| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mayo Graduate Faculty, Department of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
1Correspondence: 211 Second St. NW, #1607, Rochester, MN 55901-2896, USA. E-mail: tbhaddy{at}aol.com
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT NASA LIFE SCIENCES IN...REFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: life sciences • mission • planet earth • US Space Program • deep space
|
NASA LIFE SCIENCES IN 1991 |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTNASA LIFE SCIENCES IN...REFERENCES |
|---|
, 3 days on the moon, in the final Apollo mission in 1972, left astronaut Eugene Cernan weary and filthy with rock dust. A 3-year trip to Mars multiplies the hazards of space travel, confronting NASA with a troubling scenario, as follows: imagine a radiation sick, sleep-deprived astronaut stepping on Mars; muscle-and-bone weakened and dehydrated, he or she becomes hypotensive, faints, and breaks a leg. What now, Houston?
In a 1991 editorial in The FASEB Journal (2)
, Robert W. Krauss, past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and retired executive director of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), commented on a recent report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program. The report was chaired by Norman R. Augustine and attempted to assess the health of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Did NASA follow the right course during the preceding 30 years? Were the charts it followed in space science the right ones for improving the quality of life on Earth? Did NASA really lay a firm foundation for its avowed goal—to expand human presence beyond Earth’s orbit into the solar region?
Krauss felt that much of the report was a well-documented vote of confidence in the psychological, scientific, and commercial worth of NASA and even in its contributions to global politics, philosophy, and peace. By identifying some flaws in policy and strategy, the report became a creditable effort by sincere and knowledgeable citizens anxious that NASA continue a viable role for society by now committing it to two scientific initiatives—mission to planet Earth and mission from planet Earth.
Krauss stated that the first mission is essentially an observational, data-collecting effort leading to understanding and predictions for an evolving planet, more and more affected by forces humankind has unleashed and others it has damaged. Biospheric changes are driven by an exploding human population that consumes increasing amounts of oxygen and releases countless pollutants. These transformations appear more rapidly than those that occurred over a billion years ago when primitive green plants released oxygen and made possible the evolution of life. Is humanity now realizing the very geophysics that created it? Krauss said NASA is directed to find the answer.
The second initiative, mission from planet Earth, is to explore space, where manned undertakings are to be pursued. According to Krauss, this mission is more complex, but its rewards may well be priceless. The central problem is how to execute NASA’s charter to permit:
man’s prolonged presence in the solar system away from Earth. Although a manned mission to Mars and the manned space station with life sciences as the priority were endorsed by the Committee, it failed to deal realistically with one huge gap. Biological sciences have never been given high priority.
According to Krauss,
this has left a void that will cripple, perhaps fatally, any early effort to ensure long-term survival on any mission of extended duration. Sufficient and sound biological information to undergird prolonged space habitation simply does not exist. That such knowledge has not been sought, except for rare and scattered experiments, has been frustrating to those dedicated biologists who have tried with remarkable patience to persuade NASA, as well as their colleagues, that there were urgent puzzles to be solved. NASA has been blind to the opportunity to advance biological theory beyond struggling with the obvious clinical abnormalities of astronauts. How can NASA be expected to ensure survival on space station or sustain habitation on the moon and Mars when it does not really understand nor is yet adequately studying the role of gravity, or space radiation, or survival in totally sealed and cycling environments? No scientific apex has ever been achieved without a pyramid beneath it, nor will humans long exist in space without a science to support them.
Krauss then went on to say that the Augustine Committee does call for a "vigorous new space life sciences program." He said it should be planned by a task force of biologists to determine how to fill the void, beginning by seriously considering the urgings of the Goldberg (1987; ref 3
) and Robbins (1988; ref 4
) reports and NASA’s own life sciences advisory committees. The task force should also analyze the science budget, which in 1990 allocated only 5.3% to life sciences out of a total science budget of 2 billion dollars; physics, astronomy, earth science, planetary exploration, and materials processing received 90%. Within the life sciences division budget, space biological sciences were assigned 21 million dollars or only 1.3% of the total.
