Engineering Challenges 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. 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 author(s) 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 supply from: 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 National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine 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- neering. 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. 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 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 vi Preface During the early 1960s, in the shadow of the Apollo lunar States space launch requirements, the potential need to up- landing program, NASA undertook the study of three “next- grade or replace equipment and components after Assembly step” scenarios for human operations and exploration in Complete, and the requirement to decommission and disas- space. In the then-named Advanced Manned Mission Pro- semble the facility. gram, a lunar base was studied, flight opportunities to Mars As the plans for this study were defined in detail, NASA and Venus through the 1980s were defined, and a conceptual and the National Research Council (NRC) decided the focus design of an Earth orbiting space station was developed. should be on the anticipated challenges in the continuous Although the lunar base and the space station concepts could operation and maintenance of the ISS after assembly of the have been implemented using existing technology, national on-orbit facility has been completed. This would encompass priorities dictated that these programs be deferred. Instead, the operational years, from late 2004 (if the current schedule the next major initiative in the development of flight systems holds) to 2020–2025. The final Statement of Task for this for the human exploration of space was the development of a study is a negotiated departure from the original language of reusable launch system, the Space Shuttle. the enabling legislation in the Appropriations Act of Octo- In the mid-1980s, with the Space Shuttle operating and ber 27, 1997, eliminating an assessment of the assembly available for crew rotation and logistic support, the space phase (i.e., the 46 component delivery and assembly flights station program was initiated. As the station design pro- during the five-year period for construction of the ISS on gressed through several interations between the mid-1980s orbit). The final charter for this study is defined in the fol- and the early 1990s, it was progressively reduced in size and lowing Statement of Task: scope because of escalating cost projections. The inter- national partners in the International Space Station (ISS) The study will assess the potential effect of long-term program include Japan, the European Space Agency, operational engineering issues on the budget and capabili- Canada, Italy, Russia, and Brazil. Russia’s participation in ties of the International Space Station (ISS) and, where full partnership with the United States includes the fabrica- appropriate, recommend procedures and hardware upgrades tion of ISS modules, the assembly of ISS elements on orbit, to mitigate their impact. The study will focus on the follow- and, after assembly is completed (so-called “Assembly ing issues: Complete”), day-to-day operation of the station. 1. Long-term ISS maintenance requirements. The U.S. Congress has maintained an intense interest in 2. Extravehicular activity (EVA) requirements to sup- the ISS program since its inception. In the Appropriations port ISS operations and maintenance (in light of Act of October 27, 1997, the Senate included language experience with the Mir space station). directing the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- 3. The use of an international fleet of launch vehicles to tion (NASA) as follows (Public Law 105-65): support the ISS. 4. The need for—and capability to—upgrade and replace ISS equipment and components after the station’s as- . . . . [undertake] a study by the National Research sembly is complete. This includes the need to replace Council . . . that evaluates in terms of the potential impact laboratory equipment as it becomes obsolete. on the Space Station’s assembly schedule, budget, and capa- 5. Decommissioning and disassembly of the station at bilities, the engineering challenges posed by extravehicular the end of its useful life. activity (EVA) requirements, United States and non-United vii viii PREFACE In March 1998, the NRC formed the Committee on the for ensuring access to the ISS. The board requested that the Engineering Challenges to the Long-Term Operation of the committee’s assessment of the national and international International Space Station, under the auspices of the Aero- launch vehicle fleet specifically address the ability of the nautics and Space Engineering Board, to carry out this task fleet to sustain the ISS throughout its operational lifetime. (short biographies of the committee members appear in That question was pursued with NASA and is addressed in Appendix B). In September 1998, the committee met with this report. NASA managers and congressional staff and was given pre- The committee would like to thank the many dedicated sentations by NASA Space Station program managers on individuals at NASA and their contractors who took the time the plans for the development, assembly, and operation of to answer the committee’s questions pertaining to the ISS. the ISS. Two more meetings of the full committee were held The committee would particularly like to thank Mr. Pat at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, in McCracken, NASA Headquarters, and Mr. Bruce Luna, December 1998 and March 1999 to gather more detailed NASA Johnson Space Center, for acting as liaisons between information. The full committee met again in May 1999 at NASA and the committee throughout the study. the NASA Kennedy Space Center to review the draft report. This report is the committee’s response to the Statement In addition to these meetings of the full committee, commit- of Task. The report has been reviewed by individuals chosen tee members met with staff at NASA Headquarters, the for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in Johnson Space Center, and the Goddard Space Flight Center, accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review as well as managers at several NASA contractor sites, and Committee of the NRC. The purpose of this independent conducted group assessments by telephone conference review was to provide candid and critical comments to assist throughout the study. the authors and the NRC in making the published report as This study focuses on the U.S. operation of the ISS after sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu- Assembly Complete, including cooperative efforts by the tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsive- United States and Russia. The study and the ISS program ness to the study charge. The review comments and draft have both benefited from lessons learned during the Phase 1 manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the portion of the ISS program (March 1995 to June 1998), dur- deliberative process. We wish to thank the following indi- ing which U.S. astronauts lived and worked on the Mir space viduals for their participation in the review of this report: station. A primary objective of the Phase 1 program was to develop an experience base in extended-duration space flight Aaron Cohen, Texas A&M University and space station operations for the United States. The com- George J. Gleghorn, TRW Space and Technology Group mittee, therefore, drew heavily on the experience of the U.S. (retired) astronauts who worked on Mir during the 33 months of the Richard Kohrs, Kistler Aerospace Corporation Phase 1 program, and the committee’s recommendations re- Walter B. LaBerge, Institute for Advanced Technology garding the ISS crew are, therefore, based largely on this (retired) unique experience base. The work of the committee was Louis J. Lanzerotti, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies enhanced in this regard by having one Phase 1 Mir astronaut Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University as a committee member and another who shared his experi- Cornelius J. Pings, Association of American Universities ences with the full committee in a briefing at the NASA (president emeritus) Johnson Space Center. The committee’s recommendations Norman E. Thagard, Florida State University pertaining to crew matters were developed through a variety John M. Logsdon III, Space Policy Institute of sources including: personal accounts of U.S. astronauts; NASA’s documentation of the Phase 1 Mir experience; While the individuals listed above provided constructive interviews of the Mir astronauts conducted as a part of the comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final con- “Living History” initiative in progress at the NASA Johnson tent of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee Space Center; and NASA’s responses to questions from and the National Research Council. committee members pertaining to the Phase 1 Mir experi- ence (included in this report as Appendix C). Thomas Kelly, chair The Governing Board Executive Committee of the Committee on the Engineering Challenges to the National Academies that approved the plan for this study in Long-Term Operation of the International Space November 1997 expressed a special interest in NASA’s plan Station Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 6 2 INTERNATIONAL LAUNCH VEHICLE FLEET 8 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 13 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 18 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 ix