United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Oversight of

Government Management, Committee

on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

November 1994 SPACE STATION

Plans to Expand

Research Community

Do Not Match

Available Resources

GAO/NSIAD-95-33

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-259020 

November 22, 1994

The Honorable William S. Cohen

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Cohen:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) goal is to

launch, assemble, and operate an earth-orbiting microgravity1

 and life

sciences research laboratory—International Space Station Alpha—starting

in 1997. You requested that we review NASA’s efforts to develop a robust

life and microgravity sciences research community for the space station.

Specifically, we reviewed (1) what NASA is doing to assess the required size

of the research community needed for the space station and to ensure that

such a community will be available, (2) how NASA will ensure that the

research selected for the space station will be the best possible, and

(3) whether a recently canceled Shuttle research flight adversely affected

NASA’s efforts to develop a research community for the space station.

In June 1994, we reported to you on the impact of the expanded Russian

role on space station funding and research. We stated that Russian

participation in the space station would substantially increase overall

station research resources. However, the degree to which the U.S.

research community will benefit from these increased resources has yet to

be determined.2

Results in Brief NASA has taken an initial step to assess the size of the space station’s

research community, but it is not intending to develop this community by

directly soliciting proposals to do research on the space station. Instead,

NASA is focusing on developing a comprehensive research program that

emphasizes more ground-based research and uses space flight only for

research efforts that require a microgravity environment in space. To

1

Microgravity is a condition of free-fall within a gravitational field in which the weight of an object is

significantly reduced compared to its weight at rest on Earth. When orbiting Earth, a spacecraft is in

continuous free-fall and, thus, in microgravity. Microgravity is also a low acceleration environment

where the acceleration imparted to an object is one-millionth of that measured at the earth’s surface.

Following NASA usage, the term “microgravity science” in this report refers to the study of chemical

and physical phenomena in a low acceleration environment.

2

Space Station: Impact of the Expanded Russian Role on Funding and Research (GAO/NSIAD-94-220,

June 21, 1994).

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

accomplish this program, NASA wants to greatly increase the number of

ground-based investigators. This science-oriented approach is reasonable,

but funding levels could jeopardize it unless NASA adjusts its funding

priorities. To achieve its goal, NASA would need increased funding for its

life and microgravity sciences research and analysis over fiscal years 1995

to 1999—the formative years for the initial development of space

station-related research. However, NASA expects such funding to remain

constant. The result could be a smaller than desired number of

investigators in the ground-based research program from which

station-based research will be selected.

The existing process of using peer review panels to judge the scientific

merit and microgravity-related relevance of experiments for the space

station will continue. The peer review scores for 285 life and microgravity

sciences research proposals show that NASA’s funding decisions were

generally consistent with the findings of the peer review panels: most

top-rated proposals and none of the lowest rated ones were funded. But

peer review panels and NASA sometimes disagreed on the scientific merit

and relevance of these proposals. For example, 4 of the 15 U.S.

experiments selected by NASA for a July 1994 Space Shuttle research

flight—the International Microgravity Laboratory—were not among those

rated highest in the peer review process.

NASA’s efforts to increase the size of its life and microgravity sciences

research community are not likely to be adversely affected by the

February 1994 cancellation of the third Spacelab Life Sciences flight

(SLS-3). The U.S. principal investigators on that flight stated that, although

they were concerned about NASA’s lack of communication about the flight

cancellation, most of them have been accommodated on other space

flights and they generally will be able to meet their experiment objectives.

All of the investigators with whom we spoke also plan to continue

submitting proposals for future NASA research opportunities.

Background As part of its mandate to guide the nation’s civil space program, NASA is to

preserve U.S. preeminence in critical aspects of space science, technology,

and applications. The goal of life and microgravity sciences is to study

gravity-dependent physical phenomena and those phenomena obscured by

the effects of gravity in biological, chemical, and physical systems.

