Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/STATION/STFSEP91.NWS

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 39KB | 661 lines

"6_10_8_14.TXT" (38037 bytes) was created on 09-21-91
SEPTEMBER 1991 STATION BREAK
SPACE STATION FREEDOM NEWSLETTER

House, Senate Vote For Station Funding

A House-Senate Conference Committee is expected to have difficult
discussions at the month's end over differences between their two
separate Space Station Freedom 1992 funding bills.  NASA's overall
budget of about $15.8 is contained in an $81 billion funding bill
that funds Housing and Urban Development, Veteran's Administration,
and numerous independent agencies.
     At July's end, the Senate voted 64 to 35 to continue station
funding at $2 billion for 1992, a slight increase over the 1991 level
of $1.9 billion.
     After a passionate debate on June 6, the full House voted 240 to
173 to approve a $1.9 billion 1992 fiscal year budget for space
station.
     During the day-long House debate, space station advocates
pointed to past exploration achievements, and warned opponents that
killing Space Station Freedom would be tantamount to killing NASA's
manned space program.
     Opponents of the program argued that the money could be better
spent on other programs, as well as arguing that the station is the
wrong next step for future space exploration.
     Urging his colleagues to approve funding for space station,
Congressman Norman Mineta, D-CA, said, "It is time for Congress to
stop playing with the future and start building it."  Mineta is on
the House Committee on Space Science and Technology.
     NASA Administrator Richard Truly said the House vote "was a big
victory for all America."
     Space Station Freedom Director Richard Kohrs agreed, "This is a
good sign.  We had a lot of good support on the House floor.  It was
a good vote for NASA. We will keep pushing full speed ahead on this
program."
     Truly said, "This is not an issue of being for or not for the
space station; it's an issue of being for or not for the space
program."
     The House vote rejected the unexpected House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Veteran's Administration, Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies' earlier recommendation to kill
the station program.  The VA-HUD & Independent Agencies
appropriations subcommittee had excluded funding for Freedom in its
overall fiscal year 1992 $81 billion spending bill, H.R. 2519.
     President George Bush has requested $2.028 billion for the 1992
station budget, a 7 percent increase.  The House's $1.9 billion mark
would freeze the station at its current fiscal year level.
     A bipartisan-sponsored amendment to the overall spending bill
restored funding to the program.  This amendment, sponsored by Reps.
Jim Chapman, D-TX, and Bill Lowery, R-CA, achieved funding for
Freedom by freezing other program funds within NASA at the 1991
spending level, as well as some programs within the VA-HUD &
Independent Agencies' jurisdiction.
     Speaking on the House floor, Chapman said, "With Space Station
Freedom, there can be no serious debate that we will make scientific
discoveries.  We will make medical breakthroughs, we will improve
technologies, and we will, by virtue of those discoveries and those
advancements, improve not only our country, our future, our youth,
but yes, in fact, all mankind."
     Begging the question of canceling Freedom, Lowery asked, "Do we
now erase the dream?  Do we stop here and tell our children: it was a
good idea but we are not going to conquer the next frontier?  Do we
tell them to be content to watch science fiction and count the
satellites that are successfully launched?
     "Our children are falling behind most other countries in test
scores in math and science.  The Soviet Union is graduating five
times as many engineers as the United States, while Japan, with only
half of our population, now outproduces the U.S. in many critical
science education ideas," Lowery said.
     In support of the Chapman amendment, Congressman George Brown,
D-CA, was greeted with a round of applause after a moving speech.
     "One of the most profound emotional experiences of my life was
when we had the first Moon shot, and I took my father, who was then
nearly 80, and one of my neighbors, who was 10, down for that event.
Throughout the life of my father, who recently passed away, he said
that that was one of the most significant moments of his life,
watching that first vehicle leave the Earth and go to the Moon.  My
nephew has said the same thing for over these past 20-odd years.
     ". . . So my emotional attachment to the space program, which is
lifelong, has not gone away, but it has been replaced by a solid,
pragmatic economic and political analysis that our future as a leader
in the world, the economic health of this nation, and the ability of
our children to expect a higher standard of living depends on our
willingness to commit ourselves to the support of this program.  I
promise you the space station means, if we lose it, that from now on
we see a 10 percent per year decline in our investments in space, and
that will be reflected in the health of this nation."
     Rep. Mel Levine, D-CA, said, "But there is far more at stake
with Space Station Freedom than the romance of manned space travel.
Let me remind my colleagues that the money used to build the space
station is not being sent into orbit.  It is being spent here on
planet Earth -- creating highly skilled jobs -- 78,000 of them so
far, and putting money into communities in 40 states."



