The future of the US space station is still hanging in the balance, despite
last month’s announcement that the Clinton administration is backing a
scaled-down version of the Freedom space project. Politically, it is a hard
project to kill so President Bill Clinton and his advisers are using science
to justify their decision to spend $16.5 billion more on a project
that has already cost $8 billion. But even before Clinton’s written
statement had time to reach the laser printer, critics were questioning
whether space research would ever yield the much-touted benefits in areas
such as medicine, aerospace and materials science that the administration
is promising.
Freedom has already suffered four cost-cutting exercises since the heady
days of the Reagan era, when investment in space research was equated with
patriotism. So the latest proposals for an even cheaper version of Freedom
are seen as a cut too far by many former supporters. Washington’s lawmakers
argue that the space station’s design has been pared back so much since it
was first proposed in 1984 that it will accomplish little useful science,
and many believe the money would be better spent on more down-to-earth
research. The strength of their opposition became clear when the space
station escaped cancellation in the US House of Representatives by a single
vote one week after the announcement.
Advertisement
And such dissatisfaction with the space station programme isn’t confined to
the US. NASA’s international partners – the European Space Agency, Canada
and Japan – have been so angered by the many delays that they have
threatened not to work with the the US again, unless there are guarantees
that they will be reimbursed in the event of a project being scrapped.
Given the large sums they have ploughed into laboratory modules for Freedom,
their displeasure is not to be taken lightly, nor can the partners’ concerns
be dismissed. As Allan Bromley, science advisor to President Bush, openly
admitted ‘We’re (the US) not seen as very reliable’ in such prestigious
international projects.
But the Clinton administration is determined to appear bullish about the
benefits of a cheaper Freedom. Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator described
the space station as ‘the knowledge engine on the high frontier, returning
dividends to Americans for decades to come’. A similar line was taken by
Charles Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who
also chaired a presidential commission that examined options for redesigning
the space station. ‘The space station should be considered as an ongoing,
evolving programme of scientific and technological research laboratory that
is an important part of this nation’s high technology infrastructure,’ said
Vest.
Clinton has already instructed NASA to begin work on the latest redesign of
the cheaper version of Freedom with the help of its international partners.
This will be based primarily on Option A,
one of the three proposals NASA
put forward at the beginning of June, three months after Clinton asked for a
Freedom design that would fit today’s tight budgets. Option A cost Dollars
27.2 billion, Option B
$30.3 billion, and Option C $25.2 billion.
Cost conscious
By using Option A as the basis for the new space station, NASA can stick
with the existing Freedom support structure and modular design. Option C has
been caustically derided as the ‘tin can’ because it consists of a single
cylindrical accommodation and laboratory module. Even though it was the
cheapest option, it would have been politically costly because it would
have meant a complete redesign, and the international partners, who are
also under tight budget constraints, would not have wanted to see their
previous investment in Freedom wasted.
The first goal with the redesigned space station will be to produce a
glorified orbiting solar power station to which a space shuttle could dock.
Shuttles would then be used to carry US laboratory equipment and experiments
to the space station. This equipment and associated research projects could
then be maintained by astronauts who would stay on the station for up to
thirty days. International laboratories would be added next, and it is
envisaged that by 2001 astronauts would be based permanently on the station.
By this time Freedom will have used its $16.5 billion budget, if the
programme keeps to schedule.
Clinton has been fiercely defensive of the research that will be undertaken
on Freedom. In particular he has stressed the importance of knowing the
effects of long-term space flight on humans, chemical processes and
materials, as well as carrying out research in areas such as robotics. Other
priorities include providing opportunities for businesses to conduct
experiments on commercial products and comparing the use of humans and
robots in space.
As part of its defence of the project, the Clinton administration has also
managed to enlist the support of experts to emphasise the benefits of space
research. Pioneering heart transplant surgeon Michael DeBakey of the Baylor
College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, stressed the importance of the space
station in medical research when he addressed Congress the day before the
crucial House of Representatives vote. ‘Many health problems that affect
the aged – bone density loss, breakdowns in immune response, changes in the
cardiovascular system – also affect very young, very healthy astronauts once
they are weightless,’ says DeBakey. ‘A space station provides a facility
unavailable on Earth to observe these processes and develop countermeasures
that could be applicable to the aged and the feeble, as well as astronauts.
Such advances could, in turn, lower future health care costs.’
Unfortunately for Clinton this kind of justification may not be enough to
continue convincing the sceptics: they have heard it all before in previous
proposals for Freedom research programmes. There is also some evidence that
previous versions of Freedom may have been more suited to this type of
research. NASA’s own studies show that both the options, and the proposed
redesigned space station may have some drawbacks. For example, Option A –
which is to be the basis of Clinton’s new design – would not provide as much
electrical power to run equipment as current designs for Freedom. And
perhaps more significantly, the Option A design would produce more vibration
than the existing Freedom; it would also need to roll by 90 degrees
periodically to keep its solar panels in direct sunlight. This movement and
vibration could interfere with some experiments, in particular those that
rely on using the near weightlessness of space, known as microgravity.
Microgravity research has often been touted as one of the key rationales for
a US space station. In the early days, Freedom supporters talked about using
the near weightlessness of space as a manufacturing environment for exotic
materials. More recently, scientists have suggested that microgravity
experiments would provide a new perspective on materials and processes,
helping companies decide what to make – and how to manufacture it – back on
Earth.