Research is conducted in biotechnology (e.g., protein crystal growth),

combustion science, fluid physics, life and biomedical sciences, and

materials science. Life science research in space biology studies the

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

effects of gravity on living systems by using acceleration environments

across the “gravity continuum”—micro, earth-normal, and hypergravity.3

NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, which

was formed in 1993, funds this type of research. Between fiscal years 1989

and 1994, the annual budget authority for life and microgravity research

increased by 114 percent, from $222.4 million to $476.3 million.4

Not all aspects of life and microgravity sciences research require a

space-based environment. Short duration, low acceleration environments

can be created in drop towers (2 to 5 seconds of free fall),5

 aircraft flying a

distinctively curved flight path (up to 23 seconds of low gravity), and

suborbital rockets (over 300 seconds). Hypergravity can be created by a

centrifuge.6

Space-based research is principally conducted in pressurized and

nonpressurized facilities on the Space Shuttle. The centerpiece for this

research is a 23-foot by 16-foot pressurized module—Spacelab—that fits in

the Space Shuttle payload bay. Spacelab was developed by the European

Space Agency and contains utilities, computers, work areas, and

instrument racks for experiments. An exterior cutaway view of Spacelab is

shown in figure 1.

3

Other life science research areas are space physiology and countermeasures, space radiation health,

space human factors engineering, and advanced life support.

4

Budget authority is the authority provided by law to enter into financial obligations that will result in

immediate or future outlays of federal government funds. The basic forms are appropriations,

borrowing authority, and contract authority.

5

For example, experiments dropped from the 89-foot tower at NASA’s Lewis Research Center are in

free fall for 2.2 seconds.

6

A centrifuge is a rotating device designed to provide a high acceleration environment. For example,

the 58-foot diameter centrifuge at NASA’s Ames Research Center, California, can expose humans to

centrifugal forces up to 20 times Earth-normal gravity (20g). Another Ames centrifuge can expose

incubated cells to centrifugal forces up to 6g.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

Figure 1: Spacelab in Space Shuttle Payload Bay

Shuttle Middeck

Shuttle Flight Deck Spacelab

Source: NASA.

The most recent Spacelab flight was the second International Microgravity

Laboratory (IML-2), which ended a 15-day mission on the Space Shuttle on

July 23, 1994. IML-2 was a collaborative effort by NASA; the European Space

Agency; and the national space agencies of Canada, France, Germany, and

Japan. According to NASA officials, IML-2 provided a preview of the science

operations to come on the space station.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

The IML flights, which began in January 1992, gave the U.S scientific

community access to foreign-developed flight hardware while providing

the international research community with access to the Space

Shuttle/Spacelab. Approximately 80 investigations were performed on

IML-2, including 15 U.S. experiments—11 in the biotechnology, fluid

physics, and materials science and 4 in the life sciences.7 IML-2 was the last

flight of this international series of spacelabs before the station era begins

in 1997.8

 An interior view of IML-2 is shown in figure 2.

7

The number of U.S. experiments excludes the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) and

Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Program (EDOMP). SAMS is designed to measure and record

low-gravity accelerations at three experiment sites simultaneously. EDOMP gathers data on the effects

of long duration exposure to microgravity on human physiology.

8

Three more pressurized Spacelabs are scheduled to fly on the Shuttle before the start of the station

era: U. S. Microgravity Laboratory-2, 1995; a recently announced Life and Microgravity Spacelab, 1996;

and Microgravity Science Laboratory-1, 1997. Another Spacelab—Neurolab—is scheduled to fly in

1998.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

Figure 2: IML-2

Source: NASA.

NASA publicly solicits research proposals from investigators in the life and

microgravity research communities. The funding decision is principally

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

based on an evaluation of the project’s scientific merit by a peer review

panel. NASA’s peer review and other quality assurance procedures are

outlined in appendix I.

Developing a Larger

Research Community

Will Require Adjusting

Funding Priorities

NASA intends to build a space station-era research community from the

ground up. To do so, a larger cadre of ground-based researchers than

currently available will be needed to adequately support U.S. research on

the station. A NASA official estimates that the number of ground-based

microgravity researchers needs to increase from 73 to 240 between fiscal

years 1992 and 1998.9 NASA officials have not made comparable estimates

for life science researchers. To accomplish this goal, NASA has abandoned

its tradition—principally associated with life science research—of

soliciting research proposals for general and specific space flight

opportunities. Although this approach appears reasonable, the planned

funding levels do not match the program’s objective, and funding priorities

may need to be reassessed if the number of life and microgravity

ground-based investigators is to be significantly increased.10

Selecting IML-2

Investigators Illustrated

Two Basic Approaches for

Developing Research

Community

In recent years, NASA has used two approaches for developing life and

microgravity science research communities—“select for flight” or “select

for science.” In the select-for-flight approach, all of the U.S. life science

and most of the U.S. microgravity investigators on IML-2 were selected

from proposals submitted in response to flight-related announcements. In

the select-for-science approach, two IML-2 microgravity investigators were

selected from researchers who submitted proposals in response to two

1991 discipline-related (“fundamental science” and “biotechnology”)

research announcements.

