International Space Station
Significant Challenges May Limit Onboard Research
Gao ID: GAO-10-9 November 25, 2009
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.
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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-10-9, International Space Station: Significant Challenges May Limit Onboard Research
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-9
entitled 'International Space Station: Significant Challenges May Limit
Onboard Research' which was released on December 22, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2009:
International Space Station:
Significant Challenges May Limit Onboard Research:
GAO-10-9:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-9, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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, 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.
What GAO Found:
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:
* the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 and reduced
launch capabilities for transporting ISS research cargo once the
shuttle retires,
* high costs for launches and no dedicated funding to support research,
* limited time available for research due to the fixed size of crew and
competing demands for the crew‘s time, and,
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the NASA Administrator implement actions, such as
increasing user outreach and centralizing decision making to enhance
use of the ISS. NASA concurred with the recommendations.
View GAO-10-9 or key components. For more information, contact Cristina
Chaplain at (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The ISS Will Have Excess Research Facilities Available for Other Users
by Construction Completion:
Several Significant Challenges May Impede Full Use of ISS Research
Facilities:
NASA Is Considering Engaging an Outside Partner for ISS Management, a
Key Practice Found at Other National Laboratories:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Difference in ESMD Flight Experiment Research Areas (Not
Including the Human Research Program), 2002 and 2008:
Table 2: Projected NASA Occupancy of ISS ExPRESS Racks and Cold Stowage
Racks Research Resources:
Table 3: Capability of Launch Vehicles in Operation and under
Development:
Figure:
Figure 1: Weekly Crew Time Allocations among Russia and the
International Partners:
Abbreviations:
COTS: Commercial Orbital Transportation Services:
CSA: Canadian Space Agency:
DOE: Department of Energy:
ESA: European Space Agency:
ESMD: Exploration Systems Mission Directorate:
FFRDC: federally funded research and development center:
GOCO: Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated:
GOGO: Government-Owned, Government-Operated:
ISS: International Space Station:
JAXA: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
NSBRI: National Space Biomedical Research Institute:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
SOMD: Space Operations Mission Directorate:
UNOLS: University National Oceanographic Laboratory System:
USOS: U.S. Operating Segment:
WHOI: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 25, 2009:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bill Nelson:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Science and Space:
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
United States Senate:
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.[Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 2]
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.
Background:
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,[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4]
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.[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6] 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.
Table 1: Difference in ESMD Flight Experiment Research Areas (Not
Including the Human Research Program), 2002 and 2008:
Research area: Fundamental space biology (including animal, plant, and
microbial research);
2002 flight experiments: 26;
2008 flight experiments: 13.
Research area: Biotechnology;
2002 flight experiments: 11;
2008 flight experiments: 0.
Research area: Fundamental physics;
2002 flight experiments: 13;
2008 flight experiments: 0.
Research area: Materials science;
2002 flight experiments: 23;
2008 flight experiments: 5.
Source: NASA.
[End of table]
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).
[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9]
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 the 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.
The ISS Will Have Excess Research Facilities Available for Other Users
by Construction Completion:
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.[Footnote 10] Table 2 depicts the NASA projected occupancy
of rack space for September 2010.
Table 2: Projected NASA Occupancy of ISS ExPRESS Racks and Cold Stowage
Racks Research Resources:
ISS resource: ExPRESS racks;
Projected NASA occupation of racks at assembly completion: 48 percent
utilized;
Details: Of NASA's seven ExPRESS racks, 25 of 59 lockers and 7 of 13
drawers will be utilized after assembly is completed.
ISS resource: Cold stowage racks;
Projected NASA occupation of racks at assembly completion: 66 percent
utilized;
Details: NASA projects a need for 66 percent of the cold stowage racks.
There will be three cold stowage racks on board the ISS;
one rack will be utilized by NASA after assembly is completed, a second
rack will be maintained as a spare, and the third may be available for
the National Laboratory.
Source: GAO analysis of NASA data.
Notes: NASA's three racks for human research are not included in this
table. One of NASA's human research racks, called the Muscle Atrophy
Research and Exercise System, is a joint venture with ESA and will be
used by European researchers or National Laboratory customers rather
than NASA's Human Research Program.
[End of table]
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.
Several Significant Challenges May Impede Full Use of ISS Research
Facilities:
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.
Impending Space Shuttle Retirement Will Limit Launch Capabilities:
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.[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12]
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.
Table 3: Capability of Launch Vehicles in Operation and under
Development:
Vehicle (ownership): Space Shuttle (NASA);
Upmass capability[A]: Maximum capability is 37,864 pounds (17,175
kilograms); Can be configured for pressurized, unpressurized, and
powered cargo;
Downmass capability[A]: Maximum capability is 37,864 pounds (17,175
kilograms);
Crew transport: Seven crew members;
Status: Operational until 2010;
Challenges: Additional funding required for the Constellation program
is not available while the Space Shuttle is in operation; Safety
concerns.