Krauss felt that even with this small budget there were indications of important problems to be solved. He said from one successful biosatellite launched in 1967 and modest experiments worked into missions with other objectives—often on Soviet spacecraft or supplied by foreign scientists, and supplemented by studies on Earth—there is now a list of aberrations to normal functioning of life. Among these he mentioned bone demineralization, skeletal muscle atrophy, space motion sickness, postural hypotension (on return to Earth), immune system suppression, and visual and neurological changes in mammals. In plants, he noted alterations in chromosomes, carbohydrate metabolism, reproduction, and root orientation. Changes are observed even in single-celled cultures, e.g., gravity perception, growth rates, and development. However, there have not been opportunities for replication, adequate controls, and experimental sophistication. A contemporary understanding of biological systems in space will never be available unless NASA allocates life sciences greater resources and higher flight priority.
Krauss said:
The Committee’s reluctance to recognize biology as a worthy basic discipline is seen in the suggestion that life science researchers in space be directed only at enabling human habitation there. The other space sciences are rightfully done for science itself—not for practical applications, regardless of how likely they may be. So should biology. New discoveries in space will influence, and be influenced by, the profound intellectual growth and sophistication that biology has enjoyed in recent years and will add new dimensions to medicine and science alike. Gravity has shaped the architecture of organisms. What kind of creatures with what anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry would we be without gravity? What is the potential of protoplasm uncluttered by the pull of gravity? Why are we as we are?
Unless humankind can comprehend the special way in which Earth-evolved protoplasm behaves without the constraints of gravity and in an otherwise unique environment, the mission from planet Earth will be on a slippery slope. Traction from a rigorously researched space biology program may make the slope climbable. Without it, there isn’t a chance!
Thus, Krauss concluded that, while the Augustine Committee dealt properly with many of NASA’s missions, it failed to deal realistically with NASA’s avowed goal—to expand human presence beyond Earth’s orbit into the solar system. The Committee recognized that the life sciences are essential to this goal, but it failed to deal realistically with the fact that biological sciences have never been given high priority in funding and flight opportunities. Consequently, the field of space biological sciences is underdeveloped. Unless this void is corrected, the NASA Life Sciences mission from planet Earth will fail.
Krauss expressed his opinions 15 years ago (2)
. Were they true then and are they still true? Just a year earlier, FASEB’s Office of Public Affairs gave a more optimistic view, saying that NASA’s space life sciences program was set for major growth in the decade ahead (5)
. Have we really had a more rigorously researched space biology program since then? Do we now have a better understanding of the influence of gravity on living organisms? What about other factors such as radiation and isolation? These questions become more acute now that President George W. Bush recently promised a manned return to the moon by 2015, if possible, and 2020 at the latest. Even more ambitiously, the president declared that the moon would become our staging post for manned missions to Mars. One plan proposes a series of unmanned missions to the moon between 2008 and 2011 to collect data and pick a landing site. Between 2011 and 2015, robots would prepare the site for a permanent manned base between 2015 and 2020. The lunar operations would serve as a test bed and training grounds for an eventual Mars landing. Are we ready for this so soon? What are the dangers of such ambitions?
Flight opportunities for space life sciences were planned in 1992 to be of three types: 1) short duration manned experiments in a life sciences laboratory fitted into the cargo bay of the shuttle, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS), complimented by shuttle mid-deck locker investigations; 2) longer duration unmanned experiments, some deeper into space, in U.S. space biosatellites (LifeSat); and 3) even longer manned experiments in a laboratory on Space Station Freedom (SSF). Continuing collaborative programs with the Russians aboard Cosmos (Russian biosatellite) and Mir (Russian space station) were anticipated. Also planned were a centrifuge facility and eight astronauts on SSF when complete.
A number of factors altered these plans, resulting in reduced time and quality of time in space. Two factors stand out. The U.S. LifeSat program was cancelled before any flights were accomplished, impacting in particular studies of radiation in deep space. Two shuttle accidents (Challenger 1986, Columbia 2003) interrupted the shuttle schedule, reducing research aboard the shuttle and delaying completion of the space station with its science laboratories and centrifuge facility, thus threatening the quantity and quality of research. In some cases, research has been cancelled. For example, the Advanced Animal Habitat [animal housing units to have been produced by Orbitec for the International Space Station (ISS)] was deleted, and the projected number of astronauts scheduled to occupy the ISS was curtailed. Thus, there will now be no animal research and little human research due to lack of subjects and time available for biological research. Thus, in these cases it is not just a threatened reduction in the quantity and quality of research but a wholesale elimination of research quantity and quality, the very justification for building the ISS.
