International Space Station: Significant Challenges May Limit Onboard Research
Published: 2009-11-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2010, after about 25 years of work and the expenditure of billions of dollars, the International Space Station (ISS) will be completed. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the ISS crew will then be able to redirect its efforts from assembling the station to conducting research. In 2005, Congress designated the ISS as a national laboratory; in addition, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 required NASA to provide a research management plan for the ISS National Laboratory. In light of these developments, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to review the research use of the ISS. Specifically, GAO (1) identified how the ISS is being used for research and how it is expected to be used once completed, (2) identified challenges to maximizing ISS research; and (3) identified common management practices at other national laboratories and large science programs that could be applicable to the management of the ISS. To accomplish this, GAO interviewed NASA officials and reviewed key documents related to the ISS. GAO also studied two ground-based national laboratories and several large science institutions.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The ISS has been continuously staffed since 2000 and now has a six-member crew. The primary objective for the ISS through 2010 is construction, so research utilization has not been the priority. Some research has been and is being conducted as time and resources permit while the crew on board performs assembly tasks, but research will is expected to begin in earnest in 2010. NASA projects that it will utilize approximately 50 percent of the U.S. ISS research facilities for its own research, including the Human Research Program, opening the remaining facilities to U.S. ISS National Laboratory researchers. NASA faces several significant challenges that may impede efforts to maximize utilization of all ISS research facilities, including: (1) the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 and reduced launch capabilities for transporting ISS research cargo once the shuttle retires; (2) high costs for launches and no dedicated funding to support research; (3) limited time available for research due to the fixed size of crew and competing demands for the crew's time; and (4) an uncertain future for the ISS beyond 2015. NASA is researching the possibility of developing a management body--including internal and external elements--to manage ISS research, which would make the ISS National Laboratory similar to other national laboratories. Though there is no existing direct analogue to the ISS, GAO studied two national laboratories and several other large science institutions and identified three common practices that these institutions employ that could benefit the management of ISS research. (1) Centralized management body: At each of the institutions GAO studied, there is a central body responsible for prioritizing and selecting research, even if there are different funding agencies. NASA's ISS managers are currently not responsible for evaluating and selecting all research that will be conducted on the ISS, leaving this to the research sponsor. (2) In-house scientific and technical expertise: The institutions GAO studied have large staffs of in-house experts that can provide technical and engineering support to users. NASA's staff members in ISS fundamental science research areas have been decentralized or reassigned, limiting its capability to provide user support. (3) Robust user outreach: The laboratories and institutes GAO studied place a high priority on user outreach and are actively involved in educating and recruiting users. NASA has conducted outreach to potential users in the public and private sectors, but its outreach is limited in comparison.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: After about 25 years of design, development, and construction, the  International Space Station (ISS) will be completed in 2010. According to  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), once  construction is completed the ISS crew will be able to focus its efforts on  dedicated utilization of the onboard research capabilities. Building the ISS  has been a long and costly effort; construction has been under way for  over 10 years, and NASA estimates total direct ISS costs to NASA from  1994 to 2010 to be $48.5 billion. Though it has budgeted funds to allow for  extension of the ISS, NASA is currently following the direction of the  previous administration and budgeted to end its participation in the ISS at  the end of 2015; if this does not change, there will be only a 5-year window  during which the ISS will be available for dedicated research utilization.  Congress has directed NASA to take all necessary steps to ensure that the  ISS remains a viable and productive facility capable of potential utilization  through at least 2020, but no decisions on any extensions have been made  to date.
Originally, the ISS was to be used for conducting a broad range of NASA- funded experiments in many disciplines, including the life sciences,  combustion science, fluid physics, and materials science as well as  technology demonstration. In 2004, NASA changed its focus to studying  the effects of long-duration space travel on humans and developing  countermeasures for these effects and tests of exploration-related  technology, and as a result the focus of its research on board the ISS has  changed as well. In 2005, Congress designated the ISS as a national  laboratory and asked NASA to seek to increase station research utilization  by including other federal entities and the private sector through  partnerships, cost sharing, and other arrangements that would supplement  NASA funding of ISS research, and noted that NASA may enter into a  contract with a nongovernmental agency to operate the ISS national  laboratory, subject to all applicable federal laws and regulations. In  addition, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 required NASA to develop a  Research Management Plan to be used to prioritize research activities and  resources. The Research Management Plan was to identify the  organization to be responsible for managing United States’ research on the  ISS. The act noted that the management institution could be an internal  NASA office or an external relationship arranged via contract, cooperative  agreement or grant. This plan was delivered to Congress in August 2009.
In light of these developments, you asked us to review the use of the ISS  for research. Specifically, we (1) identified how the ISS is being used at  present and how much it is expected to be used once assembly is  complete, (2) identified challenges to fully maximizing research use of ISS,  and (3) identified management principles of other national laboratories  and other large science programs that could be applicable to management  of the ISS.
To identify how ISS research facilities are being used at present, we  reviewed NASA documentation pertaining to available on-station  hardware and scientific investigations that utilize this hardware. We also  interviewed officials from the NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate  (SOMD) and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), the  Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and the European Space  Agency (ESA). To identify how the ISS will be used once assembly is  completed, we analyzed NASA documentation identifying available on- station hardware planned for the ISS and NASA projections for future  requirements, and we compared available research resources to planned  requirements.
To identify the challenges to maximizing ISS research, we met with NASA  officials in the ISS program office as well as in NASA’s SOMD. We also met  with and spoke to former, current, and prospective researchers who have  conducted research onboard the ISS or who were interested in conducting  future research. We interviewed officials from the National Research  Council, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Institutes of  Health (NIH), the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI),  and the Universities Space Research Association (USRA). To determine  how NASA is managing the ISS, we interviewed NASA officials and  reviewed NASA plans and documentation.
To identify management principles of other national laboratories and large  science programs that could be applicable to management of the ISS, we  interviewed officials at the Department of Energy (DOE) who are  responsible for the DOE national laboratories and spoke with officials at  the National Energy Technology Laboratory. We also met with officials  from the National Science Foundation (NSF) who are responsible for  managing the Office of Polar Programs. Further, we visited Argonne  National Laboratory (Argonne) in Illinois and Brookhaven National  Laboratory (Brookhaven) in New York, and we interviewed officials from  the National User Facility Organization, the National Academies, NSBRI,  the Space Telescope Science Institute, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic  Institute (WHOI).