Vehicle (ownership): Soyuz (Roscosmos);
Upmass capability[A]: 66 pounds (30 kilograms), pressurized;
Downmass capability[A]: 132 pounds (60 kilograms);
Crew transport: Three crew members;
Status: Completed missions to the ISS; Two Soyuz spacecraft
continuously docked to the ISS as lifeboats for crew;
Challenges: Limited cargo capacity.
Vehicle (ownership): Progress (Roscosmos);
Upmass capability[A]: Average capability of 5,732 pounds (2,600
kilograms), pressurized;
Downmass capability[A]: None;
Crew transport: None;
Status: Completed missions to the ISS; NASA planned missions to the
ISS, 2009-2011;
Challenges: No downmass capability.
Vehicle (ownership): Automated Transfer Vehicle (ESA);
Upmass capability[A]: Maximum capability is 16,535 pounds (7,500
kilograms), pressurized;
Downmass capability[A]: None;
Crew transport: None;
Status: One completed demonstration mission to the ISS to date;
NASA planned missions to the ISS, 2010-2013;
Challenges: No external capability.
Vehicle (ownership): H-II Transfer Vehicle (JAXA);
Upmass capability[A]: Maximum capability is 13,228 pounds (6,000
kilograms), pressurized and unpressurized;
Downmass capability[A]: None;
Crew transport: None;
Status: One completed demonstration mission to the ISS to date;
NASA planned missions to the ISS, 2010-2015;
Challenges: Limited unpressurized external cargo.
Vehicle (ownership): Commercial vehicle (SpaceX);
Upmass capability[A]: Up to 7,300 pounds (3,300 kilograms), pressurized
and unpressurized;
Downmass capability[A]: 3,748 pounds (1,700 kilograms);
Crew transport: Dragon space vehicle is designed to transport crew, but
COTS representatives stated that they have not yet received funding for
this capability;
Status: Under development; First mission to the ISS expected in 2010;
Challenges: A delay in availability would lead to a significant scaling
back of NASA's use of the ISS for scientific research.
Vehicle (ownership): Commercial vehicle (Orbital);
Upmass capability[A]: 4,400 pounds (2,000 kilograms), pressurized;
Downmass capability[A]: None;
Crew transport: None;
Status: Under development; First mission to the ISS scheduled for 2011;
Challenges: A delay in availability would lead to a significant scaling
back of NASA's use of the ISS for scientific research.
Vehicle (ownership): Ares I and Orion (NASA)[B];
Upmass capability[A]: To be determined;
Downmass capability[A]: To be determined;
Crew transport: Six crew members;
Status: Under development; First crewed mission to the ISS scheduled
for March 2015;
Challenges: First crewed mission not likely to be launched by the March
2015 scheduled execution date.
Source: NASA and GAO documentation.
[A] These figures depict total cargo capabilities of the various
vehicles, not upmass or downmass available for utilization of the ISS.
[B] Ares I and Orion are components of the Constellation program,
NASA's effort to develop a replacement for the Space Shuttle. This
program currently includes development of the Ares I and V rockets, the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, and eventually will include the Altair
Lunar Lander.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 13] 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.[Footnote 14] 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;[Footnote 15] 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,
[Footnote 16] 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.
High Costs and No Dedicated Funds for Developing and Launching
Research:
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.[Footnote 17] 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.
Limited Crew Time to Conduct Research:
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.
Figure 1: Weekly Crew Time Allocations among Russia and the
International Partners:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 pie-charts]
Allocation of available crew time among NASA and international
partners‘ six-person crew:
Russia: 50%;
NASA: 38%;
JAXA: 6%;
ESA: 4%;
CSA: 1%.
International partner hours available for research (excluding Russia):
NASA: 27;
JAXA: 4;
ESA: 3;
CSA: 1.
NASA‘s plans for use of its allocated crew time:
Human Research Program: 56%;
Other/National Laboratory research: 44%.
Source: GAO analysis of NASA data.
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 18] 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.
Uncertain Future for the ISS beyond 2015:
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.[Footnote 19] 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 2020ærequired by the NASA Authorization Act of
2008æstates 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.
NASA Is Considering Engaging an Outside Partner for ISS Management, a
Key Practice Found at Other National Laboratories:
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.
Central Management of Research:
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[Footnote 20] are federally funded research and development
centers (FFRDC) and operate as government-owned, contractor-operated
(GOCO) facilities.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 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[Footnote 23] that have signed
Space Act agreements with NASA;[Footnote 24] (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.
[Footnote 25]
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.
In-house Expertise:
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.
Significant User Outreach:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments:
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 [hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
Cristina Chaplain:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
November 18, 2009:
Ms. Cristina Chaplain:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Chaplain:
NASA appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report
entitled, "International Space Station: Significant Challenges May
Limit Onboard Research," (GA0-10-9).
