Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Enninoor
y UllUII~I ye
to the Long-Term Operation of the
International Space Station
Committee on the Engineering Challenges to the Long-Term Operation
of the International Space Station
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract
No. NASW 4938. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this pub-
lication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or
agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-06938-6
Available in limited supplyfrom: Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, HA 292,2101 Consti-
tution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. (202) 334-2855
Additional copies available for sale from: National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue,
N.W. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. 1-800-624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington
Metropolitan area). http://www.nap.edu
Cover: Art by Marco Zambetti. Courtesy NASA, 1998.
Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
National Acaclemy of Sciences
National Acaclemy of Engineering
Institute of Meclicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate
that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr.
Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The
National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting
national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engi-
neer~ng.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences
to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of
policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsi-
bility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an
adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical
care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medi-
cine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Acad-
emies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are
chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R4
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
WILLL\M W. HOOVER, chair, U.S. Air Force (respired), Williamsburg, Virginia
A. DWIGHT ABBOTT, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California
RUZENA BAJSCY, NAE, IOM, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
WILLIAM F. BALEHAUS, JR., NAE, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
ACUITY I. BRODERICK, Aviation safetr consultant, CadeH, Virginia
AARON COHEN, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Sta bon
DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Lompoc, California
HOYT DAVIDSON, Donaldson, Lapin, and lenreHe, New York, New York
ROBERT A. DAVIS, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
DONALD C. FRASER, NAE, Boston Un~versitr, Boston, Massachusetts
JOSEPH FULLER, 1R., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
ROBERT C. GOETZ, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Paimdale, California
RICHARD GOLASZEWSIG, GRA, Inc., Jenlcintown, Pennsylvania
JAMES M. GUYE Al it, RoBs-Royce North American, Reston, V~rgnua
FREDERICK HAUCK, AXA Space, Bethesda, Maryland
JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus Industrie of North America, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE MUELLNER, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California
DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JAMES G. O'CONNOR, NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut
WINSTON E. SCOTT, Florida State University, Tallahassee
KATHRYN C. THORNTON, Un~versitr of Virginia, Charlottesville
DIANNE S. WILEY, Northrop Grumman, Pica Rivera, Califomia
RAY A. WILLIAMSON, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Staff
GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director
1`J
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON THE ENGINEERING CHALLENGES TO THE LONG-TERM OPERATION
OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
THOMAS KELLY (chair), Grumman Corporation (retired), Cutchogue, New York
JOHN E. BLAHA, United Services Automobile Association, San Antonio, Texas
BERT BULKIN, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (emeritus), Woodbridge, California
JOHN T. COX, CSC Healthcare, Warrenton, Virginia
LARRY E. DRUFFEL, SCRA, Columbia, South Carolina
JOEL GREENBERG, Princeton Synergetics, Princeton, New Jersey
HERBERT HECHT, SoHaR, Beverly Hills, California
ANDREW J. HOFFMAN, East Windsor Associates, Broad Brook, Connecticut
JACK KERREBROCK, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
DAVA NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
STEPHEN ROCK, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
THOMAS J. ALBERT, Study Director
GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
MARVIN WEEKS, Senior Project Assistant
v
OCR for page R6
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
WILLIAM W. HOOVER, chair, U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
A. DWIGHT ABBOTT, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California
RUZENA BAJSCY, NAE, IOM, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., NAE, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, aviation safety consultant, Catlett, Virginia
AARON COHEN, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station
DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Lompoc, California
HOYT DAVIDSON, Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette, New York, New York
ROBERT A. DAVIS, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
DONALD C. FRASER, NAE, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
ROBERT C. GOETZ, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, California
RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI, GRA, Inc., Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
JAMES M. GUYETTE, Rolls-Royce North American, Reston, Virginia
FREDERICK HAUCK, AXA Space, Bethesda, Maryland
JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus Industrie of North America, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE MUELLNER, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California
DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JAMES G. O'CONNOR, NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut
WINSTON E. SCOTT, Florida State University, Tallahassee
KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
DIANNE S. WILEY, Northrop Grumman, Pico Rivera, California
RAY A. WILLIAMSON, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Staff
GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director
v~
OCR for page R7
Preface
During the early 1960s, in the shadow of the Apollo lunar
landing program, NASA undertook the study of three "next-
step" scenarios for human operations and exploration in
space. In the then-named Advanced Manned Mission Pro-
gram, a lunar base was studied, flight opportunities to Mars
and Venus through the 1980s were defined, and a conceptual
design of an Earth orbiting space station was developed.