A NASA program scientist considers the IML-2 flight to have been a

programmatic success and, in some respects, a model for the international

space station. According to a NASA official, one indication of the flight’s

success was the amount of good research generated from the many

proposals submitted in response to a mix of science and flight-related

research announcements. Additionally, two of NASA’s recent research

announcements were in the select-for-flight tradition: its July 1993

9

The estimate assumes a requirement for two flight investigators for each research discipline each

year, and four ground-based investigators for each flight investigator.

10NASA is not necessarily the only source of federal funds for station-era research. For example, NASA

and several institutes of the National Institutes of Health have agreed to establish collaborative science

planning and joint funding of research.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

announcement soliciting proposals for research on a 1998 space life

sciences flight (Neurolab) and its February 1994 announcement soliciting

proposals for life science research on the Russian space station Mir from

1995 to 1997. Presumably then, one effective way to develop a research

community would be to solicit specific proposals for research that are

directly related to the space station. NASA, however, has chosen to move

toward exclusive use of “select for science,” as discussed below.

“Select for Science” Has

Become Preferred

Approach

Although NASA recently solicited proposals specifically for research on

Shuttle flights to Mir, NASA’s life science office changed from the

widespread use of the select-for-flight approach in December 1993. At that

time, it solicited proposals for ground-based research in space biology

focused on the hypergravity effects that can be induced by NASA’s

centrifuges. NASA’s shift to ground-based research did not stifle

competition for funding: it received 650 responses to the December 1993

announcement. Although “select for science” is relatively new to life

science research, all microgravity research announcements since 1990

have focused on research opportunities in one or more science

disciplines.11 And, as if to emphasize the independence of microgravity

research from space station development, NASA changed the fiscal year

1992 goals for the microgravity program. The previous goals referred to

developing and using the space station, whereas the current, more general

goal is to “enable [microgravity] research . . . by choosing the carrier most

appropriate for the experiment.”

Physical events, unlike biological processes, can be meaningfully observed

under the short-duration microgravity conditions afforded by

ground-based facilities, aircraft, and suborbital rockets. Consequently, a

ground-based microgravity research investigator does not always have to

conduct experiments in a space environment, and many do not.12 For

example, of the 51 principal investigators who conducted such research at

NASA’s Lewis Research Center from fiscal years 1989 through 1993, only 7

have been principal investigators on space-based experiments, including a

microgravity Spacelab flight in September 1995.

11A June 1991 solicitation for research in gravitational biology was in the select-for-science tradition.

12An advantage of a ground-based versus space-based research program is that ground-based

researchers can more readily repeat their experiments even though the time an experiment is in a low

acceleration environment is comparatively brief. For example, at NASA’s Lewis Research Center, over

1,000 drops per year were made in the 2.2-second drop tower in 1989 and 1990 before operations were

reduced because the facility was modernized.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

In June 1994, NASA’s life and microgravity sciences advisory committee

stated that it supports the life and microgravity sciences programs “in

terms of their scientific contributions independent of the type of flight

platform.” And the advisory committee specifically recommended that

“NASA establish a vigorous ground based research program focussing on gravitational

biology in which centrifuge facilities at NASA centers are utilized for exploring science

programs aimed at forces greater than 1g [Earth-normal gravity].”

Select-for-Science

Approach Reasonable

NASA’s strategy for using the select-for-science approach to further develop

a life science research community in the station-era appears reasonable

based on the experience of the microgravity sciences community.

First, the microgravity sciences research community has been growing.

Principal investigators funded for microgravity sciences research

increased by 120 percent—from 89 in calendar year 1989 to 196 in fiscal

year 1993. The budget authority for microgravity sciences increased by 

130 percent, from $75.6 million to $173.9 million during this period. The

number of proposals submitted in response to research announcements

also generally increased during this period. For example, although

proposals submitted in response to materials, fluids, and fundamental

(benchmark) physics research announcements decreased from 397 in 1991

to 217 in 1993, those responding to

• combustion physics announcements increased from 65 in 1989 to 98 in

1993,

• biotechnology research announcements increased from 94 in 1991 to 141

in 1994, and

• materials and fluids research announcements increased from 69 in 1990 to

346 in 1991.