We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through  October 2009 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The ISS⎯the largest orbiting man-made object⎯is being constructed to  support three activities: scientific research, technology development, and  development of industrial applications. Its facilities allow for ongoing  research in microgravity, studies of other aspects of the space  environment, tests of new technology, and long-term space operations. Its  facilities enable astronauts to conduct many different types of research,  including experiments in biotechnology, combustion science, fluid  physics, and materials science, on behalf of ground-based researchers. The  ISS also has capability to support research on materials and other  technologies to see how they react in the space environment. In general,  conducting research in a microgravity environment allows scientists to  eliminate the influence of Earth’s gravity and can result in discoveries of  properties and reactions that would be masked on Earth. Some  researchers believe that conducting scientific experiments in microgravity  can yield potentially groundbreaking results in areas as diverse as stem- cell culturing, vaccine research, plant and seed research, and targeting  drug-resistant microbes. Testing materials and technologies in space  allows researchers to determine the impact of the harsh space  environment on these items for potential future use in space vehicles or  satellites.
There are five main partners involved in supporting the development and  manning of the ISS: the United States, Russia, Japan, ESA (which includes  a number of participating countries), and Canada. The ISS consists of two  separately administered (though conjoined) parts: (1) the U.S. operating  segment (USOS), with contributions from its international partners (ESA,  JAXA, and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)), and (2) the Russian  segment. Russian research is separate from the USOS operations: Russia  has no utilization rights to U.S., European, or Japanese modules and NASA  has no utilization rights to Russian modules, though NASA told us there  are mechanisms for scientific collaboration and hardware sharing among  all agencies. According to NASA, it provides a portion of ISS resources  (including crew time, facilities, and launch capabilities) to the partners  based on international agreements with each partner in exchange for its  contributions to the ISS. Each partner facility has research  accommodations that can be used and shared among the partners as  stipulated in the agreements.
Scientific research facilities currently available inside the ISS are generally  mounted in modular, refrigerator-sized mounts called racks or ExPRESS  racks, which provide the utilities necessary for conducting research,  including electricity. Each rack contains lockers, drawers, or other inserts  that can be used to install research payloads and are changed as  necessary. The racks may also contain semipermanent equipment, such as  freezers, incubators, or glove boxes. Research payloads are sent to the ISS  in a flight-certified piece of hardware that may be small in size. This  hardware is generally then installed in one of these racks, and the  experiment is operated until the research is completed. Once completed,  the payload may be returned to Earth for analysis or research data are  transmitted back to Earth for analysis. Research can also be conducted on  the exterior of the station in unpressurized facilities; for example, the  Materials International Space Station Experiment is conducted in such  facilities.
Facilities on board the ISS and NASA’s plans for its own utilization of the  ISS have changed over time. When NASA adopted The Vision for Space  Exploration (Vision) in 2004, it set forth a plan to explore space and  extend a human presence across our solar system with dual goals of  returning humans to the moon by 2020 and later sending humans to Mars  and other destinations. It also dictated that NASA focus its research  efforts on board the ISS on its Human Research Program supporting future  human space exploration, including studying the effects of the space  environment on humans; on technology development and test for  exploration; and on developing operational protocols for successful long- duration space operations. Though ISS had originally been intended to be  a broad-based research facility, the Vision required NASA to focus its ISS  research on supporting space exploration goals with an emphasis on  understanding the impacts of the space environment on astronauts and  developing countermeasures to these effects. As a result, NASA reduced  the scope of its ISS research; the agency conducted a zero-based review in  the fall of 2005 and determined that some fundamental life and physical  sciences tasks were not “highly relevant” to achieving the goals of the  Vision. The agency canceled some existing grants in this area and stopped  soliciting any new research, which caused affected ISS scientific research  communities to shrink or turn to other research areas. NASA also  reassigned its personnel involved with the fundamental sciences, including  space biology (such as animal, plant, and microbial research), and reduced  its portfolio of research on fluid physics, combustion, materials science,  biotechnology, and fundamental physics. Table 1 depicts some changes in  ESMD flight research conducted in 2002 and 2008 that illustrate the  redirection of focus.
Hardware needed for research projects was also canceled or delayed by  NASA or commercial developers, either because of the change in research  priorities or other constraints, such as the pause in shuttle flights after the  loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. This included animal research  facilities, the Life Sciences Glovebox, the Centrifuge Accommodation  Module, and the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). In 2003, the  National Research Council and the National Academy of Public  Administration reported that NASA drastically reduced the overall ability  of the ISS to support science, and that this reduction limited or foreclosed  the scientific community’s ability to maximize the research potential of the  ISS. NASA’s Plan to Support the Operations and Utilization of the  International Space Station Beyond 2015 states that it would cost several  billion dollars to reinstate the full scope of planned ISS facilities.
Though the Vision changed and reduced the scope of NASA’s goals for its  own research on board the ISS, Congress designated the ISS as a national  laboratory in 2005 in an effort to increase utilization of the ISS for  research. Congress also asked NASA to seek to increase utilization of the  ISS by other federal entities and the private sector through partnerships,  cost-sharing agreements, and other arrangements that would also  supplement NASA funding of ISS research. According to NASA officials,  this designation does not guarantee an appropriation specifically for ISS  National Laboratory research. The ISS National Laboratory operates in  conjunction with the ISS research programs of NASA and the international  partners, and utilizes a portion of the USOS resource allocation, including  crew time, facilities, and cargo launched to the station. As such, NASA  conducts the research it sees as relevant to its mission, and the ISS can  also accommodate users from outside of NASA who are not necessarily  conducting research relevant to NASA’s Human Research Program or  other NASA-sponsored research. NASA established the ISS National  Laboratory Office in the spring of 2009; this office is part of the existing  Space Station Payloads Office and as of April 2009 had five staff members.