Protein Study Helps Researchers Understand Our World

     Hovering around a computer screen, several biochemists are
intent on a full-color simulation of a protein found in the human
body.  The simulation, something like a roller-coaster ride over the
protein molecule, is helping the scientists envision the
three-dimensional structure of the molecule in their efforts to map
its features.  This is no whimsical excursion across a multicolored
terrain, but the result of nearly a century of careful research into
the structure and behavior of proteins.
     The molecule under scrutiny is human purine nucleoside
phosphorylase (PNP), a protein that destroys some anti-cancer drugs.
The architecture of the PNP molecule may provide researchers with the
key to designing a therapeutic drug that is not vulnerable to human
PNP.  This particular molecule comes from a protein crystal that was
grown in the low-gravity environment of space where quiet conditions
allow the three-dimensional crystals to form.
     These and other crystals have been grown on nine Space Shuttle
experiments flown since 1985.  Sponsored by the Microgravity Science
and Applications Division (MSAD) of the Office of Space Science and
Applications, along with the Office of Commercial Programs, protein
crystal growth experiments will fly frequently in the next five
years.  Then in 1997, using the information gathered from flying
these experiments for over a decade, MSAD will launch the Advanced
Protein Crystal Growth Facility (APCGF) to the station.  Researchers
will use the long-duration microgravity on Freedom and the APCGF's
advanced tools to improve the quality of their protein crystals.
     Investigators expect that the microgravity environment available
in low-Earth orbit will allow them to grow highly ordered protein
crystals.  These crystals can be analyzed using X-rays to map their
structures.  Once the protein's structure is understood, researchers
can identify active sites on molecules where the actual work of the
protein is performed.  If these sites can be located, it may be
possible to develop procedures to influence protein functions.
     Proteins are present in all forms of life.  They are large,
complex compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and
sometimes sulfur that are essential to all biological functions.
Animals, including humans, depend on proteins to form, grow, and
repair tissues, to reproduce, and to combat disease.  Each protein is
a very specific arrangement of amino acids, and the work each
performs is determined by its arrangement.  The human body can
manufacture thousands of different proteins simply by changing the
order of the amino acid chains, but the body cannot synthesize all of
the amino acids essential for life; some are available only through
food products.
     Scientists know that the analysis of crystalline forms of
proteins can reveal much about how they work.  Although some
substances, like table salt, form crystals quite readily, proteins
require specific conditions of temperature and chemical concentration
in which to crystallize.  Protein crystals grown on Earth under the
influences of sedimentation and convection are often so highly
disordered that their structures cannot be analyzed.  In space, with
the force of gravity greatly reduced, crystals can grow relatively
unperturbed.
     In experiments designed for the low-gravity environment of the
orbiting Space Shuttle, where the effects of sedimentation and
convection are nearly eliminated, scientists are attempting to grow
well-ordered crystals of important animal and plant proteins.  One
experiment recently flown in the Shuttle middeck was designed to grow
crystals of the protein canavalin, a readily available protein food
source found in high concentrations in jack bean seeds.  If a
high-quality canavalin crystal can be grown and its molecular
structure better defined, scientists may be able to improve the
nutritional value of the jack bean through protein engineering.