Second, the microgravity research community is stable but not stagnant.

Fifty-five percent of all microgravity sciences investigators that were

funded in 1989 were also funded in fiscal year 1993. This core group

represents 25 percent of the investigators funded in fiscal year 1993. On

the other hand, 44 percent of the investigators funded in 1993 were not

funded in 1992.

Third, NASA is attracting new investigators to its microgravity sciences

program. The decline in proposals (from 397 to 217) submitted in response

to the 1993 materials, fluids, and fundamental physics announcement may

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

have been partly caused by NASA’s stated purpose of encouraging new

investigators, and most of the 55 investigators funded from this

announcement were new to the program. Only 15 of them had been

previously funded by NASA. In June 1994, NASA’s life sciences advisory

subcommittee recommended that NASA use this approach and establish

appropriate categories within life science research announcements that

recognize and encourage new investigators.

Finally, for those proposals we reviewed, the select-for-science approach

produced relatively fewer low peer review scores than the select-for-flight

approach.13 Figure 3 shows that 8 percent of the select-for-science

proposals received peer review scores in the bottom category, while

32 percent of the select-for-flight proposals received scores in the bottom

category.14

13We examined peer review scores of 290 proposals submitted in response to 4 NASA research

announcements issued in 1988, 1989, and 1991. The U.S. experiments on IML-2 were selected from

these proposals. As such, they are not a random sample of all proposals made from 1988 to 1991 and

are not necessarily representative of proposals made in other years.

14The top, middle, and bottom score categories are described in appendix II.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

Figure 3: Research

Proposals-Comparison of Selection

Approaches

aRefer to selection approach.

bCategories based on peer review.

Similarly, as figure 4 shows, of all the proposals in the bottom category,

only 16 percent were in the select-for-science tradition, while 84 percent

were in the select-for-flight tradition.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

Figure 4: Research

Proposals-Comparison of Categories

Based on Peer Review Scores

aCategories based on peer review.

bRefer to selection approach.

Many of the proposals submitted in response to NASA’s research

announcements were not considered scientifically meritorious. For

example, peer review panels gave 129, or 44 percent, of the 290 proposals

we reviewed relatively low scientific merit scores.

Expected Funding Will Not

Support NASA’s Approach

NASA’s plans to expand its ground-based research program are not realistic

based on planned funding. A NASA microgravity research official estimates

that NASA will need to fund about 240 ground-based investigators to

support a station-based microgravity sciences research program. In fiscal

year 1992, NASA funded 73 ground-based investigators in microgravity

sciences, only about 30 percent of the future need. Ground-based research

is funded from NASA’s research and analysis budget. However, NASA does

not anticipate that this budget will increase for fiscal years 1995 through

1999. Annual life science research and analysis appropriations are

estimated to be about $51 million and microgravity sciences at

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

$21.7 million. To deal with this potential mismatch between plans and

resources, NASA’s microgravity sciences office has proposed that the

research and analysis budget be augmented by research and development

funds used to support NASA’s space-based research program. The proposed

amounts are $4.7 million for fiscal year 1996, $12.2 million for 1997, and

$22.2 million for 1998. According to NASA, shifting resources in this way

would not increase its overall budget authority.

NASA’s life and microgravity sciences advisory committee concurred with

this approach, stating in June 1994 that the research and analysis budgets

are the “seed which provides for a successful flight program” and

recommended that they be increased

“where they are proven to be inadequate to support the intellectual underpinning of the

flight program, even if this means a transfer from the [research and development] budget

so as to comply with overall budget constraints.”

Selecting Quality

Experiments

NASA’s quality assurance procedures start with a series of external and

internal reviews designed to evaluate the merits of research proposals.

Peer review is a crucial part of this consensus-building process. The

process starts with individual reviewers independently evaluating each

proposal assigned to peer review panels. The reviewers then resolve any

differences by consensus within the peer review panel. The panel’s final

determinations are not binding on NASA’s selection officials, and NASA can

choose proposals other than those highly recommended by the panel.