In May 2009, President Obama established the Review of U.S. Human  Space Flight Plans Committee. Its stated goal is to provide an independent  assessment of the nation’s planned human spaceflight activities and to  ensure that that country is on “a vigorous and sustainable path to  achieving its boldest aspirations in space.” The committee conducted an  assessment of NASA’s plans, including plans for the ISS, and developed a  number of possible options for the future of the U.S. space activities. In its  summary report released in September 2009, the committee developed five  options for NASA’s human spaceflight program, and of these options,  three recommend extending the lifespan of the ISS until 2020. The  committee wrote that it would be unwise to de-orbit the ISS after 25 years  of design, development, and assembly and only 5 years of operations, and  that the return on investment to both the United States and the  international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of  the ISS’s life. It is unknown at present which option will ultimately be  selected, but the future utilization of the ISS depends on this decision.
section_title: The ISS Will Have Excess Research Facilities Available for Other Users by Construction Completion
paragraphs: The ISS has been continuously manned since 2000, and in March 2009 the  crew expanded from three to six. NASA’s primary objective for the ISS  through 2010 is construction, so research has not been the main priority.  Specifically, though the ISS facilities have been used for some research to  date, new research capabilities are still being added and are awaiting  launch and installation, and resources such as crew time, transportation,  and facilities planned for the utilization phase have not been fully  available. As such, research is being conducted at the margins of assembly  and operations activities as time permits, while the crew on board  performs assembly and operations tasks. NASA has identified 197 U.S.- integrated investigations that have been conducted on orbit as of April  2009, though 55 of these investigations were conducted on the Space  Shuttle missions to the ISS instead of on the ISS itself (called sortie  research). According to NASA, as of February 2009, U.S. ISS and sortie  research have resulted in over 160 publications, including articles on  topics such as protein crystallization, plant growth, and human research.  According to NASA, there have also been approximately 25 technology  demonstration experiments flown on the ISS during the assembly phase.
Once construction is completed, NASA projects that its share of the  ExPRESS racks will be less than 50 percent occupied by planned NASA  research related to the Human Research Program and other NASA- initiated research, with the remainder available for other use. Any facilities  that NASA does not plan to utilize are available to the ISS National  Laboratory, and the system is flexible so that future rack space can be  made available either to NASA-funded or ISS National Laboratory users up  to the total capacity. These projections are based on NASA’s current ISS  research budget and determinations of available resources based on the  percentage of ISS resources that are allocated to NASA and the  international partners according to established international agreements.  Table 2 depicts the NASA projected occupancy of rack space for  September 2010.
Inside the ISS, there are many available interior, or pressurized, sites for  research racks and other facilities, though not all available sites will  ultimately accommodate a facility. NASA projects that 79 percent (19 of  24) of the available NASA internal payload sites that can accommodate  research facilities ultimately will, and that less than 50 percent of these  facilities will be occupied by planned NASA research after the ISS is  completed, making them available for other users. The ISS also has  external, or unpressurized, sites exposed to the vacuum of space on its  exterior structure that can accommodate research facilities. NASA  projects that these sites will be 33 percent (7 of 21) filled with research  facilities when assembly is completed and 62 percent filled (13 of 21) by  the end of 2015. NASA’s international partners are fully utilizing their ISS  allocations; ESA needs more resources than it has been allocated by the  international agreements. NASA officials told us that their intention was to  build the ISS with sufficient research facility capacity so that they could  invite the broader scientific community to use the ISS; they added that had  NASA intended to use the ISS to support only its own research, the agency  could have truncated construction and utilized 100 percent of its facilities.  NASA officials told us that they expect to be able to fill the surplus ISS  capacity with research by National Laboratory users.
section_title: Several Significant Challenges May Impede Full Use of ISS Research Facilities
paragraphs: NASA faces several significant challenges that may impede efforts to  maximize research utilization of the ISS, including (1) the impending  retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010, reduced launch capabilities once  the shuttle retires, and the potential for a gap between retirement and  follow-on U.S. vehicles; (2) high costs for launches and developing  research hardware and a lack of dedicated funding streams for ISS  research; (3) limited crew time available for research due to a fixed crew  size and other requirements for crew time; and (4) an uncertain future for  the ISS beyond 2015.
subsections: section_title: Impending Space Shuttle Retirement Will Limit Launch Capabilities
paragraphs: The Space Shuttle is currently slated to retire in 2010, and as of November  2009 only five launch opportunities remain. We have previously reported  that the ISS will face a significant cargo supply shortfall without the Space  Shuttle. Further, since NASA has the few remaining Space Shuttle flights  scheduled to carry equipment required for assembly, operations, and  maintenance, there may be limited cargo capacity for research payloads.  Potential researchers and others have told us that they have faced  difficulty in getting payloads scheduled on board the Space Shuttle in a  reasonable amount of time.
Following the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010, NASA will rely on  an assortment of vehicles in order to provide the necessary logistical  support and crew rotation capabilities required for the ISS, but none will  offer the same cargo capabilities as the Space Shuttle in upmass  (delivering cargo to the ISS) and downmass (delivering cargo to Earth).  NASA will rely heavily on Roscosmos⎯the Russian Federal Space  Agency⎯and its launch vehicles to provide crew transport to the ISS once  the Space Shuttle retires, and has signed agreements for future service.  Some of the other vehicles are already supporting the ISS, while the  international partners, the commercial sector, and NASA are developing  others. As we have previously reported, NASA expects Russia to launch  six Progress flights each year from 2009 through 2011, and that NASA  cargo will be spread across the equivalent of four Progress flights in 2009,  two in 2010, and one in 2011. NASA currently does not plan to utilize the  Progress vehicle beyond 2011.
International partners’ vehicles alone cannot fully satisfy ISS cargo needs.  Existing and planned international partner vehicles have much less  upmass capability than the Space Shuttle and no downmass capability for  research payloads. Overall, NASA now faces a 40-metric ton  (approximately 88,000 pound) usable cargo shortfall from 2010 through  2015. To mitigate this shortfall, NASA has turned to commercial  developers to provide launch vehicles. These vehicles are known as  Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) vehicles, and two  companies, Orbital Science Corporation (Orbital) and Space Exploration  Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), are each developing future vehicles.  The Russian Soyuz vehicle can transport downmass (though minimal) and  return crew from the ISS after the Space Shuttle is retired, and the new  commercial SpaceX vehicle is also expected to be able to return  downmass. Delay of downmass capability will make it difficult to  transport research back to Earth for analysis. Table 3 provides specifics on  the available and planned vehicles.