Current flight experiments grow protein crystals by the vapor
diffusion process, a technique based on the behavior of different
amounts of proteins and precipitating agents (typically salts) in
water.  Solutions of proteins and precipitating agents are held
separately in double-barreled syringes located within small chambers.
The chambers also contain absorbent reservoirs saturated with
precipitant solutions in higher concentrations.
     The experiments begin as a crew member turns a handwheel to
unplug all the syringes.  With the handwheel in another position, the
crew member operates pistons in each syringe that push the protein
and precipitant solutions out of their respective barrels.  The
solutions mix and form a droplet on the tip of each syringe.
     Because the water content is greater in the droplet than in the
reservoir, water vapor will move from the droplet to the reservoir,
thus increasing concentrations of both the protein and the
precipitant in the droplet.  When these concentrations reach a
certain level, the protein molecules begin to align, forming crystals
suspended in the droplet.  Growing well-ordered protein crystals is a
slow process.  Often taking weeks or months to grow in Earth-based
laboratories, these crystals have only a few days to grow onboard the
Shuttle.  Freedom will allow researchers to grow  protein crystals
over much longer time periods, and will allow them to use a variety
of crystal growth technologies.
     At the end of each Shuttle mission, the protein crystals are
withdrawn back into the syringes for return to Earth.  Once in
ground-based laboratories, scientists bombard the space-grown
crystals with X-rays to study the diffraction patterns produced by
electrons in individual crystals.  These patterns, called electron
density maps, resemble topographic maps and suggest the contours of
the protein.  The information from the maps is analyzed by computer
to generate images of the protein molecule's three-dimensional
structure.  From computer models, scientists identify the positions
and kinds of amino acids that make up a protein.
     Many researchers believe that low-gravity protein crystal growth
experiments can make significant contributions to the fields of
biochemistry and molecular biology.  The results from space
experiments to date have been encouraging.  Several protein samples
have generated crystals that are better than the best crystals grown
on Earth.  These space-grown crystals have been used to significantly
improve the models of their protein's structure.  As we improve the
quality of our space experiments we expect to grow even better
protein crystals.
     The improved understanding of protein structures from crystal
growth experiments may create benefits in a number of biotechnology
applications.  Analysis of crystal structures gives researchers a
systematic approach for designing proteins used as industrial
catalysts, agricultural products, and pharmaceuticals.
     For example, plant geneticists have bred improved food crops for
years, but it is a time-consuming task, often based on
trial-and-error.  If a protein engineer could determine whether a
different arrangement of amino acid chains in a plant protein might
enhance the nutritional value or stamina of a crop, more
pest-resistant and energy-efficient varieties might be developed
faster and cheaper.
     What we learn through protein crystallography also may broaden
our understanding of how the human immune system operates.
Theability to develop a detailed understanding of the factors that
can inhibit or enhance the function of a protein may prove to be the
tool that researchers need to understand auto-immune diseases (such
as rheumatoid arthritis), tissue transplants, cancer and viral
diseases, and other human ailments for which there are no cures.
     For further information on the Advanced Protein Crystal
Facility, call Joel Kearns, APCGF Program Manager, at [phone].



