As people move toward fully realizing the research opportunities afforded by the International Space Station and look ahead to the next generation of hardware development and research to be conducted, they can look back on the earliest cooperative efforts, like Spacelab, and reaffirm that space truly is an international arena.
Say the words “space race,” and pretty much anyone in the United States, young or old, will think of the Cold War competition between the United States and the former Soviet Union to be the first to land a human on the Moon. Most people would also probably believe that during that period, from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, international cooperation in space wasn’t ranked high on anyone’s priority list.
“But inter-national cooperation has always been there at the policy level at the White House, from Kennedy on,” says Jeff Bingham, senior adviser to the Administrator for policy and history at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
In fact, Bingham notes that on September 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy, in a speech at the United Nations, proposed that the United States and the Soviet Union work together on a joint mission to reach the Moon. Kennedy’s comments were the outgrowth of a conference Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had attended in Vienna, Austria, earlier that year. But at that time, Kennedy’s proposal went unheeded, and the stage was set for the race that followed.
Above: Spacelab, designed to fit in the space shuttle cargo bay, marked the beginning of real international cooperation in space. European and American collaboration on the design of and research aboard Spacelab paved the way for making the vision of a space-based multinational research community – currently embodied in the ISS – a reality.
Science Fiction Foretells Reality
Meanwhile, in the entertainment industry, at about the same time that the space race was truly heating up, a cult classic was born. Gene Roddenberry, a former police officer, developed a television program that he called Wagon Train to the Stars. This program, ultimately retitled Star Trek, ran for three years before being cancelled and going into syndication in 1969 – shortly before Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
While the United States and the Soviet Union were racing to the Moon, Star Trek’s characters were travelling to galaxies far beyond. That original Star Trek series may now be viewed as somewhat politically incorrect, but the cast of characters certainly foretold one aspect of the real future in space. On the bridge of the starship U. S. S. Enterprise were Americans, a Japanese, a Russian, and a Vulcan. Engineering was handled by a Scot. Later versions of Star Trek went even further, adding characters from other planets in faraway galaxies. A federation of cultures joining together to explore space for peaceful purposes was the premise for the adventures of the Enterprise’s crew. International collaboration in real life may have begun for more practical reasons, but it has developed to be as inclusive – barring extraterrestrials – as Roddenberry envisioned it.
Back to the Plan
In the real world, the United States was redefining its space program, identifying its purpose and determining its next step. Says Bingham, “When NASA was established, its first long-range plan, issued in January 1959, included a permanent space station.” And using space for research was a part of that vision.
But the program took a detour from the space station path, as Charles Walker, space systems business development and marketing senior manager for the Boeing Company and a former payload specialist, noted at the Spacelab Accomplishments Forum, held in Washington, D.C., in March 1999. The early human programs like Mercury included some basic research, but then political goals – such as being the first country to put a person on the Moon – overtook research goals. Walker also pointed out that once the political aims of the Apollo program had been met, the U.S. space program returned to its research orientation, developing a temporary space station, Skylab, using Apollo hardware and systems.
“[Skylab] offered spacious accommodations for researchers,” said Walker. “Solar physics, Earth resources, life sciences, and space technology were all investigated there. It was an important step along the way, taking us from just intellectual inquiry about this environment to one in which we have continuing hands-on research.”
Despite the success of Skylab, political and budgetary realities prevented any action on a permanent space station from going forward. In 1972, approval was received for the space shuttle program, known as the space transportation system (STS), in which a reusable vehicle would make routine trips to orbit lasting several days to several weeks. At around the same time, the idea for Spacelab, a pressurized laboratory module that would fit in the space shuttle cargo bay to provide an environment for conducting hands-on research, was born.
Right:
The Spacelab module provided a shirtsleeve research environment, with research equipment contained in racks, seen here, with handrails attached for the astronauts to get around the lab.
Walker noted that with Spacelab, real international cooperation in space began. The first Spacelab module was to be given to NASA by the European Space Research Organization (ESRO, which later merged with another organization to become today’s European Space Agency, or ESA). In exchange for building the module and system of removable cargo pallets, the European space research community was to receive use of 50 percent of the Spacelab’s first flight.
Blazing an International Trail
The building of Spacelab by Europeans to fit into an American-designed, American-built space shuttle was an enormously complex project, not without its difficulties and pitfalls. The Europeans had not been involved in human space travel prior to that time, nor had they worked on a space engineering project that large. Numerous cultural differences had to be overcome, not the least of which were differences in spelling and measuring systems. Europeans working on Spacelab had to convert American inches to millimeters and had to be aware that Americans used decimal points in the places where Europeans used commas.