In June 1994, we reported that the peer review processes at the National

Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation, and National

Endowment for the Humanities appear to be working well and that

intrinsic qualities of a proposal (e.g., research design), and not

characteristics of reviewers or applicants (e.g., applicant’s region,

academic rank, or employing academic department’s prestige) were

important factors in reviewers scoring.15

In 1993, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed NASA to model

its peer review standards after NIH. Based on the Committee’s direction,

NASA requires that

15Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection

(GAO/PEMD-94-1, June 24, 1994).

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

• all research proposals be reviewed by peers for scientific merit and

relevance (previously, some life science research conducted by NASA

scientists was not subject to peer review);

• all research be reviewed by peers at least every 3 years;

• all research be reviewed for progress annually and for the performance of

its objectives at least every 3 years;

• peer review be performed by the best-qualified individuals available in the

field reviewed; and

• peer review scores provided by external peer review groups be critical

factors determining the priority for initial and continued funding of

research projects and programs.

Individual Peer Reviewers’

Scores Are Usually

Consistent

The logic of peer review, in our opinion, rests, in part, on the assumption

that two or more peers can independently agree on a research

experiment’s scientific merits. For example, they should agree on the

testability of the proposed hypothesis and the relevance and

appropriateness of the experimental design. As such, peers’ scores for

scientific merit of any given proposal ought to be the same or similar.16

Peers agreed on the scientific merit of 73 percent of the proposals that we

reviewed, including all but 1 of the 15 U.S. experiments selected for IML-2.

Table 1 shows the distribution of the reviewers’ scores. Peer reviewers

were better able to agree on proposals having top scientific merit scores

than on proposals having middle or bottom scientific merit scores. Peers

gave only 11 percent (11 of 99) of the top proposals dissimilar scores; in

contrast, they gave 35 percent (44 of 126) of proposals dissimilar scores in

the middle category and 38 percent (23 of 60) scores in the bottom

category.

16Scientific merit was defined in a variety of ways for the proposals we reviewed. For the life science

proposals, scientific merit included the experiment’s hypothesis, experimental design, significance,

investigator’s professional experience, and adequacy of facilities. For the microgravity science

proposals, criteria such as relevance and institutional resources were separately rated from scientific

merit.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

Table 1: Distribution of Dissimilar Peer Review Scores for Scientific Merit

NASA research announcements total number of proposals

(Proposals receiving dissimilar scores)

Peer review score categorya

Life

sciences

1989

Microgravity

fundamental

science 1991

Microgravity

biotechnology

1991

Microgravity

flight 1988 Total

Top 23 (1) 26 (2) 33 (4) 17 (4) 99 (11)

Middle 33 (7) 15 (6) 47 (17) 31 (14) 126 (44)

Bottom 11 (3) 2 (2) 8 (2) 39 (16) 60 (23)

Total 67 (11) 43 (10) 88 (23) 87 (34) 285 (78)b

aTop, middle, and bottom categories and similar/dissimilar scores are described in appendix II.

bInvestigators submitted 319 proposals in response to these announcements, but 29 proposals

were considered unresponsive to the announcements’ objectives. Some of the unresponsive

proposals received panel scores and some did not. To be consistent, we did not include any of

them in this table. Individual peer review scores could not be located for five other life

science-related proposals and, thus, could not be included in the table.

NASA Selected Proposals

Despite Peer Review

Concerns

Table 2 shows that NASA’s selecting officials’ funding decisions were

generally congruent with the findings of the peer review panel. Of the 

84 proposals funded, 73, or 87 percent, were in the top category for

scientific merit scores, and the other 11 proposals funded were in the

middle category.

Table 2: Distribution of NASA Funding Decisions

NASA research announcements total number of proposals

(Proposals funded)

Peer review score category

Life

sciences

1989

Microgravity

fundamental

science 1991

Microgravity

biotechnology

1991

Microgravity

flight 1988 Total

Top 25 (18) 26 (17) 33 (22) 17 (16) 101(73)

Middle 35 (2) 15 (0) 47 (2) 31 (7) 128 (11)

Bottom 12 (0) 2 (0) 8 (0) 39 (0) 61 (0)

Total 72 (20) 43 (17) 88 (24) 87 (23) 290 (84)

Determinations of peer review panels are not binding on NASA’s selection

officials. For example, NASA selected four proposals that received mid-level

scores by the peer review panel.17 Based on an average of peers’ individual

scores, three of them would have been in the top category. However, in

17The four proposals represent 36 percent of the U.S. microgravity experiments flown on IML-2.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

subsequent deliberations, the peer review panel members placed three

proposals in the middle category because the

• need for the microgravity environment of space was not compelling,

• experiment-related issues could be resolved using the ground-based

program, and

• appropriateness of analytical techniques was questionable.