Truly, Darman Defend Station, Exploration

     Just days before the full House voted  to restore 1991-level
funding for Space Station Freedom, Office of Management and Budget
Director Richard Darman and NASA Administrator Richard Truly told a
House authorization panel that killing Freedom could devastate
America's space program.
     First and foremost, Darman told the House Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, "The practical reality of the moment is this:
A failure to fund the redesigned station Freedom will effectively
postpone manned exploration by at least a decade.  If one is serious,
the time to commit is now."
     "It is difficult to discern any satisfactorily defensible logic
in a vote to kill Space Station Freedom at this point," Darman said.
"The arguments for cancellation simply do not withstand inspection."
     Emphasizing that point, Truly said, "America has a great deal to
lose as a nation if those budget deliberations result in the
cancellation of Space Station Freedom."
     " . . . Development and assembly of Space Station Freedom is our
commitment to furthering America's leadership in space.  To turn our
back on funding Freedom would eliminate a permanent American presence
in space and put our space program in great jeopardy.
     "It also would put at risk our role as a world leader in science
and high technology, our ability to compete in the world marketplaces
of today and the emerging markets of tomorrow, and our ability to
make and fulfill international commitments," Truly said.
     "Despite what the critics say, investment in Space Station
Freedom does not sacrifice domestic programs; Space Station Freedom
is a domestic program of the utmost importance to our people," Truly
said.
     If the Freedom program is canceled, Truly said, "We would
undercut a major U.S. market area of world-class competition --
aerospace.  Aerospace is one of the United States' most important
industries, and it is one of the few areas in which we still enjoy a
favorable balance of trade, nearly $28 billion in 1990 . . . Space
Station Freedom will drive advancements in aerospace that will
maintain our leadership in this important technology area."
     Setting Freedom aside also would mean abandoning efforts to
conduct basic scientific investigations in materials science and
biotechnology in a premier space laboratory for extended periods,
Truly said.  Not only will America abandon its technological and
scientific efforts in space, but the nation will lose its credibility
for cooperating in large-scale international endeavors, he said.
     "Fourth, cancellation of Space Station Freedom would mean a
total disruption of America's manned space endeavors.  This action
would have a devastating impact upon the unique and highly refined
institutional base resident at NASA and its contractor/university
teams.
     "For those of us who have spent a lifetime working in the space
program, space is more than a job -- it is the realization of our
nation's destiny.  I realize there are people out there who think
that the space program is a frivolous adventure with no real payoffs,
something that can be put off until tomorrow.  But these people have
failed to learn the lessons of history and fail to appreciate the
power of ideas and the value of exploration," Truly said.
     Hitting that point home, Dar-man said, "America did not rise to
this remarkable position on the strength of votes for the status quo.
America will not preserve its position -- or fulfill its historic
responsibility -- with short-sighted votes of retreat," Darman said.
     "The moving concept, 'the American Dream,' has never been static
or closed or merely material.  Our culture has defined itself as
uniquely open, expansive, courageous, risk-taking, and
forward-looking -- not intimidated by limits, but challenged by them;
not crowded by technology, but determined to use it to advance man's
highest aspirations," Darman said.
     "And so it will be, one day, with the vast resources of space:
Future generations will be delighted to have developed them -- and
may even take them for granted," Darman said.
     Darman said each of the major arguments against building Space
Station Freedom represents "a curious fallacy."
     First, "The Deficit-Reduction Fallacy.  From a fiscal
perspective, the failure to appropriate $2 billion for Space Station
Freedom would not 'save' a dime.  Under the budget agreement, total
discretionary spending is set.
     "What is at issue is the allocation, not the total.  Indeed, the
appropriations committee has already proposed to reallocate and spend
every single penny that would otherwise go to Freedom," he said.
     Failure to fund Freedom would  reduce related jobs in 24 states,
and it would break international commitments to Canadian, European,
and Japanese partners.   Second, "The There's-gotta-be-a-better-way
Fallacy. .
. Looking forward, one can confidently predict that there
will be better approaches than the current design, which may be used
in the future.  That is the nature of progress from a progressive
perspective, it is close to trite to note that there may be a better
way . . . Progress does not come without beginnings.  And if the rule
were never to proceed if better alternatives might be conceived,
there would be no beginnings.
     "A decision to wait for the 'better way' to space would be a bit
like telling the 19th-century wagon masters who led Americans west,
'Don't go to California now.  Wait a century and your descendants
will be able to fly to San Francisco by air,'" he said.
     Third, "The Spend-the-'savings'-on-science Fallacy.  There is a
group of well-meaning scientists and science advocates who favor
Freedom's cancellation in order to allocate the 'savings' to purer
forms of science," Darman said.
     Their positions rest on two premises:
     Number one, that space exploration is not a science.  This,
however, ignores the idea that exploration can enable, stimulate and
inspire science.
     Number  two, that 'savings' from reduced space exploration will
be given to other science projects.
     Darman said, "The reality is that appropriations will tend to do
exactly what the station-killing committee has proposed to do:  give
no more to science than in the President's budget; reduce station to
zero; and reallocate every single dollar thus 'saved' to
non-science."
     Fourth, "The Poor-return-on-investment Fallacy (Type One:
Methodological Error).  Some critics of Space Station Freedom
criticize it as if it were a single-purpose enterprise . . . But, of
course, Space Station Freedom is intended to serve multiple purposes,
and to expand incrementally with relatively low-cost modular
additions," he continued.
     Fifth, "The Poor-return-on-investment Fallacy (Type Two:
Imaginative Error). . . The obvious point is:  Exploration is up to
something somewhat larger than narrowly focused evaluations can
capture -- larger even than the pioneering participants themselves
can imagine . . . If Columbus's trip to America had been similarly
evaluated, he would have been forbidden to sail on the grounds that
the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria were not the most
cost-effective means to research motion sickness."