In the draft report, GAO makes a total of seven recommendations
relating to utilization of the International Space Station (ISS). The
recommendations are distributed across two potential scenarios of ISS
utilization, specifically:
A. 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:
Recommendation 1: 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.
Response: Concur.
Recommendation 2: Further develop online ISS information materials to
provide easy access to detail about laboratory facilities,
opportunities presented by microgravity, available research hardware,
resource constraints, and the results of all past ISS research,
including both successes and failures.
Response: Concur.
Recommendation 3: As it 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 user.
Response: Concur.
Recommendation 4: If full utilization of available United States
operating segment facilities on board the ISS is not possible, consider
sharing excess research capacity with the international partners on a
quid pro quo basis.
Response: Concur.
B. 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 steps:
Recommendation 5: Implement the first three steps recommended above.
Response: Concur.
Recommendation 6: 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.
Response: Concur with comment. NASA agrees with the recommendation.
However, as noted by GAO in the draft report's conclusions (p. 27),
"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." Therefore, NASA will first look to
meeting this recommendation by establishing a "centralized management
body" internal to the Agency. This is essential to ensuring an
effective interface with an external organization(s).
Recommendation 7: 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.
Response: Concur.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this draft report. We are
looking forward to your final report to Congress. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact Mark Uhran
at 202-358-2233.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lori B. Garver:
Deputy Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cristina T. Chaplain, (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
NASA: Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain
Until a Sound Business Case Is Established. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-618].
Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2009.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] According to NASA documentation, this estimate includes
development, operations, cargo and crew transportation, Space Shuttle
costs, and costs to other NASA programs, but does not include Freedom
program costs of approximately $10 billion or international partner
costs.
[2] National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2008, Pub. L. No. 110-422 § 601. This act is herein called the NASA
Authorization Act of 2008.
[3] A microgravity environment is one in which the apparent weight of
an object is small compared to its actual weight; on board the ISS,
objects are in a microgravity environment because the ISS is in a
continual state of free fall toward the Earth. This state can be
achieved for short periods of time through free fall drop towers,
aircraft flying parabolic paths, and rockets flying suborbital,
parabolic paths, and for longer periods in orbiting spacecraft.
[4] ESA partners include Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom.
[5] According to NASA, to date every partner agency has implemented
research throughout both the USOS and the Russian segment.
[6] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The Vision for Space
Exploration (Washington, D.C., February 2004).
[7] After the delay, AMS is scheduled to be transported to the ISS on
one of the last Space Shuttle flights.
[8] National Research Council and the National Academy of Public
Administration, Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International
Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences
(Washington, D.C., 2003).
[9] National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2005, Pub. L. No. 109-155 § 507 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16767) (herein
referred to as the NASA Authorization Act of 2005).
[10] The ISS partners use a document called the Consolidated Operations
and Utilization Plan to project resources for strategic planning
purposes.
[11] GAO, NASA: Commercial Partners Are Making Progress, but Face
Aggressive Schedules to Demonstrate Critical Space Station Cargo
Transport Capabilities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-618] (Washington, D.C.: June 16,
2009).
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-618].
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-618].
[14] GAO, NASA: Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain
Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case Is Established, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 26,
2009).
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-618].
[16] This refers to the 2003 loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which
resulted in NASA suspending shuttle flights until 2005 while
investigations were under way.
[17] President Obama recently announced that $5 billion in American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds will be made available to support
NIH research; this may provide funding for NIH-sponsored ISS research.
[18] Six months is the standard ISS expedition duration.
[19] Recent news articles have indicated that Russia may be interested
in detaching from USOS and continuing operations if NASA decides to
cease its involvement in 2015. NASA does not believe that this is
technically feasible.
[20] Brookhaven's contractor is Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC, and
is in the ninth year of a 10-year contract; the contractor for Argonne
is UChicago Argonne, LLC, which has a 5-year contract renewable for 20
years.
[21] For more on the management of FFRDCs, see GAO, Federal Research:
Opportunities Exist to Improve the Management and Oversight of
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8,
2008).
[22] The alternative structure is a GOGO facility. DOE has only one
GOGO laboratory, the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
[23] This currently includes Ad Astra Rocket Company; Spacehab Inc.;
BioServe Space Technologies; Nanoracks, LLC.; and Zero Gravity Inc.
[24] National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-568, §
203 (1958). This act is commonly referred to as the Space Act and
agreements signed utilizing NASA's other transaction authority are
known as Space Act agreements.
[25] We did not assess the cost implications to NASA of establishing an
institute or other management structure. However, in NASA's 2002
International Space Station Utilization Management Concept Development
Study, NASA evaluators estimated a budget of about $90 million if a
national laboratory nonprofit institute were established with a
workforce of approximately 350; for a workforce of 1,000, the estimated
cost was about $200 million.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: