This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
ISS News

NASA Still Has No Clear Idea How To Use the International Space Station

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 15, 2017
Filed under
NASA Still Has No Clear Idea How To Use the International Space Station

Keith’s note: After spending decades and tens of billions of dollars NASA still cannot implement a strategic plan for the use of the ISS or explain how it plans to transition from the ISS to future facilities. If NASA cannot get it right in low Earth orbit, how can they expect to build even more complex facilities near the Moon or at Mars?
Did NASA Deliver The ISS Transition Plan To Congress Required By Law? Update: No, earlier post
“In other words the [ISS Transition Plan Congress requires – by law] is late, has not been delivered, NASA does not know when it will be delivered. NASA is not going to tell anyone when it has been delivered and people will have to go ask Congress where the report is – whenever NASA gets around to delivering it.”
NASA Makes Progress Toward Space Exploration Science Priorities Outlined in 2011 Decadal Survey, Should Develop U.S. Strategy for International Space Station Beyond 2024, NAS
“Although NASA has made progress toward the overall space exploration science priorities recommended in a 2011 decadal survey by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the space agency should raise the priority of scientific research that addresses the risks and unknowns of human space exploration. This heightened priority is particularly important given the limited remaining lifetime of the International Space Station (ISS) – the most significant destination for microgravity research – and because the U.S. currently does not have a strategy for the station beyond 2024, says a new midterm assessment report by the National Academies.”
A Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA, NAS
“… In assessing the progress of implementation of the decadal survey portfolio, the committee found difficulty in navigating the research tracking within various parts of the Agency that report on research alignments with the decadal recommendations. While overall programmatic attention to space life and physical sciences was readily apparent in the many presentations from NASA to the committee, a cumulative alignment or mapping of agency research projects to specific decadal survey recommendations proved problematic.”
“… It is essential that NASA as quickly as possible develop a International Space Station-post-2024 strategy. This development factors strongly in the overall exploration strategy, space life and physical sciences research priorities, and resource allocation in terms of crew time, cargo delivery, and funding. This post-2024 strategy should address clear cost allocation among the various research activities and partners.”
“… The committee has seen that microgravity research is included in the SBIR and STTR topic areas. However, NASA does not track the SBIR or STTR projects against the decadal survey priorities, and therefore neither NSBRI, SBIR, nor STTR research results entered into any attempts to map inputs to specific decadal survey recommendations.”
“… The committee was further briefed on approximately 2,000 ground-based studies reported through the SLPSRA Task Book database: nearly 200 studies reported by CASIS; a large, yet undetermined, amount of funding for intramural directed intramural research projects; and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ground- and space-based studies sponsored by NASA’s international partners. Through individual queries to representatives of SBIR/STTR, the committee also learned of potentially hundreds of relevant SBIR/STTR research projects. Unfortunately, no mechanism currently exists, particularly in the Task Book, to summarize this vast body of research in a manner that allows mapping to specific priorities.”
“… This allocation of resources can lead to allocation difficulties, because the various entities having different, and sometimes competing, priorities negotiate for resources. As in the case for Space Biology, shown in Figure 2.9, while both CASIS and NASA may start off with similar fundamental science needs, the NASA needs for flight medicine to enable humans to go to Mars can pull research in a very different direction than the CASIS need to produce medicinal results relevant back on Earth. Sometimes research can synergistically serve both needs; however, this creative tension between legitimate end goals does not always result in commonality of science needs or resource utilization.”

Earlier posts on ISS and CASIS

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

15 responses to “NASA Still Has No Clear Idea How To Use the International Space Station”

  1. Vagabond1066 says:
    0
    0

    Nasa doesn’t spend money to build rockets; they build rockets to spend money. The agency is nothing but a pork spending program for certain congressional districts. Space is simply the excuse they use to do so.

    • Michael Genest says:
      0
      0

      You really should try to avoid embarassing yourself in public by making such astoundingly petty and ignorant comments. As someone who was fortunate enough to be a part of NASA’s human space flight operations for over 30 years, I can assure you that NASA is so much more than a ‘pork spending program for certain congressional districts’. But I don’t imagine a bitter troll is really interested in having the positives of NASA explained to him. So sad……

  2. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Why would they? Government only builds things, it is up to entrepreneurs to figure out business models based on it.

    The first node on what would be the Internet was created in August 1969 by DARPA, but it took over 20 years for entrepreneurs to find uses for it beyond government researchers simply transferring data or sharing time on mainframes. The government built the National Defense Highway system to move troops in wartime, but entrepreneurs used it for suburbs, shopping malls and fast food outlets.

    It will be the same in space. But not with the ISS which is far too expense and complex to access.

    • Tim Blaxland says:
      0
      0

      Sure. So now NASA are meant to come up with a transition plan that says how they are going to get from here to there – that’s one of the things Congress is asking for.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        So are we all.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The transition plan is actually simple. Drop the ISS in the ocean and rent space on a BA330. The cost would be $500 milllion for the same level of research that is possible on the ISS. The other $2.5 billion is used for renting space at a Bigelow or Blue Origin Moonbase.

        The ISS is the classic example of a horse designed by an international central planning committee of experts.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          When assessing costs and projections from NASA, I’m always mindful of SLS.

          Assuming for the moment that SX, BO, and SLS are essentially equal, valid approaches to lofting heavy objects.

          What is to be learned when we look at the huge margin that NASA is paying for essentially the same thing?

          If you are with me so far, the next question is obvious: what do we make of NASA’s reported and projected costs to operate ISS?