No peer review panel was convened for the fourth proposal because the

number of proposals in the specific area of investigation was too small.

Generally, the peer reviewers found the proposal to be of high quality, but

they also noted that the research objectives, although compatible with the

life science program, were inconsistent with the microgravity science

program. In this case, the investigator did not propose to use microgravity

to study phenomena whose understanding is obscured on earth by the

presence of gravity.

After the peer review panel completed its deliberations, a NASA

categorization committee made category assignments that were forwarded

to a steering committee. The categorization committee determined that the

four proposals were, in the words of a NASA official, “sound but not

exceptional science”—the second highest of four possible categories.18

The steering committee assessed these categorizations and recommended

funding the proposals, but committee members noted that one

investigation resembled a “fishing expedition,” another had “similar

weaknesses” to proposals that were rejected, a third would require too

much time to conduct on a Spacelab mission, and a fourth should only be

partly funded. Despite these views, these four proposals were funded for

IML-2.

Assessing the Impact

of Canceled Spacelab

Flight on the Research

Community

NASA’s efforts to develop a research community are not likely to be

adversely affected by the February 1994 cancellation of SLS-3. The U.S.

principal investigators on the Spacelab flight stated that they will be able

to meet their experiment objectives on other missions, including multiple

Shuttle flights to Mir. They plan to submit proposals for future NASA

research opportunities.

18Categorizations are formally described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. 1870.103).

Informally, the highest category means “best science, with no technical risk.” Proposals in categories I

and II are “recommended for acceptance” according to this part of the regulation. Categorizations

apply to proposals submitted in response to an “Announcement of Opportunity” to participate in

specific NASA programs such as Space Shuttle/Spacelab flights (48 C.F.R. 1870.1), and not to a “NASA

Research Announcement” used to solicit proposals in areas that NASA has special research interests

(48 C.F.R. 1870.2).

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

NASA Advisory Committee

Concerned About

Cancellation of Spacelab

Program and Usefulness of

Russian Space Station

NASA planned to fly a collaborative U.S.-French SLS-3 mission in

February 1996. The purpose of the mission was to study the effects of

microgravity on the musculoskeletal system of humans, Rhesus monkeys,

and rats. The French were responsible for developing the Rhesus research

facility. Planning for the mission began in the late 1970s. On February 18,

1994, however, the NASA Administrator notified his French counterpart that

the flight was canceled because of budget limitations and NASA’s

commitment to the international space station. In November 1993, as part

of the agreement between NASA and the Russian Space Agency to bring

Russia into the space station program, the United States and Russia agreed

to fly up to 10 Space Shuttle flights to the Russian space station Mir.

This agreement raised the concern that multiple Shuttle flights to Mir

would displace future Spacelab flights to the detriment of NASA’s life and

microgravity sciences program. Eventually, these concerns were formally

expressed by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council in

a February 25, 1994, letter to the NASA Administrator. The Board discussed

broad issues of science selection and management in the space station

program, including termination of Spacelab missions because these

laboratories “can provide more high-quality science than can Mir . . . .” The

Board also noted that

“cancellation of [a future life science Spacelab] mission or substitution of [Shuttle]

middeck experiments for a dedicated Spacelab mission would have serious consequences

for . . . the continued participation of the mainstream life sciences community that NASA

seeks to attract.”

NASA responded to these concerns in April 1994, stating that all

experiments from SLS-3 have been accommodated on other missions,

including Shuttle flights to Mir. NASA also noted that although Mir is not a

substitute for Spacelab, it will augment and enhance on-orbit science

capabilities because experiments requiring more than 30 days of

microgravity cannot be performed on Spacelab.

