NASA has work to do if the International Space Station (ISS) is to become a top-notch laboratory in space and a research outpost enabling long-duration human exploration in the future, according to an independent analysis.

A National Research Council (NRC) report issued today concludes that recent actions taken to reduce crew time, equipment and facilities make it unlikely that the ISS will become a world-class research facility as originally envisioned. Furthermore, scientific community interest in using the orbiting research station is in jeopardy and NASA's primary goal for the station is not clear.

The report is the second in a two-phase NRC evaluation that explores how best to use the ISS for research in the biological and physical sciences.

Former astronaut James Bagian, now with the National Center for Patient Safety for the Veterans Health Administration, chaired the NRC Task Group on Research on the International Space Station. The 11-person blue-ribbon study team included medical specialists, engineers, and physicists.

Their analysis was performed for NASA at the direction of the U.S. Congress.

In the latest analysis, the Task Group focused on a NASA-backed, cost-cutting "Core Complete" space station configuration. This truncated vision from a much grander complex includes:

• Reduction of the full-time crew from six or seven to three
• Deletion of a number of major planned science facilities
• Reduction in the number of annual shuttle flights to service the orbiting outpost

The report concludes: "The proposed approach to prevent a 20 percent increase in total ISS costs -- about $5 billion --has made it impossible to provide for a full complement of seven crewmembers, which would have yielded a 900 percent increase above current plans for crew research availability. Without a solution to the crew availability problem, and other limitations in facility access and operations, the ISS can never achieve the status of a world-class research laboratory."

This dramatic reduction in available crew time, according to the analysis, "provides a space station with less time available for research than 30 years ago on the U.S. Skylab."

Other key findings of the newly issued study:

• The most widespread and significant impact stems from the 85 percent reduction in crew time available for scientific activities. This means that only 20 hours per week are available for scientific work, without taking into account the impact that unplanned activities may have.
• Decisions to cancel or greatly delay experimental facilities and equipment were made in the absence of cross-disciplinary priorities to guide the selection process. Many vital pieces of experimental gear have been eliminated or indefinitely postponed.
• ISS international partners will also experience major reductions in their ability to perform science on the station.
• Many U.S. experiment racks have been eliminated or delayed indefinitely. Scientific disciplines most severely affected are materials science, fluid physics, fundamental biology, and muscle and bone physiology.
• The "upmass" -- sending cargo to the station -- and stowage volumes for experiments will be severely curtailed due to shuttle flight reductions and ISS facility changes.
• These factors along with related a poor NASA and ISS track record for meeting schedule, budget, and scientific priority targets further detract from the ability of the ISS to garner support of the scientific community.

Today's report makes recommendations for improving the situation. If followed, the study group suggests, these proposals "would have the greatest impact on fulfilling the research potential of the ISS."

The NRC panel stresses that a cross-disciplinary research plan, along with science objectives for the space station, is a top priority. NASA should coordinate human physiological research and "operational medicine" aboard the ISS to ensure that crew care is not compromised and new physiological data can be obtained.

On the international front, NASA should promote further collaborative interactions with international partners in all scientific disciplines. Doing so would enable research that the United States cannot accomplish given the constraints of a Core Complete space station.

Regarding crew time, the NRC panel urges NASA to "re-evaluate its requirement of emergency crew return capability as the best approach to crew safety." However, if that condition is retained, the space agency should develop a plan to meet that objective for the full seven-member crew. Also, given a Core Complete version of the ISS, NASA must come to grips with how much crew time is available to carry out science duties.

Lastly, the report notes that a plan must be scripted for ISS experimental equipment and facilities. This gear must be consistent with the scientific priorities of NASA and the ISS that is achievable under current conditions. The study group warns that such a plan "is critical to assure that the ISS has a scientific future."

"At present, the primary goal of the ISS is unclear," the NRC study observes.

"A tension seems to exist between enabling the human exploration of space and activities that have intrinsic scientific importance. These two categories are not mutually exclusive but without a cross-disciplinary prioritization both within and across these two categories, intelligent use of the scarce and costly resources of ISS is impossible."

Who's in Space Now? Complete ISS Coverage