          IF the space station is something useful, is there a way to avoid The Splash with some sort of private partnership?

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Watching the SX pre-launch news conference when the Deputy ISS Chief Scientist was introduced (Dr. Allen not present). Then curious, I went to the inter webs. The OCS, as it is called, has lots of Big Dogs: https://www.nasa.gov/office….

    The About OCS page gives us what these folks do:

    Preserve and promote the integrity and credibility of NASA scientific research programs.

    Identify opportunities to leverage the science assets of individual organizations and missions to the maximum benefit of the agency.

    Demonstrate and communicate the societal impact and breadth of NASA science investments.

    Foster communication and coordination within and outside the science community at NASA.

    “Huh!”, I thought. That sounds a lot like our friends over at CASIS! They sure have a lot of people in similar jobs, anyway: https://www.iss-casis.org/a

    So, I thought, “That’s a lot of firepower! They must have a lot of projects going on!”

    But they don’t, actually. I’ve been reading here all these years while Keith beats CASIS senseless, figuring he’s got a burr under his saddle for some reason but never going any further.

    But as far as I can see, based on what’s on the web, there’s an awful lot of overlap here with very little to actually show for it other than these ‘ARK’ things that CASIS talks about.

    What do all these scientists actually do, anyway?

  4. Robert Rice says:
    0
    0

    I thought the plan was to crash the whole thing into the sea after 2024….has that changed?

    • Tim Blaxland says:
      0
      0

      Yes, but basically Congress wants NASA to tell them if they extended ISS beyond 2024, what would they do with it and how much would it cost. I think the idea is that the post-2024 ISS strategy can be analysed against competing options (eg, Moons, Mars, and beyond), and some priorities set.

  5. Neal Aldin says:
    0
    0

    I think you need to have an understanding of how the organization has evolved over the last 20 years. At one time there was 1 science organization at Johnson. The organization had real life scientists doing life science research, real space scientists doing space science research, and real engineers designing spaceships, integrating science on space missions, and ensuring astronauts were well taken care of. Science was a major element of human spaceflight. At that time the Chief ISS Scientist was part of the Science Directorate. In many ways the science directorate served as customer and catalyst, making certain integration processes were reined in so it was not so difficult, time consuming or expensive to fly experiments and payloads. They were catalysts worked with scientists, providing grants, and making certain there was an adequate base of science being performed.

    This was all true through Apollo, Shuttle, Spacelab, Spacehab, NASA Mir and all of Freedom and the first ~7 years of ISS.

    Then several schisms and takeovers. The life scientists did not want to have anything to do with integrating and flying spaceships. They were medical doctors and scientists and wanted to do life science research. They did not want to have anything to do with space science. So science was weakened. Others in ISS Program, Mission Operations And Engineering all thought they could take advantage. ISS Program took over science integration; people took charge who had no experience and no knowledge of science integration. All processes were trashed. The US ISS Program is still trying to figure out how to do the job. The other internationals were not as callous, careless, or knowledgeless. The Chief Scientist and the money for nationwide grants was moved out of the Science organization and into the ISS Program. Then the ISS Program redirected money from scientists into ISS engineering and operations. So science was left with no defined integration processes, 10 year long and very expensive integration schedules and costs, but not to worry, since there were no longer grants and no mechanism in place for NASA scientists to work with and fund most science efforts, there was little science being developed to integrate. Its not completely true; life scientists survivéd with a pretty well supported group. If research was ongoing at other centers, some of those efforts survived, like the Lewis (now Glenn) flame experiments. Flight ops did pretty well, with lots of people, promotions and jobs, but with no Shuttle and little new science or utilization on ISS, a lot less to do. Engineering did OK for awhile except that they came to the conclusion a lot of the engineers were failing to understand a lot about human integration into space systems. Orion is one result. Too big, too heavy for its prime function; other hardware has been given back to life sciences, which is interesting since ensuring humans were properly integrated into the system and ensuring NASA was actively developing science for human space flight were the reasons why the Space and Life Science Directorate existed in the first place.

    What do the ISS scientists do? I would say most communicate the potential value of ISS for science. So marketing might be the ISS scientists’ main function.

  6. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Maybe it’s time we actually figured out some useful science to do on the ISS. As a platform for both Earth and space observation and a fueling/servicing site fo space probes and satellites, it might have real potential.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      I’ve wondered about that and come to two possible conclusions:

      1. The ISS is a badly designed research platform;

      or

      2. The ISS is a badly managed research platform.

      Is it possible that ISS just isn’t suitable for research?

      Where is the outcry from the research community about ISS shortcomings? Nowhere, ASAIK, nor do I know how to interpret the silence.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        You have good points (your points are usually good!). If you look at early space station concepts they did not have the luxury of high resolution imagery or computer for control, memory and data transmission. So maybe people are needed less now than they once were. When the space station was conceived as a construction project for Shuttle, the station was only supposed to be one element, There were supposed to be other satellites flying in formation, man-tended. To large extent I think this happens today with Cubesats. There is not a robust servicing or launch capability yet. Astronauts have reported that the station is clean, maintainable, and its modularity makes it reconfigurable so these are all good things. It is not at all like Mir which was difficult to maintain, dirty, contaminated, cluttered and which by this time had been dumped in the ocean. ISS might easily go decades longer. The real failing seems to be failure to maximize the use of ISS. Look at how NASA’s science mission directorate selects a Principal Investigator to manage the mission and the program. They know what their mission is supposed to support. I don’t get the impression that manned spaceflight is set up that way; these folks operate a station they have not really planned to use.