As we have previously reported, the contractors responsible for the COTS  vehicles have experienced delays in demonstration milestones and are at  risk for further delays. Both SpaceX and Orbital have had schedule  slippage in the development of their launch vehicles. For SpaceX, this has  contributed to anticipated delays of 2 to 4 months in most of its remaining  milestones. Orbital has recently revised its agreement with NASA to  demonstrate a different cargo transport capability than it had originally  planned, and delayed its demonstration mission date from December 2010  until March 2011. We have also previously reported that there have been  delays with the development of the Constellation program, and that there  were likely to be further delays that would make achieving NASA’s 2015  first crewed launch date difficult. We have noted that a delay in the  availability of commercial partners’ vehicles in 2010 would lead to a  significant scaling back of NASA’s use of the ISS for scientific research;  however, NASA officials told us that they believe recent developments (for  example, the addition of a Space Shuttle flight) have shifted the horizon  for serious impacts from COTS delays into 2011.
NASA officials said that the impact of COTS failures or significant delays  would be similar to the post-Columbia disaster scenario, where NASA  operated the ISS in a “survival mode” and moved to a two-person crew,  paused assembly activities, and operated the ISS at a lower altitude to  relieve propellant burden. NASA officials stated that if the COTS vehicles  are delayed, they would pursue a course of “graceful degradation” of the  ISS until conditions improve or until NASA’s commitment to operate the  ISS expires at the end of 2015. In such conditions, the ISS would only  conduct minimal science experiments.
NASA officials told us that they are basing logistics requirements for the  ISS on engineering estimates for component reliability, but will not know  the full accuracy of these estimates until further operating experience is  gained. NASA has current plans to use 50 percent of the United States’  allocated launch capacity to transport research cargo to the ISS and 47  percent of the United States’ allocation to transport research cargo  returning to Earth for postflight analysis (not including operational cargo).  However, these projections may change, and are based on the assumption  that all follow-on and replacement launch vehicles will begin operations as  scheduled; significant delays or new NASA requirements to provide  logistics and resupply cargo have the potential to alter this projection and,  as noted, may result in cargo shortfalls and potentially the scaling back of  ISS research. ESA already wants to launch more research cargo to the ISS  than it is allotted under international agreements. NASA’s planning  document states that ESA will have a demand of 1.8 metric tons of cargo  beyond its allotment that it wants to send to the ISS.
section_title: High Costs and No Dedicated Funds for Developing and Launching Research
paragraphs: NASA officials have stated that it is significantly more expensive to  conduct research on board the ISS than on Earth and the agency now  views lack of funding for research as the major challenge to full research  utilization of the ISS. According to NASA, one of the major cost drivers is  the cost to launch payloads to the ISS. When the Space Shuttle retires,  Roscosmos and later the commercial launch partners will be able to set  the launch costs. Costs to the user of the ISS vary: NASA signed a  memorandum of understanding (MOU) with NIH as an ISS National  Laboratory user to launch biomedical experiments to the ISS, and NASA  officials have stated that the agency will work with NIH to determine the  demand for launch services and accommodate NIH payloads on the  margins of NASA operations and maintenance flights as space allows.  However, NASA officials told us that the agency has set no money aside  for ISS National Laboratory payload development or transportation, and it  may be unable to provide complimentary launch opportunities to National  Laboratory users. We asked NASA for launch cost estimates; officials gave  an estimate of $44,000 per kilogram (about 2.2 pounds), along with the  caveat that the costs to develop and launch experiments vary widely  depending on the experiment. Researchers we spoke with gave higher  estimates for payload costs. USDA reported that the average payload cost  for its experiments, which were individually contained in a compartment  the size of a shoe box, was about $250,000. Though specific figures will  vary depending on the nature of the payload, these types of costs may be  prohibitive to researchers who are responsible for seeking their own  funding.
According to NASA officials, the National Laboratory designation does not  guarantee an appropriation specifically for ISS National Laboratory, and it  is unclear if NASA or other federal agencies will be able to provide any  funding support to facilitate ISS utilization. NASA regards this lack of  dedicated funding as the current main limiting factor for utilization of the  ISS. One positive indication came from NIH, which issued a funding  announcement indicating that it may make funding available for selected  applicants. Researchers we spoke with agreed that funding opportunities  or grants are irregular and limited, and that regular funding opportunities  are essential for attracting researchers to any science program. NASA  officials told us that funding for ISS research had been $700 million in 2002  and is now approximately $150 million annually. According to NASA this  reflects a shift in budget priorities from funding research on the ISS to  developing the Constellation program.
section_title: Limited Crew Time to Conduct Research
paragraphs: NASA also ranks limited crew time as a significant constraint for science  on board the ISS. The size of the crew on board the station is constrained  at six by the number of spaces available in the “lifeboats,” or docked  spacecraft that can transport the crew in case of an emergency. As such, at  present crew time cannot be increased to meet increased demand.  Further, crew time is shared between NASA and its international partners  (JAXA, ESA, CSA, and Russia). According to NASA, the ISS crew members  work 8.5 hours a day, and during this time they conduct maintenance,  vehicle traffic operations, training, medical operations, human research  experiments, and the experiments of NASA and the international partners.  NASA documentation shows that the remaining crew time will be spent  eating, sleeping, and exercising. Figure 1 depicts the crew time allocations  among NASA and its international partners; it also depicts the percentages  of crew time available to NASA and its international partners as negotiated  in agreements. According to NASA, the USOS is allocated half of the crew  time available on the ISS, with the other half going to the Russian segment.  NASA told us that it and the international partners (excluding Russia) will  have 35 hours per week of scheduled crew time to share in conducting  research.
As shown in figure 1, NASA’s share of crew time will be approximately 27  hours per week to devote to research; of this time, NASA plans to use 56  percent for its own Human Research Program studies. The remaining 44  percent (or approximately 12 hours per week) will be available for other  NASA research and National Laboratory investigations.
