O'Keefe: Science Goals Setting ISS Capability

Frank Morring, Jr. / Washington

Scientific priorities set by a top-flight outside scientific panel will help NASA decide how much capability it wants to build into the International Space Station, according to Administrator Sean O'Keefe, who anticipated the priorities would serve as a "good running start" on setting a final ISS configuration.

That start turned out to be anything but a blast out of the blocks, however, as NASA's independent advisory body reacted to the priority report with concern it could be used as justification for killing the station project. Former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) cautioned that the report would be "dynamite" in the hands of station foes on Capitol Hill.

Speaking on July 9, the day before the Research Maximization and Prioritization (Remap) task force delivered its findings to the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), O'Keefe said the priorities would be one factor in setting ISS crew size, and not the other way around. Present Bush administration plans limit the station to a crew of three, but O'Keefe suggested that might grow if warranted by scientific requirements.

"I don't have any particular fondness for any individual answer that's driven by numbers of crew," O'Keefe said in an interview at NASA headquarters. "Whatever number of crew is required to accomplish the scientific objectives we all agree to is what we ought to build the capacity to."

Crew size was not the only limiting factor in meeting task force priorities. NASA projections of the amount of equipment and supplies that must be launched to ISS after 2007 suggest there may be no room on the four shuttle flights a year allocated to ISS under present plans for any scientific experiments. Beyond setting research priorities for the orbiting laboratory, the Remap panel recommended NASA drop the claim ISS is "a science-driven program" unless it can expand station resources beyond those currently planned in the "core complete" configuration.

"Science can still be done on space station, but it certainly couldn't be characterized as a science-driven program," said Dr. Rae Silver of Columbia University, who chaired the Remap task force. "[NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research] OBPR's implementation analysis [found] that implementing the high-priority research, given current and near-term plans, would be difficult. Crew time, resupply mass and facilities are major factors."

Remap members encouraged "vigorous attention" to the problem of crew time available for science on ISS, and urged NASA to fund such "high-priority" onboard research facilities as a centrifuge and habitats for plant and animal test subjects. In setting the actual scientific research priorities Remap was created to recommend, panel members were driven by two overarching qualities -- enabling human exploration of space, and "intrinsic scientific merit."

In the former "broad category," Remap members listed radiation health, behavior and performance, advanced life support and clinical/operational medicine. In the latter, they included studies of phase transformation, condensed matter, fundamental laws, kinetics structure and transport, fluid stability and dynamics, energy conversion, and cell and molecular biology. Research that fell into both categories included propulsion and power, integrated physiology, environmental monitoring and control, and organismal and comparative biology.

"Prioritization between these categories is a NASA programmatic decision," the panel stated. But it ranked existing research areas managed by the OBPR into four priority levels, with almost half of them as top priority and only one -- "bio- inspired/microfluidics technology" -- recommended for possible termination (see chart).

The panel also reccommended that once the present cycle of station assembly draws to a close one of the three crewmembers be designated the "science officer," with at least a third of the available crew time dedicated to science and the other crewmembers helping with science when they can. To select specific research projects, the panel recommended using the program-manager style of directed research used by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as well as the peer-reviewed approach to open solicitations NASA follows today.

Although the scientific community has sharply protested the Bush administration's decision to hold crew size to three until the "credibility" of ISS program accounting can be restored, the Remap finding that four shuttle flights a year won't be enough to support station science was a surprise. Mary Kicza, associate administrator for the Office of Biological and Physical Research, said the "up mass" requirements for station maintenance and support increase as core-complete hardware, including the international partner modules, is delivered.

That prediction, and the recommendation that NASA stop claiming the station is science-driven, drew a warning from former astronaut Glenn, who said "the negatives are the things that will get emphasized. . . I think this is sort of dynamite as far as supporting the program goes."

Within hours he was proved correct, although the first shot was fired by a station supporter, using the Remap report as ammo. Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas, ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee, issued a statement blasting O'Keefe and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over its station policy.

"It is past time for the NASA Administrator to stop pretending that a "Core Complete" Space Station is a viable or a desirable goal for the nation and our international partners," Hall stated. "It is neither. OMB's approach will waste both time and money over the long run while failing to realize the unique potential of this international research facility."

The report also drew fire from A. Thomas Young, the former Lockheed Martin executive who headed the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation task force formed after NASA conceded it has a $4.8-billion shortfall in funding to complete the original seven-person station. Young complained that the Remap's scientific priorities did not meet his panel's recommendation that an outside body examine all station priorities. However, O'Keefe said in the interview the day before that other factors will be included in the list of station priorities that determines its ultimate configuration.