Partners Prepared to Explore Space Alone


     Testifying in June before a House panel, two of NASA's
international partners said they would pursue their own spacefaring
agenda if Congress abandons the Space Station Freedom program.
     "Failure by the United States to live up to its commitments in
the international space station partnership will fundamentally
influence Europe's plans, but not stop the pursuit of its own
ambitions to implement manned and man-tended orbital facilities,"
said Jean-Marie Luton, director general of the European Space Agency
(ESA).
     To date, Luton said, ESA's member states have spent the
equivalent of $1 billion U.S. dollars.  "Furthermore, Europe is the
second largest contributor to the international space station, and
plansto spend over five billion U.S. dollars to implement its
program, Columbus.  Of course, entering the international space
station project also represented a significant political commitment
on Europe's part, first to permanent manned use of space and, second,
to international cooperation," Luton said.
     Echoing those words, Dr. Kenji Funakawa, executive
vice-president of the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) of
Japan, testified,"Japan has made its best efforts to fulfill its
responsibilities to contribute to the space station program since we
accepted the U.S. invitation to the program.  Therefore, if the
program were to be canceled, our tremendous efforts in reforming the
organizational structure, securing contracts, taking part in
international restructuring activity, and securing support of the
Diet and the government would be all in vain.
     "This would not only have a great negative impact on the
Japanese space development program, but would make it difficult for
Japan to proceed in the future with international cooperative
programs with the United States in the field of space activities,"
Funakawa said.
     Because Canadian law prohibits officials from testifying in a
foreign country, no one represented the Canadian Space Agency.
     John Boright, deputy assistant secretary for science and
technology affairs with the state department, warned the House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that killing the Freedom
program would likely jeopardize all international projects involving
the United States.
     "Because of the space station's major foreign policy dimensions,
we are deeply concerned by the recent move in the Congress to kill
this important program," Boright said.
     "Our concern for continuance of the space station program
springs from the belief that a successful foreign policy must be
rooted in the concepts fundamental to the relationship of the U.S. to
its major friends and allies:  leadership, competitiveness,
reliability, and partnership," Boright said.
     "It is important to bear in mind that the Europeans, Japanese,
and Canadians accepted our invitation only after lengthy internal
consideration and debate.  The Canadians and Japanese had doubts
about making such a large proportion of their space programs
dependent upon a cooperative programwith the U.S.  One-half of
Canada's expenditures on space go to Space Station Freedom;  the
entire Japanese manned space program has been structured around the
Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), their contribution to the space
station.
     "In Europe there was intense debate between those who favored
cooperation with the United States and those who preferred investing
in autonomous programs competitive with our own . . .
     "They will incur significant additional costs related to U.S.
withdrawal from the program," Boright said.


ECLSS Water Scrutinized in Taste Tests at MSFC

     Most of us take for granted our seemingly endless supply of
fresh water.  Few of us give thought to the gallons we go through on
routine activities every day...not really knowing where it comes
from...or where it goes.
     However, scientists and engineers at NASA's Marshall Space
Flight Center are giving it a lot of thought.  They have the
responsibility for developing a water recycling system for America's
planned orbiting laboratory, Space Station Freedom.
     Each of the four crew members aboard Space Station Freedom will
use about 50 pounds of water a day.  Without an efficient system for
reusing this water over and over again, around 10 tons of water
would have to be sent to the space station every 90 days...requiring
special Space Shuttle flights just for the replenishment of the water
supply.
     "We couldn't afford to logistically carry that kind of weight
back and forth into space every 90 days.  We've got other cargo we
want to take.  And so the crew is depending on this reclamation
system to not only provide safe water but water that they would enjoy
using," said Kenny Mitchell.
     For months a group of 50 volunteers has visited a NASA
laboratory that simulates conditions on the space station.
     They've been exercising, cooking meals, washing clothes, and
showering  --  all to donate the kinds of waste water Freedom's crew
will produce and which engineers are using to test the water systems.
     Special systems collect their respiration and perspiration from
the area for reprocessing back into drinking water, and their shower
and wash water and urine are collected to reuse for wash and toilet
flush water.
     After it's processed and declared safe for reuse via a battery
of chemical tests, the drinking water is put through a much more
subjective human test to gather data that machines and chemical
analysis can't provide.
     "We're having 50 to 100 people taste the water, and give us
their subjective assessment of the quality of it.  It will be like
the old Coca-cola or Pepsi test where they don't know which one's the
real one, so they'll have some statistical data we can work with,"
Mitchell said.
     After they've recorded their evaluations, the test subjects are
told what they've tested.  "It was indistinguishable from tasting tap
water, I couldn't tell the difference," Robert Schmid said.
     "The water was much better than tap water, it has a much milder
flavor," Mary Delaney said.
     "It tasted very similar to tap water, and I rated it very high.
So there really wasn't that great a difference that I could tell,"
Mike Sosebee said.
     Based on the  initial results, the test director is confident
the team can overcome the remaining hurdles in this first-of-its-kind
technological development.
     "The data we're getting back indicates that the water we're
producing is very clean.  It meets all the water purity standards
that we've established for this test," Robert Bagdigian said.
     The water recycling system is to be installed on Space Station
Freedom later this decade.