Though available crew time may increase as the six-person crew becomes  more experienced with operating the ISS efficiently or if the crew  volunteers its free time for research utilization, crew time for U.S. research  remains a limiting factor in that it cannot be scaled up to meet demand.  According to NASA officials, potential National Laboratory researchers  should design their experiments to be as automated as possible or  minimize crew involvement required for their experiments to ensure that  they are accepted for flight. For example, NASA told potential NIH grant  applicants that an experiment requiring 75 hours or more of crew time  over one 6-month period would be too intensive and would likely be  rejected, though according to NASA no investigation to date has required  that much crew time. Not all ISS research will require much crew  intervention or be constrained by available crew time. Areas such as  technology development may require less crew intervention; for example,  the Materials International Space Station Experiment mounts samples on  the exterior of the ISS and once set up requires little crew intervention.
section_title: Uncertain Future for the ISS beyond 2015
paragraphs: NASA’s budget currently reflects plans for retirement of the ISS at the end  of 2015. The Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee has  proposed extension of the ISS until 2020 in three of its five possible  scenarios and Congress has directed NASA to take steps to ensure that it  remains capable of remaining a viable and productive facility for the  United States through at least 2020, but there has not been a commitment  yet to continue operations. If not extended, there will be only 5 years  between the end of construction in 2010 and ISS retirement in 2015 to  utilize the ISS research facilities. Under this deadline, the potential for  long-term science and for building a robust ISS user community is limited.
The uncertainty of the ISS program beyond its 2015 retirement date has  deterred members of the scientific community from considering the  station as a platform for fundamental research. According to researchers,  they require sufficient time (months to years) to develop and conduct an  experiment and then to replicate their research so they can seek  publication in peer-reviewed journals. Officials from each of the other  science programs we studied and many researchers we spoke with  commented on the importance of having a program with a reasonable and  definitive window of available time for scientists and graduate students to  fully develop and implement their experiments. They added that having  longevity in a research program ensures that prospective and current  users, whether academic or commercial, will have an opportunity to work  in a viable laboratory where they can invest in their research. Researchers  have told us that they may be unlikely to get involved with ISS research if  they do not have assurances that the ISS will be around for long enough  for them to get their research developed and executed. They emphasized  that by knowing they have plenty of time to conduct their experiments,  they have not only the time to teach the next generation of scientists—that  is, graduate students whose dissertations rely on the completion of  research projects—but also the opportunity to reproduce their  experiments. Publishing research results, a requirement for many  academic scientists, often requires that results can be duplicated, which  may not be possible on board ISS if the research utilization window is only  5 years.
NASA’s international partners are using their research facility allotments  and two have recently expressed interest in extending the operation of the  ISS beyond 2015. The Director General of ESA told the Review of U.S.  Human Space Flight Plans Committee that he believed that the decision  about the future of the ISS should be a joint decision of all the partner  nations, and that if ISS research utilization is not successful, the program  would be a failure. Similarly, the head of Roscosmos advised the United  States to prolong operation of the ISS beyond 2020. Retirement of the ISS  is in part predicated on the life of its components. NASA’s plan for  operating and using the ISS for research through 2020⎯required by the  NASA Authorization Act of 2008⎯states that while some of the ISS’s  hardware was originally designed for a 30-year life, most was tested to the  15-year life requirement, meaning that there are unknowns that prevent  providing an absolute definition of the lifetime capability of the ISS, and  that additional testing and analysis is required. We did not assess the  technical issues surrounding an extension of ISS operations.
section_title: NASA Is Considering Engaging an Outside Partner for ISS Management, a Key Practice Found at Other National Laboratories
paragraphs: In addition to the transportation issues, high costs and limited funding,  and limited crew time⎯challenges exacerbated by the possibility of  retirement of the ISS in 2015⎯NASA may face challenges in the  management and operation of ISS National Laboratory research. There is  currently no direct analogue to the ISS National Laboratory, and though  NASA currently manages research programs at the Jet Propulsion  Laboratory and its other centers that it believes possess similar  characteristics to other national laboratories, NASA has limited  experience managing the type of diverse scientific research and  technology demonstration portfolio that the ISS could eventually  represent. If utilized to its full capabilities, the ISS research program could  cross multiple research disciplines and involve researchers from the  academic, governmental, and commercial sectors, management of which  may be outside of NASA’s core competencies. We studied other national  laboratories and large, multidisciplinary science programs to learn how  they are managed and to identify possible lessons learned that could be  applicable to management of the ISS. We visited Brookhaven and Argonne  National Laboratories and spoke with officials from several other large  science programs, including the National Energy Technology Laboratory,  DOE’s only government-owned, government-operated (GOGO) national  laboratory; the Space Telescope Sciences Institute, which is a nonprofit  science center that works for NASA to coordinate research for the Hubble  Space Telescope and forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope; the NSF  Office of Polar Programs, which manages research conducted in the Arctic  and Antarctica; and WHOI, a private, nonprofit institute that conducts,  coordinates, and supports a range of oceanographic research onboard  three large research ships, one coastal vessel, and submersible vessels. We  identified three common practices that may be applicable to whatever  management structure NASA decides on for managing all U.S.-sponsored  ISS research: central management of research, robust in-house technical  expertise, and significant user outreach. NASA has recognized the  potential value of national lab practices—particularly engaging an outside  partner for laboratory management.
subsections: section_title: Central Management of Research
paragraphs: At the research institutions we studied, we found that each has a  management structure that typically entailed a contractor or nonprofit  consortium of universities that oversee the operation of the laboratory and  that researchers deal directly with that management body to initiate and  develop their research. For example, Brookhaven and Argonne are  federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC) and operate  as government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities. According  to officials at DOE and the national laboratories, the role of the  government in a GOCO arrangement is to oversee the contract and the  contractor, as well as to provide direction to the management of the  laboratory. They added that the contractor manages the science  conducted, and can expand and contract easily to bring in needed  expertise to support operations as research priorities and user needs  evolve, and since the contractor is not constrained by federal General  Schedule pay scales, it can offer high salaries to secure world-class  scientific talent.
WHOI has a central management body, but was the only facility we studied  that does not manage its own peer-review process or select the research  conducted in its facilities. Instead, WHOI has the agency sponsoring the  research manage this process, in part because most of WHOI’s research  ships are owned by NSF and the Office of Naval Research, and the agency  that owns a ship gets priority for use of the research facilities. NASA  officials told us they think that the ISS falls into a similar model as WHOI  because its National Laboratory facilities are open for use by any  interested party that can provide its own funding, and while NASA  evaluates and selects its own ISS research, it leaves the selection of ISS  National Laboratory research to the sponsors of the research. However,  WHOI is a member of University National Oceanographic Laboratory  System (UNOLS), a central organization that is involved in monitoring,  prioritizing, and scheduling research that will be conducted on various  ocean laboratory vessels. According to UNOLS documentation, it has an  elected UNOLS Council with broad representation⎯more than 61  academic institutions and national laboratories are part of UNOLS⎯and it  provides some strategic research selection and prioritization functions to  make efficient use of finite resources.