In late 1994, NASA announced a new life and microgravity sciences

spacelab mission for July or August 1996. This mission will provide a flight

opportunity for some experiments that were scheduled to fly on SLS-3.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

U.S. Investigators Not

Adversely Affected by

Spacelab Cancellation

We discussed the cancellation of SLS-3 with 13 of the 15 U.S. investigators

who were scheduled to fly experiments on this flight.19 Their views are

summarized, as follows:

• Nine investigators were generally satisfied with the way NASA handled the

cancellation. NASA never formally notified investigators about its decision

to cancel the flight. Consequently, most investigators learned of the

cancellation from rumors or other informal communication. One

investigator said investigators should have been consulted before NASA

canceled the mission. One investigator questioned why SLS-3, a relatively

near-term mission, was canceled rather than a later one such as the

Neurolab flight in 1998.

• Eleven investigators said that their experiments will be accommodated on

other missions, including the Russian Biosatellite, another Spacelab

mission, or Space Shuttle flights to Mir.20 Two investigators said they have

not been assigned to specific missions.

• Ten investigators currently scheduled for other missions said they will be

able to meet their basic experiment objectives. However, three of them

said they will not necessarily be able to obtain the same amount of

information as they would have on SLS-3. Their experiments involved the

use of Rhesus monkeys, and even though they will fly on the Biosatellite,

in-flight biological measurements cannot be done. Three other

investigators said that their experiments on a substitute mission would be

adversely affected by hardware limitations or the loss of opportunities to

efficiently collaborate with other investigators.

• All 13 investigators said they will continue to submit proposals for future

NASA research opportunities, and at least 6 have already done so.

Scope and

Methodology

To accomplish our objectives, we obtained documents from and

interviewed officials at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at

NASA’s Lewis, Johnson, and Marshall field centers in Cleveland, Ohio;

Houston, Texas; and Huntsville, Alabama, respectively. In May 1994, we

attended the IML-2 mission simulation and science review conference and

observed crew training exercises prior to launch.

To review the further development of NASA’s life and microgravity sciences

research community, we obtained information on research

19Two investigators did not reply to our inquiries.

20The Biosatellite is part of the Russian Cosmos series of satellites. Collaboration between U.S. and

Russian scientists on Biosatellite-related experiments dates from 1971 and included eight flights

starting in 1975. U.S. investigators started flying primate experiments on this satellite in 1983.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
B-259020 

announcements issued between 1988 and 1994 and on the principal

investigators who conducted ground- and space-based experiments. We

examined peer review-related information on 319 proposals submitted in

response to the 4 research announcements related to IML-2. We categorized

the scores of all proposals that peer review panels considered responsive

to the objectives of the announcements, as shown in appendix II.

To assess the possible impact of the cancellation of the SLS-3 Spacelab

flight on the further development of NASA’s research community, we

interviewed 13 of the 15 U.S. principal investigators on that mission.

We performed our work between November 1993 and September 1994 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As

requested, we did not obtain agency comments on this report. However,

we discussed the issues in this report with NASA officials and incorporated

their comments where appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days from its

issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the NASA Administrator and

other appropriate congressional committees. Copies will also be made

available to other interested parties on request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any

questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are

listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Donna M. Heivilin

Director, Defense Management

 and NASA Issues

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Experiment Quality

Assurance Procedures

22

Appendix II 

Peer Review Panel

Scores for Selected

Projects

26

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

27

Tables Table 1: Distribution of Dissimilar Peer Review Scores for

Scientific Merit

15

Table 2: Distribution of NASA Funding Decisions 15

Table II.1: Peer Review Panel Scores by Announcement and

Relative Category.

26

Figures Figure 1: Spacelab in Space Shuttle Payload Bay 4

Figure 2: IML-2 6

Figure 3: Research Proposals-Comparison of Selection

Approaches

11

Figure 4: Research Proposals-Comparison of Categories Based on

Peer Review Scores

12

Figure I.1: NASA Flight Experiment Definition and Development

Process

23

Abbreviations

EDOMP Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Program

IML International Microgravity Laboratory

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIH National Institutes of Health

SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System

SLS Spacelab Life Sciences

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Appendix I 

Experiment Quality Assurance Procedures

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) guiding

principle for quality assurance is periodic review over the lifetime of an

experiment. Figure I.1 depicts the major science and engineering review

milestones.1

1

The figure illustrates a generic process, but it most closely matches the one used for

microgravity-related experiments.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Appendix I 

Experiment Quality Assurance Procedures

Figure I.1: NASA Flight Experiment Definition and Development Process

Discipline


work


group

Pre-


announcement


workshops

Research proposal assessment


Research reassessment


Flight development

Science


concept


review

Requirements


definition


review

Proposals


selected

Peer 


review of 


proposals

Research


announcement


released

Preliminary


design


review

Critical


design


review

Pre-shipment


review

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Appendix I 

Experiment Quality Assurance Procedures

The steps or actions involved throughout this process are outlined below.

