We consider the

ISS National Laboratory an essential and unique tool for probing biological function

and adaptation during long-term space flight. The studies are essential for human

space exploration and, at the same time, return multiple health and economic benefits to America. There is no substitute on earth. Moreover, the U.S. has already invested at least $100 billion in the ISS. This is not the time for us to abandon the

investment or the opportunity.

Our Society has been decimated by the unprecedented retraction and termination

of funding of non-exploration fundamental biology. The viability of our community

is foundationally linked to the ability to conduct cutting edge research on ISS.

The American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology considers the

following elements ESSENTIAL to make the International Space Station

productive for research:

Viable ASGSB research community

• Substantial and long-term commitment of NASA to fund fundamental biology

ground and flight research programs

• Active community of plant and animal scientists and engineers engaged in

world class, fundamental and applied space research

• Stable research and training environments to attract and educate next generation scientists and engineers

• Continuous pipeline of meritorious, peer-reviewed investigations encompassing fundamental and applied research in space-related biological sciences

ISS Resources and Environment

• Hardware and instrumentation to support animal and plant housing and experimentation on ISS, including bio-containment work stations and variable

speed centrifugation capabilities

• Frequent and affordable transportation to and from ISS

• Commercial and basic research entities participating jointly on missions

• Ground personnel and facilities support for flight experiments

• Crew member involvement in the conduct of investigations

ISS National Laboratory Management

• Empowered and budgeted administrative unit within NASA to fund and integrate the flight hardware and science for non-exploration fundamental biology

• An ISS National Laboratory management unit, a consortium of stakeholders,

tightly coupled with external advisory and peer review to implement NRC-defined research priorities

• External science advisory structure with oversight and influence on NASA

programmatic priority decisions

139

To revitalize and establish all of these elements requires immediate attention, time and a renewed national commitment as well as supportive leadership at NASA Headquarters.

ASGSB life scientists have conferred extensively with their counterparts in the

physical sciences. The consensus is that, for the U.S. to prevent the utter destruction of the human capital and living knowledge in the space life and physical

sciences, there must be an infusion of ‘‘keep alive’’ funds in 2009. We jointly estimate such ‘‘keep alive funds’’ at $91M for the coming fiscal year. Such funds must

be assigned to ‘‘non-exploration research’’ in the space life and physical sciences at

NASA. Moreover, for NASA to engage in the mandated ‘‘America COMPETES’’ initiative, $160M of additional funds are required for the life and physical sciences at

NASA.

It is ironic that the loss of financial support for the life sciences and our research

on the ISS began in 2004, immediately after President Bush announced the ‘‘Vision

for Space Exploration’’ and asserted that the ISS would be completed because the

U.S. finishes what we start. He also recognized explicitly that we must use the ISS

to learn about long-term space exposure on the body, in order to venture safely and

successfully into space.

Failure to utilize fully U.S. investment in the space station and neglecting, to the

point of destruction, the ASGSB community is antithetical to competitive national

goals and interests. We look forward to working with Congress to regain American

leadership in the space enterprise and to continue to make great contributions to

health and knowledge while cultivating the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Æ