According to NASA, ISS National Laboratory research is managed through  the Assistant Associate Administrator for the ISS in SOMD, working in  cooperation with the ISS National Laboratory Office, which is within the  ISS Payloads Office. NASA officials told us that the role of these offices is  to optimize and maximize available ISS resources, but that the ISS  National Laboratory Office does not determine the content of the science  flown to the ISS, but relies on the sponsor to evaluate the research.  Instead, NASA prioritizes payloads based on operational or tactical needs,  such as if there is a need for parts or spares to be flown to the ISS and if  NASA can accommodate the research.
Because of the congressional designation of the ISS as a national  laboratory, NASA has opened the ISS up to several additional  organizations other than NASA to select and fund science on the ISS.  Some existing sponsors include (1) NASA, through either ESMD or SOMD;  (2) other government agencies that have signed MOUs with NASA,  including NIH, USDA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and DOE;         (3) commercial or nonprofit organizations that have signed Space Act  agreements with NASA; (4) organizations that have other formal  partnerships with NASA, for example, NSBRI, which has a cooperative  agreement with NASA; and (5) the international partners. According to  NASA, as with WHOI, content of the ISS research selected is decentralized  and conducted by the sponsor, and each sponsor has its own priorities for  the research it supports. Additionally, NASA officials told us that though  most research⎯including NASA, DOD, and NIH research⎯is subjected to  a peer-review process to ensure that the investigation has scientific merit,  other (especially commercial) research is not necessarily peer reviewed.  Thus, the ISS currently lacks one central body that oversees the selection  and prioritization of all U.S. ISS research and that can strategically decide  what research should be conducted and at what time. This may become  more problematic if there is future overlapping demand for ISS facilities  from various users, including NASA, other federal agencies, and the  academic and corporate sectors.
NASA has considered management alternatives to coordinate ISS  research, including FFRDC or GOCO arrangements, as well as cooperative  agreements, a government corporation, and hybrid structures. NASA has  also reported several times on this issue, including in its 1998 plan for the  ISS where making a special non-governmental organization (NGO)  responsible for selecting and planning research onboard the ISS was  discussed, and more generally in its 2005 Organizational Model Evaluation  Team report. Other entities have also recommended that NASA establish  such a management structure. For example, the National Research  Council recommended that NASA establish an NGO to manage the ISS  under the direction of institutions representing the research community; in  2000, the Computer Sciences Corporation recommended the creation of a  space station utilization and research institute to manage ISS utilization.  Congress has also directed NASA to develop plans involving an external  management body: in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  Authorization Act of 2000, Congress instructed the agency to submit an  implementation plan to incorporate the use of an NGO to conduct  research utilization and commercialization management activities of the  ISS, and the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 required NASA to develop a  plan to support operations and utilization of the ISS beyond 2015,  including a research management plan that identified who would manage  United States research. Potential management structures noted by the act  included an internal NASA office or an external relationship governed by a  contract, cooperative agreement, or a grant arrangement. NASA’s plan  submitted in response to this requirement did not mention management by  any outside agency.
NASA officials told us that they are currently evaluating options for a  future management structure for the ISS that may include an external  entity, but that they have concerns. For example, they stated that they are  concerned that adding a layer of bureaucracy between NASA operations  and researchers could further complicate the process of getting  investigations onto the ISS. Additionally, they do not think it is wise to  establish such a management structure too early, for example, before the  transportation challenge is addressed. Further, NASA officials told us that  they are concerned that such a structure has an appropriate mix of  internal and external expertise, and that having the appropriate personnel  is ultimately more important than the type of structure (such as a GOCO  versus another structure) selected.
NASA officials also told us that they cannot select all U.S. ISS research  because there is funding coming from numerous sponsors with various  missions; however, the national laboratories we studied do not have only  one funding agency either. For example, Argonne officials told us that they  receive more than half of their funding from DOE but that the laboratory  accommodates research sponsored by others. According to NASA  officials, though it does not centrally select and prioritize all U.S. ISS  research, it uses central tracking of research accomplishments and  discipline-based working groups to prevent research duplication.
section_title: In-house Expertise
paragraphs: The national laboratories and science programs we studied have capable  in-house scientific and technical experts (generally provided by the  management body) who can consult with and provide guidance to users.  These institutions make a concerted effort to hire scientists with expertise  relevant to the research conducted at that institute or laboratory. For  instance, in addition to conducting their own research, the scientists and  engineers who work for the management body are also available to assist  visiting researchers in developing their research, drafting their proposals,  and ultimately conducting their experiments. In some cases, staff  scientists are available to provide user support 24 hours a day and 7 days a  week. The national laboratories we studied consider use of in-house  scientists and engineers to conduct research and to serve as advisors to  lab users as a core competency.
Because of internal restructuring in the recent past, NASA has  decentralized its expertise in key scientific disciplines germane to ISS  research, and a small number of personnel ultimately left the agency.  According to congressional testimony given by an ISS researcher and  according to others we spoke with, NASA has reassigned a number of  experts within the agency whose experience would have been helpful for  biological and microgravity research on board the ISS. Specifically, in the  mid-1990s, NASA began making cuts to its gravitational biology program,  and in 2004, it merged its Office of Biological and Physical Research,  including the Physical Sciences Division, into ESMD. NASA ultimately  eliminated research in these areas that was not deemed essential to  achieving the Vision.