Division to Help User Through Paper Maze

     Editor's Note:  This article,  the first of a regular series on
Space Station Utilization, summarizes the activities performed by the
Operations and Utilization Division.  Future articles will focus on
the utilization program and will present such topics as the station's
accommodations for user payloads, the process users follow to put
payloads onto Freedom, and the different types of users who will
likely use Freedom's capabilities.

     Space Station Freedom will offer users a new space research
opportunity:  long-duration human-assisted experimentation in a
permanently orbiting spacecraft.  From the beginning, one of
Freedom's primary program goals has been to design the station to
accommodate a wide range of user payloads.  The "Space Station
Freedom Operations and Utilization Division at NASA Headquarters will
push to achieve this goal by designing a set of policies and
processes to guide users' participation in the program."
     The Operations and Utilization Division is responsible for a
number of long-term utilization planning tasks.  The division works
with the science, technology and commercial organizations of NASA ?
known as the "user organizations" -- to identify what they expect
from the Freedom program.  This planning ensures that the station can
meet the user's needs and that each payload satisfies Freedom's
stringent technical and safety requirements.
     The Operations and Utilization Division also develops the
policies that guide how the program will  integrate a payload for
operations aboard Freedom.  Milestones with user selection, lead to
pre-launch processing -- such as payload testing user training and
safety reviews  -- and flight operations, and concludes with payload
deintegration and user debriefing.  Program planning for the payload
integration process is already underway, in anticipation of having
user payloads operating on Freedom by the mid-1990's.
     In addition, the Operation and Utilization Division is preparing
information to help the researchers throughout their involvement in
the Freedom program.  Brochures, user guides that describe the
utilization process, station capabilities, and user responsibilities
are now being developed.  As users are selected to participate in the
program, division members also will work with NASA's user
organizations to make sure payload requirements are met and the
integration process is followed.  An annually updated five year
strategic plan also will be provided.  The strategic plan will be
used by the program to manifest payloads to specific flights to the
station and for the development of detailed station and payload
operations plans.
     The Operations and Utilization Division also is responsible for
long-term planning for the station's operation.  The division
develops high-level operational requirements to ensure efficient
operation, maintenance and resupply trips.  Other operations
activities include developing operations cost management policies and
procedures, developing crew selection and training criteria and code
of conduct, and coordinating joint activities with the Space Shuttle
program.
     The Operations and Utilization Division also will make sure the
systems and facilities required to integrate and operate the station
are developed.  To accomplish this, operations and utilization has
set stringent requirements and has negotiated the multi-program
agreements designed to better assure that essential capabilities are
available when needed.  The division also is supporting the
development of advanced communications capabilities and information
systems to enable control and operation of station systems and
payloads on orbit.  As part of this effort, the division also
coordinates security issues within NASA.