Weight watchers
One area of particular interest is the use of microgravity to produce large,
high quality crystals of various proteins that have potential as drugs.
Researchers need to understand the shape of the protein molecule, so they
work out whether the molecule would connect properly to a cell by studying
how a crystal of the protein scatters a beam of X-rays. For such studies,
the crystal must be large and as perfectly formed as possible – conditions
which are unlikely to be fulfilled on Earth since gravity appears to prevent
many proteins from forming crystals that are large enough or of sufficient
quality for scientists to study. Information from crystals grown on the
space station could be used to identify the best potential drugs, which
would then be mass-produced on Earth in noncrystalline form.
But not all scientists are optimistic about the benefits of microgravity.
Gregory Farber, a biochemist at Pennsylvania State University, is part of a
team of four researchers that has dispatched experiments to Russia’s Mir
space station. So far he has been disappointed by the results. Two
cosmonauts tried to produce crystals of 21 different proteins in orbit,
under the direction of Farber’s team. Only 5 of the 21 proteins produced
crystals that were larger than those produced on Earth. And even those
crystals were only marginally larger than the earthbound crystals. ‘The
bottom line is that the space station should not be sold on its ability to
produce protein crystals,’ says Farber. ‘It’s a very risky venture at this
point, and it doesn’t seem to me like a wise way to spend money.’
One big supporter of the US space station insists that microgravity
research remains a proper justification for the project. ‘Even if the
station were eliminated, the microgravity science, including the development
of new materials and drugs, would still need to be carried out. Most other
alternatives, such as unmanned satellites, shuttle flights or using the
Russian space station are unsatisfactory from a technical standpoint or not
cost effective,’ says Congressman George Brown, a Californian Democrat who
chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
There is certainly still a demand for the space station’s microgravity from
scientists working in other areas. For example, Jeanne Becker, a cancer
researcher at the University of South Florida, says the space station could
be used to grow large quantities of tumour cells from ovarian and breast
cancer. Breast cancer cells are particularly difficult to grow in
terrestrial laboratories, but they seem to grow more effectively floating
in near-weightless conditions, she says. Lengthy efforts at growing tumours
on the space station could provide a large quantity of tumour tissue for
specialists to study ways to combat cancer, she says.
Similarly, Larry McIntire of the Institute of Biosciences and Bioengineering
at Rice University, Houston, Texas, says microgravity could be invaluable in
the production of new tissues and organs for transplants. ‘Cells floating in
microgravity appear to make connections easily with neighbouring cells,
which is a prerequisite for creating the three-dimensional structures found
in tissues and organs,’ he says. McIntire also thinks that some genetic
experiments may work more effectively in microgravity than on Earth. For
example, cell fusion may be more successful in microgravity because the
cells could remain in contact for long periods of time without touching any
solid structures.
But not everyone is clamouring to use the space station. Notably absent is
the US Department of Defense, whose space budget of $20 billion
actually exceeds NASA’s ( $14.3 billion). During the 1970s and 1980s,
when NASA’s shuttle programme seemed ready to run aground amid spiralling
costs, the Pentagon agreed to finance a hefty chunk of the shuttle programme
in return for free shuttle flights for military satellites and astronauts.
But it is contributing no money to the space station.
‘The facilities of the space station Freedom would be less suitable than
those currently available on the space shuttle,’ concluded the General
Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, in a report published
in May. A key problem, according to the GAO, is the lack of windows that
would allow military astronauts to scan the Earth below. Those ‘direct
view’ windows were eliminated from the space station’s design some time ago
to save money. Earth-viewing experiments have been a major facet of military
experiments aboard the shuttle, which does offer windows that allow
astronauts to monitor the Earth’s surface. For example, during two separate
shuttle flights, military astronauts have tested an electronic camera that
can automatically determine the latitude and longitude of a feature or
object on the Earth below. Such experiments could not be conducted aboard
Freedom.
In defence
The congressional investigators claim, however, that some defence research
could make use of the space station. For example, the station’s microgravity
could permit extended versions of space shuttle experiments by the US
Army, which has been examining the deterioration of bone and muscle cells in
orbit. The hope is that this type of experiment could provide information
which could be used to treat bone fractures and other battlefield wounds.
But even for experiments such as this, the space station might not be the
best place. In fact, the shuttle might win out again because NASA officials
are planning improvements to the shuttle fleet that would allow them to
remain in orbit for 28 days.
With one of NASA’s biggest supporters looking to the shuttle, Clinton
clearly has a difficult task on his hands when making a case for Freedom.
One of his main problems is that there are no guarantees in science. The
space station – like any other scientific endeavour – could turn out to be a
dead end, or it could become a pillar of the US high technology
infrastructure. As Representative Tom Lewis of Florida points out: ‘If the
same short-sighted attitude of the space station’s critics had been applied
a few decades ago, we would probably be without such taken-for-granted items
like antilock brake systems for cars, magnetic resonance imagers and
artificial knees and hips.’
But unlike a few decades ago, the US Government is today under pressure to
cut the budget deficit while at the same time spending more on crucial
matters such as welfare and education. The numerous cutbacks in the
station’s budget, and consequently its scientific capabilities, makes it
difficult for members of Congress to defend their reasons for continuing
with the Freedom programme, says Herbert Klein, a Democrat from New Jersey
who voted against the project. ‘As much as I value most of NASA’s work and
support the overall space programme, it has become apparent that the space
station Freedom is a project that is lost in space.’