Though NASA may have decided that these experts were not necessary  based on its new internal direction in research goals, lack of these  personnel complicates supporting other researchers using the available  ISS research facilities and conducting research separate from NASA’s  goals. For example, according to a senior official from the nonprofit  USRA, NASA has a contract with USRA at Glenn Space Center to assist  researchers conducting studies at the National Center for Microgravity  Research because NASA no longer has the broad base of scientific experts  available to provide this service to potential microgravity researchers.  NASA directs other users to implementation partners, or companies that  have scientific and technical expertise that can assist users in developing  hardware and experiments. With NASA having lost scientific expertise in  certain areas, there is a shortage of experts able to assist ISS researchers  who are not conducting research pertinent to NASA’s goals in developing  and conducting their experiments.
section_title: Significant User Outreach
paragraphs: The national laboratories and other large, user-based science institutes we  studied place a high priority on conducting outreach to current and  potential users and hold conferences and workshops on a regular basis for  this purpose. For example, NSF hosts the New Investigator Workshop to  recruit scientists who want to know more about the polar programs, and  uses this opportunity to tell them how to draft a research proposal to  conduct experiments in the Arctic and Antarctic. The national laboratories  reserve portions of their budgets to pay for speakers to attend lectures and  workshops, and they will also host “schools” where scientists can come  together and stay at the laboratory to study the basic and advanced  research techniques applicable to specific laboratory facilities. One facility  at Brookhaven has developed a piggybacking concept in which new  investigators are paired with an experienced user to learn how the science  is conducted at the facility. Educational outreach is a tool used by the  national laboratories and science institutes to lure not only scientists and  companies but also to generate public interest. The national laboratories  also participate in the National User Facility Organization, which consists  of representatives from 30 user facilities, attracts about 25,000 users, and  provides a unified voice for the scientific community and a forum for them  to share their work. Officials we spoke with from several of these facilities  told us that managing their user community and ensuring that their  facilities were responsive to user needs was critical to ensuring continuing  interest in using their facilities.
NASA’s ability to do large-scale outreach initiatives on its own has been  limited by existing resources and other factors. NASA’s ISS National  Laboratory Office has a small staff (recently increased to five employees  and not exclusively dedicated to outreach; NASA officials expect to  eventually have as many as 10 staff), for outreach activities, and NASA  conducts outreach with funding from its budget for space operations.  NASA has reached out to researchers and other interested parties in an  effort to attract users to the ISS National Laboratory. For example, the  agency has established National Lab Pathfinders, where designated  companies and other entities were identified by NASA for their ability to  engage in early utilization of the ISS with the aim of inaugurating the ISS  National Laboratory research program. According to NASA, this program  has resulted in six flight experiments from commercial partners and two  flight experiments from USDA. NASA has also teamed with NIH, which  has made a recent program announcement for ISS research. NASA has  conducted outreach to potential NIH grant applicants and participated in a  meeting in June 2009 where NASA and NIH officials met with potential  researchers to discuss ISS research capabilities. This meeting brought  potential researchers together with NASA, NIH, and “implementation  partners” that are able to supply researchers with specialized hardware for  their research, and information about hardware and research capabilities  was discussed.
Based on our analysis, observations of outreach practices at other national  laboratories and science institutions, and comments from researchers we  spoke with, we believe that NASA needs to conduct more outreach and  education. We were told that some potential researchers in industry were  only informed about the ISS because they already had past employment or  business ties with NASA or because they heard about ISS research  opportunities via a third party advocating for ISS utilization. Others told us  that they knew nothing of the value of ISS research until they had it  explained to them on a one-on-one basis and that a broader education  campaign might be a good way to interest more users. In addition to their  other outreach efforts, the national laboratories we studied both have  robust Web sites with considerable information that would be helpful in  educating potential users. Though NASA has information on its ISS-related  Web sites about the ISS and research conducted, the focus appears to be  presenting successes rather than making user educational  information⎯such as complete information on available hardware,  available implementation partners, opportunities of microgravity research,  and details about research results (including failures and the causes for  any failures)⎯easy to find.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Unless the decision is made to extend ISS operations, NASA has only 5  years to execute a robust research program before the station is deorbited,  which is little time to establish a strong utilization program. A viable user  base will not develop without sufficient launch opportunities to permit  recurring access, consistent funding opportunities, sufficient crew time to  conduct research, and longevity of the ISS. However, despite these  challenges, the on-orbit laboratory offers the potential for scientific  breakthroughs, a unique test bed for new technologies and applications,  and a platform for increased international collaboration in research.  Having a central body that is able to: represent all the ISS user  communities (including NASA, other federal agencies, the commercial  sector, and academia); oversee the selection of all ISS research; and  ensure that the research being conducted is meritorious, peer-reviewed  where appropriate, and not duplicative may assist in achieving full  utilization of the ISS and its unique capabilities and maximize the  possibility of achieving research successes on board the ISS. There is no  direct analogue to how something like the ISS National Laboratory should  or could be managed, so the specific structure that should be developed  will require further consideration.
If the decision is made to cease ISS operations in 2015 and to not provide  additional resources for research, there are management actions focused  on education and outreach that could be easily and quickly implemented  to allow NASA to better support and inform users. If the decision is made  to extend the ISS past its current retirement date of 2015 and to try to fully  utilize all ISS research resources, then there are several major actions that  NASA can take to build a robust user base and ensure that high-caliber  science is being conducted. These actions will take more time⎯potentially  years⎯and additional resources to implement. Though it may not be  possible to establish a management structure similar to those found at  other national laboratories that have been in existence for much longer  than the ISS in the limited time remaining, NASA may be able to leverage  existing agreements with management bodies to provide for a faster  solution, or leverage the scientific and technical expertise of other  sponsoring federal agencies (such as NIH) that have experience in  conducting peer-reviewed research in areas pertinent to their missions.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: If the Administration and NASA decide to retire the station in 2015 and to  continue utilizing the ISS without increasing resources, we recommend  that the NASA Administrator take the following four steps:    Develop and implement a plan to broaden and enhance ongoing outreach  to potential users, including those in the commercial sector, with  consideration given to the tight time frames for the ISS.
Further develop online ISS information materials to provide easy access to  details about laboratory facilities, opportunities presented by  microgravity, available research hardware, resource constraints, and the  results of all past ISS research, including successes and failures.
As information develops, inform users on how launch capabilities will be  provided to users of the ISS, including how regular these launches will be  and what the cost will be (if any) to the users.  If full utilization of available USOS facilities on board the ISS is not  possible, consider sharing excess research capacity with the international  partners on a quid pro quo basis.
If the administration and NASA decide to extend ISS operations beyond  2015 and to provide the resources required for enhanced utilization of the  ISS research facilities, we recommend that the NASA Administrator take  the following three steps:  Implement the first three steps recommended above.
Establish a body that centrally oversees U.S. ISS research decision  making, including the selection of all U.S. research to be conducted on  board and ensuring that all U.S. ISS research is meritorious and valid. This  body should also be able to strategically prioritize research proposed by  many potential sponsors.