Designers Meet to Discuss Standard Rack

     Designers from throughout the Space Station Freedom program met
in July to meld minds on the revised International Standard Payload
Rack agreement, also known as the Tokyo II agreement.
     The International Standard Payload Rack agreement is designed to
ensure that racks from one area of the station can be moved to a
different laboratory without changes, and so researchers can design
their payloads to fit in any rack.
     Each laboratory also must provide standard interfaces, standard
utility options, and module-specific utilities for all international
standard payload racks.  The racks also must accommodate two
side-by-side 19-inch standard drawers.
     Fitting all of the utilities in the limited space available
remains one of the designers' toughest challenges.  For instance,
making room for an air tube that runs in and out of the bottom of the
rack has meant experimenting with a variety of materials and shapes
for the tube.  "It's sort of like trying to put a jig-saw puzzle
together," said Livingston Holder, a Boeing technical liaison for the
internationals.  "This method may not be the most efficient way to
achieve tubing, but it's the best solution to meet the Tokyo
agreement for rack interchangeability.  This design is a little
easier for the European Space Agency and Japan to work with because
they have fewer utilities to consider."
     The program also is considering building 14 functional computer
mockups that will resemble the station's operational capabilities, so
"users can get a feel  for the make up of the system," Holder said.
"It will simulate most of the computer functions that will be
required for experiments, but it will not simulate the gases and such
that may be used."
     These computer mockups, if approved, should be ready for use by
October of 1993.  The different users divisions within NASA must then
decide who gets to use the mockups and when.  "It will depend greatly
upon the timing of the payload."
     Potential users of the station who attended the meeting also
learned that the program still eventually intends to provide
teleoperation from a researcher's own laboratory.  "That's what we're
working on, especially during the untended phases," said Steve
Noneman, a payload rack engineer with Marshall Space Flight Center.
     Noneman also said the role of the Payload Operations Integration
Center has basically remained the same.  "The biggest change is that
they will use the existing facility at Marshall, instead of a new
building."

JSC Issues Contract Modification for McDonnell Douglas

     The Johnson Space Center, Houston, has executed a supplemental
agreement that provides for changed requirements to the Space Station
Work Package 2 Design, Development, Test and Evaluation contract with
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co., Huntington Beach, California.
     This modification adjusts the contract to include the results of
the Space Station Freedom Program review activities of 1989,
including the change to requirements resulting from the Program
Requirements Review that occurred in September and October of 1988,
the Program Technical Audit of March 1989 and the Space Station
Freedom Program Configuration Budget Review of October 1989.
     These activities resulted in lengthening by 17 months the Work
Package 2 effort to June 30, 2000 and included such requirement
changes as architectural control document updates, change from AC to
DC power, addition of the responsibility for secondary power
distribution, addition of the Avionics Development Facility, and a
switch from hardware designed for flight to prototype such as
dedicated test articles.
     The negotiated amount for the modification is $597 million
making the new estimated value of the cost-plus-award-fee contract
$3.5 billion.  The majority of the work will be performed at
McDonnell Douglas facilities..


Station Evolution Begins with Today's Plans

     Eventual evolution of Space Station Freedom from the baseline
configuration begins now, said Office of Space Flight Chief William
Lenoir  and Johnson Space Center Director Aaron Cohen as they kicked
off an August evolution symposium.
     Lenoir, keynote speaker at the "Space Station Evolution: Beyond
the Baseline" conference, challenged more than 600 attendees to move
forward with the program as it is currently designed.
     "We cannot be afraid to move forward with something that's less
than perfect.  If (we stopped) every time we discovered a better way
to do something we would never get off the drawing board.  We would
still be talking about going to the moon."
     "During the past year we have been going through the birth pangs
of a new project not unlike those we experienced at the beginning of
Apollo and Shuttle," he said.
     Budget problems, intense public debate, technical issues and
schedule slips are nothing new to NASA, he said.
     "Those pangs in the birth of a program are really nothing
different and are typical of every program you have seen, but I have
to say that through the past year or so the space station project has
solved those problems," Cohen added.
     Outlining the completion of the preliminary design review in
July and station facilities construction projects completed or near
completion, Cohen said, "this is not a paper program, this program is
real and it's moving and it's going to be done."
     Reaching the goal of having a useful, permanent outpost in space
will be challenging, he said.
     "We must redouble our efforts to get costs down and quality up
and we must sharpen our sensitivity to the needs of the scientific
community and to the expectations of the American public," Cohen
said.
     Lenoir said the near-term challenge for a station capable of
being evolved is getting started now.
     "It's far better to do something, get started, figure out how to
do it better and get better.  That is what evolution is all about,"
Lenoir said.
     Freedom will help maintain United States leadership, he said,
warning that we are in danger of giving away what was handed down to
us.
     "We were handed a position of leadership from our parents and
grandparents.  If we are not careful, we will consume it and hand our
kids no leadership," Lenoir said.
     Reaching man-tended configuration with the station in 1996 and
permanently manned capability in the 2000 time frame remain prime
goals of the program.  But planners also continue to look to the
future.
     "The important thing is that we have a space station that we are
using so that we can learn what the real questions are we should be
asking," Lenoir said.
     The three-day conference investigated strategies, concepts, user
requirements, and growth potential for the international space
station.