The European work also required a great collaborative effort. At the Spacelab Accomplishments Forum, Klaus Berge, director of space projects at the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) and a former managing director and deputy director general of the German space agency, Deutsche Agentur für Raumfahrtangelegenheiten (DARA), noted that work on Spacelab was truly Europe-wide, with subcontractors in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom, in addition to Germany.
The first Spacelab, which flew on STS-9 in 1983, carried more than 70 experiments spanning a number of research areas — astronomy and solar physics, space plasma physics, atmospheric physics, Earth observations, life sciences, and materials science – and utilized 38 experiment facilities. One of those facilities, the Materials Science Double Rack, was used by the crew to conduct 30 experiments for 44 investigators in the areas of crystal growth, fluid physics, and metallurgy.
The 15 life sciences experiments included research on the radiation environment and on measuring central venous pressure, as well as on human immune responses, production of red blood cells, and changes in the vestibular system (the organs that allow the body to recognize its orientation in space) in a microgravity environment.
This flight of Space Shuttle Columbia also marked the flight of the first astronaut to represent ESA in space, Ulf Merbold of Germany.
In early planning, it was agreed that 50 percent of research time, crew time, power, and mass would be allocated to the Europeans, and the first Spacelab mission was viewed as two payloads, the NASA half and the European half. In reality, according to forum participant Harry Craft, vice president of information systems for COLSA Corporation in Huntsville, Alabama, there was a lot of give and take, and by the time Spacelab flew, everyone had begun to treat it as one science payload. He added that on subsequent missions, the science community was much more involved in deciding how to divide resources.
A Cooperative Mission Series
After the success of the first Spacelab mission, officials at NASA and ESA put together a science working group to explore the joint utilization of Spacelab for a four-mission series called the International Microgravity Laboratory (IML). The IML missions are a particularly shining example of the type of international research collaboration that occurred during the space shuttle era.
In the fall of 1984, representatives from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the countries represented by ESA met with NASA to work out the details of the IML series of flights. The first IML flight was scheduled to launch in May 1987, but the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger put human spaceflight on hold for nearly three years. When space shuttle operations began anew, the backlog of payloads awaiting flight necessitated reducing the number of IML missions from four to two, and the first IML mission (IML-1) was launched on STS-42 in January 1992.
Above:
Onboard Discovery, the seven crewmembers of IML-1 pose in the Spacelab module for the traditional in-space portrait. Pictured clockwise from the top are Commander Ronald Grabe, Payload Commander Norman Thagard, Payload Specialist Roberta Bondar (CSA), Mission Specialists William Readdy and David Hilmers, Pilot Stephen Oswald, and Payload Specialist Ulf Merbold (ESA, Germany). Merbold was the first astronaut to represent ESA in space.
Mike Sander, now project manager of the Mars 2009 Smart Lander Project, was director of the Spacelab Payloads Engineering Division prior to the IML-1 flight. Says Sander, “One of the first things I did [after being named director] was try to take an inventory of what equipment we had to take advantage of this new facility [Spacelab]. It was pretty clear that there was very little hardware available to investigators in the U.S. materials world and relatively little money in that division to build additional instrumentation.
“So with this new hat on, I went to Europe and was talking to [a German ESA member], and he started wringing his hands at having the Materials Science Double Rack [used on the first Spacelab mission], as well as other equipment, but not having flight opportunities. It wasn’t rocket science to come up with a notion that says, ‘Look, here’s this really good European equipment, and here’s this dearth of equipment in the U.S., but we’re rich in flight opportunities.’
“So we basically came up with a formula that said if the Europeans kicked in their equipment and if the U. S. science community could propose experiments that made good use of that equipment, then we could put together a deal where the Europeans would give half of their operating time on their equipment to U.S. investigations, and we would then fly the European hardware in this dedicated International Microgravity Lab series.”
Left:
Astronauts Roberta Bondar, of the Canadian Space Agency, and Stephen Oswald, of NASA, work in the Spacelab module during the IML-1 mission. IML-1 flew research for more than 200 scientists from 13 countries and included both physical and life sciences experiments.
Indeed, IML-1 flew with research from more than 200 scientists from 13 countries. Six inter-national space science research organizations were represented: the Canadian Space Agency (CSA); the DLR; ESA; the French space agency, Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES); NASA; and the National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA). ESA provided Spacelab, NASA provided Space Shuttle Columbia and a second Spacelab flight set, and the remaining organizations contributed various types of hardware.
Right:
Astronaut David Hilmers is the test subject sitting in the rotator chair for the Microgravity Vestibular Investigations (MVI) on IML-1, which flew in January 1992. In the MVI, researchers from Canada, the United States, and other countries examined the effects of orbital flight on the human orientation system to obtain a better understanding of the mechanisms of adaptation to orbit.