Ensure that potential and actual ISS users have access to scientific or  technical expertise, either in-house or external, in the areas of research  relevant to the ISS that can provide assistance to users as required.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA concurred with all seven  recommendations. NASA’s written comments are reprinted in appendix II.  NASA also provided technical comments which were incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to NASA’s Administrator and  interested congressional committees. The report also is available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are provided in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify how the International Space Station (ISS) is being utilized at  present, we reviewed National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA) documentation pertaining to available on-station hardware and  current scientific investigations that are using this hardware, including the  Consolidated Operations and Utilization Plan 2008-2015; the Reference  Guide to the International Space Station; and NASA’s ISS Science  Prioritization Desk Instruction. We also interviewed NASA officials at  headquarters and Johnson Space Center, including officials from the  Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD), and the Exploration  Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). We also spoke with officials from  the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the European  Space Agency (ESA). We also met with an official from The Boeing  Company, which is the contractor responsible for the design,  development, testing, and operation of the ISS.
To identify how the ISS will be utilized once assembly is completed, we  analyzed NASA documentation identifying available on-station hardware  once assembly is complete and NASA projections for future NASA  requirements. We also met with officials from NASA SOMD and NASA  ESMD, and we spoke with researchers from academia, specifically  researchers from North Carolina State University, Arizona State  University, Case Western University, the University of Colorado-Boulder,  Medical College of Wisconsin, Georgia Institute of Technology,  Northwestern University, and Pennsylvania State University. These  researchers were largely selected because they provided congressional  testimony about conducting ISS research or because they were  recommended as contacts by NASA or the National Academies of Science.  We interviewed implementation partners for NASA, including BioServe  Space Technologies and the Universities Space Research Association. We  also attended NASA presentations to the National Academies of Science  Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space Committee  regarding the ISS and its capabilities and utilization. It is important to note  that no good metric exists for precisely quantifying the output of scientific  research facilities, including the ISS. For example, number of experiments  conducted is not a good metric for measuring utilization because it is  unclear what baseline should be used for comparison, and the number of  publications is not ideal since not all research is ultimately published. We  also considered analyzing the use of electrical power on each utilization  rack to determine how frequently they were powered up, but the racks do  not have power meters and thus these data cannot be collected.
To identify the challenges to fully maximizing the ISS, we interviewed  NASA officials in the ISS Program Office as well as in NASA’s ESMD and  SOMD and a former NASA official. We reviewed reports from the National  Research Council⎯an organization consulted by NASA on its ISS research  program⎯including Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International  Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences  (2003), Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research (1999),  Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences (2006),  and Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2006). We  also met with officials from the National Academies of Science⎯whom  NASA consulted on several occasions to review ISS research goals and  management⎯and reviewed their report Elements of a Science Plan for  the North Pacific Research Board. We reviewed the Computer Sciences  Corporation’s International Space Station Operations Architecture Study  (2000) that was prepared for NASA. We also interviewed former, current,  and prospective scientists and researchers who have had experience  conducting research onboard the ISS or who were interested in  conducting future research, including the academic researchers listed  above as well as officials from WiCell Research Institute, Zero Gravity Inc,  and Ad Astra Rocket Company. We also spoke with officials from the  Department of Agriculture, the National Space Biomedical Research  Institute, and the National Institutes of Health and the National Space  Biomedical Research Institute, which have existing agreements or  memorandums of understanding with NASA to conduct ISS research.  Further, we interviewed officials from the Universities Space Research  Association and BioServe Space Technologies, both of which assist  scientists in conducting space research with NASA.
To determine how NASA is managing the ISS, we interviewed NASA  officials and reviewed NASA plans and documentation, including its  Consolidated Operations and Utilization Plan 2008; ISS Utilization  Management Concept Development Study; Research and Utilization Plan  for the International Space Station; Commercial Development Plan for  the International Space Station; Reference Guide to the International  Space Station; NASA ISS Prioritization Desk Instruction; Human  Research Program: Integrated Research Plan; Advanced Capabilities  Division: International Space Station (ISS) Science Portfolio,  Determination and Management; NASA Report to Congress: Regarding a  Plan for the International Space Station’s National Laboratory; Plan to  Support Operations and Utilization of the International Space Station  Beyond FY 2015; and NASA’s Organizational Model Evaluation Team  Process, Analysis, and Recommendations. We also we reviewed NASA’s  international partner agreements. We also reviewed various National  Research Council reports, including Factors Affecting the Utilization of  the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and  Physical Sciences (2003), Institutional Arrangements for Space Station  Research (1999), Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth  Sciences (2006), and Review of NASA Plans for the International Space  Station (2006). We also reviewed the Computer Sciences Corporation’s  ISS Operations Architecture Study (2000) and prior GAO reports.
To determine how NASA’s management of the ISS compares to the  management of other national laboratories and large science institutes, we  spoke with officials at the Department of Energy (DOE) who are  responsible for the DOE national laboratories. We also spoke with officials  from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, which is DOE’s only  government-owned, government-operated laboratory. Further, we visited  Argonne National Laboratory (Illinois) and Brookhaven National  Laboratory (New York), and spoke with officials at these laboratories  representing the National User Facility Organization. We also spoke with  officials from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is the body  that manages NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope. We selected these facilities  in part because of NASA’s suggestions, and in part because they are all  multidisciplinary facilities conducting a wide range of research tasks. To  understand the challenges posed by conducting research in remote, hostile  environments with high logistics costs, we spoke with officials at the  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which operates oceangoing research  ships and submersibles in remote and potentially hazardous environments,  and we met with officials from the National Science Foundation who are  responsible for managing the Office of Polar Programs, which manages  research conducted in the Arctic and Antarctic. These two programs offer  some analogue to conducting research in space.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through  October 2009 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, James L. Morrison, Assistant  Director; Greg Campbell; Cheryl M. Harris; C. James Madar; Diana L.  Moldafsky; Kenneth E. Patton; Timothy M. Persons; Leah L. Probst; and  Alyssa B. Weir made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: NASA: Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain  Until a Sound Business Case Is Established. GAO-09-844. Washington,  D.C.: August. 26, 2009.
NASA: Commercial Partners Are Making Progress, but Face Aggressive  Schedules to Demonstrate Critical Space Station Cargo Transport  Capabilities. GAO-09-618. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2009.