Although the lunar base and the space station concepts could
have been implemented using existing technology, national
priorities dictated that these programs be deferred. Instead,
the next major initiative in the development of flight systems
for the human exploration of space was the development of a
reusable launch system, the Space Shuttle.
In the mid-1980s, with the Space Shuttle operating and
available for crew rotation and logistic support, the space
station program was initiated. As the station design pro-
gressed through several interations between the mid-1980s
and the early 1990s, it was progressively reduced in size and
scope because of escalating cost projections. The inter-
national partners in the International Space Station (ISS)
program include Japan, the European Space Agency,
Canada, Italy, Russia, and Brazil. Russia's participation in
full partnership with the United States includes the fabrica-
tion of ISS modules, the assembly of ISS elements on orbit,
and, after assembly is completed (so-called "Assembly
Complete"), day-to-day operation of the station.
The U.S. Congress has maintained an intense interest in
the ISS program since its inception. In the Appropriations
Act of October 27, 1997, the Senate included language
directing the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion (NASA) as follows (Public Law 105-65~:
.... [undertake] a study by the National Research
Council . . . that evaluates in terms of the potential impact
on the Space Station's assembly schedule, budget, and capa
bilities, the engineering challenges posed by extravehicular
activity (EVA) requirements, United States and non-United
. .
vat
States space launch requirements, the potential need to up-
grade or replace equipment and components after Assembly
Complete, and the requirement to decommission and disas-
semble the facility.
As the plans for this study were defined in detail, NASA
and the National Research Council (NRC) decided the focus
should be on the anticipated challenges in the continuous
operation and maintenance of the ISS after assembly of the
on-orbit facility has been completed. This would encompass
the operational years, from late 2004 (if the current schedule
holds) to 2020-2025. The final Statement of Task for this
study is a negotiated departure from the original language of
the enabling legislation in the Appropriations Act of Octo-
ber 27, 1997, eliminating an assessment of the assembly
phase (i.e., the 46 component delivery and assembly flights
during the five-year period for construction of the ISS on
orbit). The final charter for this study is defined in the fol-
lowing Statement of Task:
The study will assess the potential effect of long-term
operational engineering issues on the budget and capabili-
ties of the International Space Station (ISS) and, where
appropriate, recommend procedures and hardware upgrades
to mitigate their impact. The study will focus on the follow-
ing issues:
1. Long-term ISS maintenance requirements.
2. Extravehicular activity (EVA) requirements to sup-
port ISS operations and maintenance (in light of
experience with the Mir space station).
3. The use of an international fleet of launch vehicles to
support the ISS.
4. The need for and capability to upgrade and replace
ISS equipment and components after the station's as-
sembly is complete. This includes the need to replace
laboratory equipment as it becomes obsolete.
Decommissioning and disassembly of the station at
the end of its useful life.
OCR for page R8
. . .
vile
In March 1998, the NRC formed the Committee on the
Engineering Challenges to the Long-Term Operation of the
International Space Station, under the auspices of the Aero-
nautics and Space Engineering Board, to carry out this task
(short biographies of the committee members appear in
Appendix B). In September 1998, the committee met with
NASA managers and congressional staff and was given pre-
sentations by NASA Space Station program managers on
the plans for the development, assembly, and operation of
the ISS. Two more meetings of the full committee were held
at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, in
December 1998 and March 1999 to gather more detailed
information. The full committee met again in May 1999 at
the NASA Kennedy Space Center to review the draft report.
In addition to these meetings of the full committee, commit-
tee members met with staff at NASA Headquarters, the
Johnson Space Center, and the Goddard Space Flight Center,
as well as managers at several NASA contractor sites, and
conducted group assessments by telephone conference
throughout the study.