Among the physical sciences research conducted during the mission were experiments studying liquid-vapor critical point transitions, electrophoresis, the physics of gas bubbles, metal alloys, and protein crystal growth. Many of the life sciences experiments were based on results of previous space investigations. Of particular interest to researchers were the adaptation processes the human body undergoes when exposed to microgravity. Studies of the vestibular, nervous, circulatory, skeletal, muscle, and metabolic systems were undertaken on IML–1. In addition to human-based investigations, researchers studied the effects of microgravity and radiation on the development, behavior, and reproduction of slime mold, yeast, hay-bacillus, and Drosophila fruit flies, as well as their effects on different mammalian cell cultures.
Below:
Onboard Space Shuttle Columbia on the first day of the IML-2 mission, Mission Specialists Leroy Chiao (top) and Donald Thomas (bottom) start life sciences experiments in the Rack 5 Biorack. Chiao is placing a sample in the Biorack incubator, while Thomas handles a sample in the Biorack glovebox, which is used for preparing samples for the Biorack or the German-designed slow-rotating centrifuge microscope (NIZEMI).
A second International Microgravity Laboratory (IML-2) mission flew on STS-65 in July 1994. A total of 15 countries conducted 77 research experiments in the areas of materials science, fluid physics, life sciences, and bioprocessing.
The IML missions carried not only international research but also international crews. IML-1’s seven-member crew included Payload Specialists Roberta Bondar from Canada and Ulf Merbold from Germany. Japanese astronaut Chiaki Mukai made her first spaceflight aboard IML-2; she later became the first female Japanese astronaut to fly into space twice.
The Spacelab Experience
Over its 17-year flight history, the Spacelab program hosted payloads for practically every research discipline that NASA pursues. In all, 19 space shuttle missions carried life and microgravity sciences research into orbit and resulted in more than 750 experiments and more than 1,000 peer-reviewed articles, as well as numerous talks, abstracts, and master’s and doctoral theses.
The international nature of the program continued and included a mission that was dedicated solely to Japanese research (Spacelab J) and two missions dedicated to German research (Spacelabs D-1 and D-2). A Spacelab module was even flown as a cargo carrier to the Russian space station, Mir, during the first space shuttle-Mir docking mission in the Shuttle-Mir Program.
Right:
Crewmembers on STS-47 in the Spacelab module conduct experiments during the Spacelab J mission, which was dedicated solely to Japanese research.
The Spacelab program enabled the international research community to learn how to cooperate on research of mutual interest and how to share and disseminate data. Perhaps the most important outcome of the Spacelab program, after the valuable scientific knowledge that was gained, was the foundation that was built for successfully integrating research on the International Space Station (ISS).
Says Bingham, “The fact that the Europeans were involved [in Spacelab] was a major factor in establishing the continuing validity of international cooperation for that kind of effort. It sparked a lot of interest on the part of the Europeans, especially for participating in any next step, so that when NASA began pursuing a space station in earnest in the early 1980s, there was inter-national interest expressed to NASA.”
Bridges Built
The invitation to make the space station an international venture also had support at a White House policy level. As Bingham notes, “In the early 1980s, when NASA was considering what a design [for the space station] would look like, international co-operation was mentioned, but it wasn’t pitched to the president in that context. [President Ronald Reagan] added that element when he decided to build Freedom [the first iteration of what became the ISS]. So when he made the first announcement, he said he would do this with international partners.”
The agreements to build an inter-national space station were also made at this top level. Peter Ahlf, deputy division director for research integration within the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR), explains, “First of all, there’s an intergovernmental agreement, or IGA, which is signed at the State Department level. IGAs are multilateral, which means that all of the participating countries actually sign the agreement. In the case of the ISS, even the ESA member states that are participating individually each signed the agreement, along with the State Department and its equivalents on the Canadian, Japanese, and Russian sides. The current IGA governing development and construction of the ISS was signed by all participants on January 29, 1998.
“Below IGAs, we have memoranda of understanding (MOUs), which are the agree-ments between NASA and the cooperating international space agencies. These agree-ments specify major elements and the broad allocation of rights to those elements.
“At the science level,” he continues, “we have different working groups that sit down and look at our mutual interests in science, and we have made separate agreements on how to cooperate at the [research] rack level.”
Forging Partnerships
To ensure that participating countries have a fair chance of getting research on the station and that the research slated for the ISS is of the highest quality, two international working groups were created: the International Space Life Sciences Working Group (ISLSWG) and the International Microgravity Strategic Planning Group (IMSPG).
Says Ahlf, who sits on ISLSWG, “NASA has two representatives on each of these working groups. In the case of ISLSWG, the official agency membership includes Canada, Europe, Japan, Ukraine, and France and Germany, who are also member states of ESA. All the ISLSWG agencies have agreed to coordinate the research on the space station to maximize limited resources. So we all release research solicitations at the same time and we have a single common peer review in which an international panel reviews the proposals for scientific merit.”