Preparing Research

Announcements and

Soliciting Research

Proposals

• NASA’s Discipline Working Group(s) evaluates research program’s

strengths and weaknesses and makes recommendations to the program

scientist, who defines areas of investigation for forthcoming

announcement.2

• NASA conducts workshops for prospective investigators from the scientific

community to develop interest in forthcoming announcement.

• NASA solicits research proposals by issuing announcement.

Assessing Research

Proposals

• Peers are selected by contractor3 (life sciences) or NASA (microgravity

sciences) to evaluate proposals’ scientific merit. Peers should be leading

researchers in their field and free from conflicts of interest (e.g., a current

or recent professional collaboration with an applicant), and not currently

receiving research funds from NASA.

• For proposals receiving strong science reviews, the appropriate NASA field

center assesses a proposal’s estimated cost and engineering feasibility. For

example, Lewis Research Center is a “center of excellence” for two

microgravity science disciplines: combustion science and fluid physics.

• NASA program scientist recommends principal investigators’4 proposals for

funding to senior NASA management.

Reassessing Experiments

Science Concept Review • Principal investigator and project scientist5 describe science scope and

feasibility for evaluation by Science Review Board.

• Project manager6 describes conceptual design of experiment-related

hardware for evaluation by Engineering Panel.

2

The program scientist is also responsible for defining a mission’s science and application objectives

and ensuring that these objectives are met.

3

Currently, the American Institute for Biological Science convenes peer review panels.

4

The principal investigator conceives an investigation and is responsible for carrying it out and

reporting the results.

5

The project scientist is responsible for ensuring that (1) the principal investigator adequately defines

investigation’s science requirements and (2) needed experiment-related hardware will accommodate

required science.

6

The project manager is responsible for the design, development, fabrication, and test of an

experiment.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Appendix I 

Experiment Quality Assurance Procedures

Requirements Definition

Review

• Project manager describes cost and schedule estimates.

• Engineering panel assesses design of hardware.

• Science panel assesses compatibility of science requirements with design

of hardware.

Developing Flight

Experiments

• Preliminary design review assesses the compatibility of science

requirements with a preliminary engineering model (“breadboard”) of

hardware.

• Critical design review assesses complete engineering model of hardware.

• Preshipment review consists of experiment simulations, integration with

hardware, and testing prior to sending the hardware to the launch site.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Appendix II 

Peer Review Panel Scores for Selected

Projects

To determine the similarity/dissimilarity of peers’ perception of a

proposal’s scientific merit, we defined similar scores on the five-point

scales as same or adjacent scores (for example: “3” and “3”, or “3” and “4”);

and on the nine-point scales as same, adjacent, and next scores (for

example: a “3” and “3”, or “3” and “4”; or “3”, “4”, and “5”).

Table II.1: Peer Review Panel Scores

by Announcement and Relative

Category.

Range of peer review panel scores

Announcement Top Middle Bottom

Life sciences, 1989a 1.0 - 2.0 2.1 - 3.9 4.0 - 5.0

Microgravity fundamental science, 1991b 9.0 - 7.0 6.9 - 4.0 3.9 - 1.0

Microgravity biotechnology, 1991b 9.0 - 7.0 6.9 - 4.0 3.9 - 1.0

Microgravity flight, 1988c 5.0 - 4.0 3.9 - 2.1 2.0 - 1.0

aProposals receiving scores greater than 2.5 were not further considered by NASA.

bProposals receiving scores less than 7.0 were not further considered by NASA.

cProposals receiving scores less than 3.0 were not further considered by NASA.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Dave Warren

Frank Degnan

Thomas Mills

James Berry

Kimberly Carson

Jeffrey Knott

Larry Kiser

(709048) Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-33 Space Station