"We think crew time is probably the driving resource," said Michael Hawes, who manages the station program at NASA Headquarters.
Another factor is the so-called S-6 array of solar power cells and batteries, which was also removed from the blueprint. Losing the S-6, which was supposed to provide one-quarter of the electrical power used by the U.S., Japanese, European and Canadian modules, would further constrain the station's scientific capabilities. Said Hawes, "We're looking at the cost of finishing that element and bringing it to flight, versus the cost of not utilizing it, or maintaining to be used at a future time."
For scientists, these developments cast a shadow of uncertainty over the ISS' scientific potential. From the program's inception, many scientists have been critical of the station's multibillion-dollar price tag, which they say has drained money away from other space research efforts. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has answered these complaints by pledging that the ISS will be a "world-class" research facility in Earth orbit. Now, with the reductions announced last week, NASA will have to work harder than ever to make good on that promise.
One of the ways NASA hopes to do this is to emphasize experiments that can function autonomously, or that can be operated by commands from researchers on the ground. Said another station manager, who asked not to be identified, "We always recognized that there would be a need for these [types of experiments]. And now the need would increase if the crew is going to be even more severely limited than we anticipated."
An exhaustive reexamination of the ISS research program has just begun, and will continue for the next three months. The roster of experiments that emerges from that study, said the manager, "will have a much different character than the one we have today. We can still do top-quality experiments. We'll have to do them differently."
[uplink]
Asked to give an example of specific changes that might be made, the manager said, "I think everything is still possible if we make the right decisions. A lot of it is a quantity question. You may not be able to do as much research in a given area as you were previously. But at this stage, I cannot say categorically that there's a single type of experimentation that will not be pursued." Added the manager, "We'll know a heck of a lot more in about 90 days."
But some kinds of experiments will surely require the attention of the astronauts, said physicist Joe Alexander, who heads the Space Science Board advising NASA on its research programs. While experiments in materials processing, for example, might be automated, he said, that's less true of studies in life sciences. "If you're growing plants," he said, "you've got to monitor them; you've got to take samples. You've got to freeze or examine specimens on a periodic basis. With rodents, or other animals, there's only so much automation that one can do there."
"There's no doubt that the return is much greater when you have a crew," said a NASA station manager. "You can always improve the quality of the experiments when you can directly interact in the experimental process. You cannot automate the human brain. So we will always be moving in the direction of restoring the crew. It is our first priority."
Alexander noted that a small centrifuge module, whose future is also uncertain, is a must for high-quality research. The centrifuge would subject plant or animal specimens aboard the station to the force of gravity -- in 1-G, or fractions of a G -- providing a control for analyzing data from experiments made in weightlessness. "The centrifuge," said Alexander, "is an important part of the suite of life-science hardware."
Still, Alexander is upbeat about the ISS. "I've always been one of those people who hoped that it would be a place where people would do world-class science. And I've never given up on that hope."
advertisement