Once proposals have been received, the peer review panel looks at each proposal on its own merit. Only at the point of selection are commonalities in research identified. “So,” notes Ahlf, “if we get to the point of selection, and Germany has a proposal that is a lot like one we [the United States] have, and both of them are deemed meritorious and we both want them selected, that’s when we try to identify those commonalities and put together teams where it makes sense.”
And while some investigators may wind up as co-investigators with an international counterpart, it’s also possible that some experiments may be combined simply because they can use the same facility without interfering with one another “and it makes sense to do them together,” says Ahlf. “But intellectually they are unique, and so there may be a team, but they’re not really having to work together — the work is just being done in a coordinated way.”
Right:
NASDA Payload Specialist Chiaki Mukai, the first female Japanese astronaut to fly into space twice, enters the Spacelab module to start a 12-hour shift performing experiments for the IML-2 mission.
IMSPG was formed to coordinate the development and use of research apparatus among microgravity research programs in the physical sciences. Says Judee Robey, program development and coordination manager for the Physical Sciences Division of OBPR, “The big picture [for both working groups] is very similar – we talk about how we want to cooperate, but the details [of that cooperation] are different.”
Like the working group for the life sciences, IMSPG uses International Announcements of Opportunity to allow the cooperating agencies to have a uniform means of soliciting research. Says Robey, “Unlike with the life sciences research, physical sciences research is highly dependent on instrument availability. The instrumentation and hardware facilities aren’t as generic, so you may not be able to accommodate an investigation in existing facility hardware. So we select, through an international peer review panel, the highest-quality research first and then decide what hardware needs to be available for that research.”
Agreements made under IMSPG are generally more specific and include specific investigations. “We generally don’t draw up agreements until research has been selected, and then we get together with our partners to decide who will provide what hardware,” Robey adds. “But once all of the hardware is on orbit, then our process will become more like the life sciences process. We will solicit research that works with the available hardware, or other types of research, if resources are available to develop new hardware.”
Robey also points out that the collaboration process for getting research on the ISS is somewhat different than it was for Spacelab. With Spacelab, the United States had a commodity – space shuttle flights – that it could trade for the use of international research facilities. Because the ISS is “internationally owned,” there is more of a trade-off with respect to research utilization and the use of available facilities. Getting the most benefit from the research and the facilities drives the collaborative choices made by the various ISS partners. “On the ISS, we are trying to get researchers to collaborate at the grass-roots level or on the ground to address research questions so that each investigation adds something to the overall flight experiment result,” comments Robey.
Research sponsored by the Space Product Development Division follows a different process. The commercial development researchers have an international consulting group to aid with research collaboration. The businesses that have developed hardware for space research discuss the sharing of instruments with international partners, and they also make commercial facilities available to noncommercial researchers.
The Next Generation
In addition to the working groups that ensure that only world-class research will be conducted aboard the ISS, the space research community sponsors and participates in many other venues for forging relationships that can lead to collaborations. Scientific meetings serve as a primary means for sharing results and progress of investigations and ferreting out others with similar interests. These conferences and symposia, which take place all over the world, range in focus from the broadest themes of the future of space research and exploration to specialized research and engineering topics.
Below:
As the research opportunities that are available on the ISS are fully realized, people can look back on the legacy of Spacelab and reaffirm that space truly is an international arena. Astronauts looking at Earth from the ISS don’t see international boundaries – they see a planet without borders.
The World Space Congress brings those involved in space research and exploration together on a grand scale. The congress, held once every 10 years, attracts international researchers from the space sciences, engineering, and technical fields, as well as from the business sector, to communicate about the future of research and humans in space and the means to accomplish research and engineering goals.
Although the World Space Congress is sponsored by large international organizations, smaller-scale meetings as a means for developing collaborative research also abound and take place on a more frequent schedule. The annual meetings of the Japan- United States Technology and Space Applications Program (JUSTSAP) are an example of international cooperation on the smaller scale. American and Japanese scientists who are interested in microgravity research participate in JUSTSAP in order to identify similar research goals and to spark new inquiries. Several joint research proposals have gone to both NASA and NASDA as a result of connections made through JUSTSAP.
Through the collaborative efforts – formal and informal, large and small, in orbit and on the ground – of the Spacelab decades, the future of space research and exploration is now securely anchored in international cooperation. Historian Bingham remarks, “It’s sort of axiomatic that anything you do in space has got to be international. You know, you don’t even talk about going to Mars anymore without making it a potential international venture.”
And so, as people move toward fully realizing the research opportunities afforded by the ISS and look ahead to the next generation of hardware development and research to be conducted, they can look back on the earliest cooperative efforts, like Spacelab, and reaffirm that space truly is an international arena. Says Bingham, “Humankind gets up there and doesn’t see borders – you don’t see anything but the whole Earth.”