This study focuses on the U.S. operation of the ISS after
Assembly Complete, including cooperative efforts by the
United States and Russia. The study and the ISS program
have both benefited from lessons learned during the Phase 1
portion of the ISS program (March 1995 to June 1998), dur-
ing which U.S. astronauts lived and worked on the Mir space
station. A primary objective of the Phase 1 program was to
develop an experience base in extended-duration space flight
and space station operations for the United States. The com-
mittee, therefore, drew heavily on the experience of the U.S.
astronauts who worked on Mir during the 33 months of the
Phase 1 program, and the committee' s recommendations re-
garding the ISS crew are, therefore, based largely on this
unique experience base. The work of the committee was
enhanced in this regard by having one Phase 1 Mir astronaut
as a committee member and another who shared his experi-
ences with the full committee in a briefing at the NASA
Johnson Space Center. The committee's recommendations
pertaining to crew matters were developed through a variety
of sources including: personal accounts of U.S. astronauts;
NASA's documentation of the Phase 1 Mir experience;
interviews of the Mir astronauts conducted as a part of the
"Living History" initiative in progress at the NASA Johnson
Space Center; and NASA's responses to questions from
committee members pertaining to the Phase 1 Mir experi-
ence (included in this report as Appendix C).
The Governing Board Executive Committee of the
National Academies that approved the plan for this study in
November 1997 expressed a special interest in NASA's plan
PREFACE
for ensuring access to the ISS. The board requested that the
committee's assessment of the national and international
launch vehicle fleet specifically address the ability of the
fleet to sustain the ISS throughout its operational lifetime.
That question was pursued with NASA and is addressed in
this report.
The committee would like to thank the many dedicated
individuals at NASA and their contractors who took the time
to answer the committee's questions pertaining to the ISS.
The committee would particularly like to thank Mr. Pat
McCracken, NASA Headquarters, and Mr. Bruce Luna,
NASA Johnson Space Center, for acting as liaisons between
NASA and the committee throughout the study.
This report is the committee' s response to the Statement
of Task. The report has been reviewed by individuals chosen
for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in
accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review
Committee of the NRC. The purpose of this independent
review was to provide candid and critical comments to assist
the authors and the NRC in making the published report as
sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu-
tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsive-
ness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We wish to thank the following indi-
viduals for their participation in the review of this report:
Aaron Cohen, Texas A&M University
George J. Gleghorn, TRW Space and Technology Group
(retired)
Richard Kohrs, Kistler Aerospace Corporation
Walter B. LaBerge, Institute for Advanced Technology
(retired)
Louis J. Lanzerotti, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies
Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University
Cornelius J. Pings, Association of American Universities
(president emeritus)
Norman E. Thagard, Florida State University
John M. Logsdon III, Space Policy Institute
While the individuals listed above provided constructive
comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final con-
tent of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee
and the National Research Council.
Thomas Kelly, chair
Committee on the Engineering Challenges to the
Long-Term Operation of the International Space
Station
OCR for page R9
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
2 INTERNATIONAL LAUNCH VEHICLE FLEET
Crew Transport, 8
Propellant Resupply and Reboost, 8
Alternatives to Resupply by Progress, 8
Logistics Transport, 10
Crew Return Vehicle, 10
U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicles, 11
Assured Access to the ISS, 11
Role of the International Launch Vehicle Fleet, 12
3 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND RELIABILITY
Daily Flight Crew Scheduling, 13
Onboard Maintenance, 13
Staffing of the Operations Control Center, 14
Communication with Principal Investigators, 14
Payload Specialist, 15
Crew Handover, 15
Onboard Failure Detection and Corrective Action, 15
Safety, Reliability, and Maintainability Program, 16
Spare Parts Philosophy, 16
4 EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY, ROBOTICS, AND SUPPORTING
TECHNOLOGIES
Extravehicular Mobility Unit and Extravehicular Activity Tools, 18
Prebreathe Procedures, 19
Space Suit Upgrades, 20
Reliability of the Simplified Aid for Extravehicular Activity Rescue (SAFER), 20
Robotic Systems, 21
Visual Inspection Aids, 21
Advanced Robotic Technologies, 22
Extravehicular Activity and Robotics, 23
Six
6
8
13
18
OCR for page R10
^
5 [QUOTIENT UPGRADED SOFTWARE, AND CO~UNICATIONS
Com~c~ion~ 24
Payload Co~uhng Support, 25
Housokooping Co~uhng-H~dw~c Pa 25
Sonar, 25
Tclocom~nic~ons Sccudty, 26
Summed, 27
6 [ND-OF-LI~ DISPOSAL
APPENDIXES
A St~cmcut of Task, 33
B Biopr~bica1 Skotchcs of Com~Ucc ~c~cr~ 34
~ Pbasc 1 air Program, 36
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
24
~0
~0
43