The negative impact of the loss of Spacelabs dedicated to the life sciences can be appreciated by examining the accomplishments of SLS 1. This flight was totally dedicated to life sciences and was accomplished June 5–14, 1991. It generated a wealth of useful data bearing on space motion sickness, fluid and electrolyte balance, cardiovascular adaptation, and other biological and physiological functions in men and women, laboratory rats, and jellyfish. Three more flights dedicated to the life sciences were planned (SLS 2, 3, 4) but were never accomplished, although some of the planned experiments were completed on flights dedicated to other disciplines, e.g., material science, and other countries, e.g., Japan and Germany.
Radiation is of particular concern for travel in deep space, which would include travel to Mars. In fact, Moore (6)
in 1992, after reviewing the relevant literature on radiation burdens for humans on prolonged exomagnetospheric voyages, concluded that we are not ready for a Mars mission and will not be for some time. His opinion was challenged by some (7)
who claimed we should not let danger slow us from going to Mars any more than Columbus let danger slow him from exploring the New World or kept us from taking our first steps on the surface of the moon. Moore’s response (8)
makes interesting reading, particularly since he calculated "a lifetime risk of excess cancer deaths in the range of 3–9% for 35-yr-old astronauts undertaking prolonged exomagnetospheric exploration of the nearby solar system."
The LifeSat program planned to deploy a retrievable unmanned vehicle of 
3,000 lbs, pursuing an elliptical orbit taking it outside of the magnetosphere for a portion of each circuit (6)
. It would also have allowed many more investigators access to space for longer periods of time than possible with the shuttle. Living target materials might have been included on this vehicle with and without shielding. Moore (6)
said that while a tentative judgment regarding radiation is possible now, a wealth of new data from studies such as those planned for LifeSat and from NASA Life Sciences in collaborations with astronomy, astrophysics, materials science, and radiology should put such decisions on a firmer basis by the years 2000–2025.
The loss of LifeSat was particularly disappointing since the Bevalac Facility at the Laurence Berkeley Laboratory, the only facility in the United States that could support heavy ion research critical to exploration, was at the same time also threatened with closure.
SSF planning and implementation underwent a number of changes, including "restructuring" to fit a substantially reduced budget profile over the period 1991 to 1997 and onward. The "restructuring" included the development of a phased approach starting with man-tended capability, then man-tended utilization, and finally progressing to permanently manned utilization (first with a 4 person crew and finally with an 8 person crew capability). Development was slowed by a number of factors, including downtime due to a disastrous Columbia Shuttle explosion. Furthermore, the project became an international venture (ISS), which required more planning and integration. In the process, the centrifuge facility was deleted or delayed, at least for now.
This facility would prove to be the single most important research tool for the space life sciences. It would provide controllable levels of artificial gravity for experiments using plants and small animal specimens in research designed to separate the effects of weightlessness from those of other environmental factors, e.g., radiation and isolation. Many internal and external NASA advisory groups have strongly and repeatedly endorsed the need for a large, space-based centrifuge facility. In 1988, the NASA Advisory Council recommended a suite of space-based, variable gravity centrifuge facilities, ranging from small centrifuges to a human-rated tethered facility, more than 10 m in diameter, for SSF that would be operational before any extended-duration human space missions. One centrifuge facility would consist of a 2.5 m diameter centrifuge, modular habitats for plants and small animals, habitat holding units, a glove box, and a specimen chamber service unit. The centrifuge facility would be able to produce a range of gravity levels from 0.01 to 2.0 g.
There have been a number of administrative reorganizations within NASA in recent years, some in response to suggestions from intramural and extramural advisory bodies. One accomplished in FY 2001 deleted the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (Code U) with its Life Sciences Division and created the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR). OBPR was created to:
affirm NASA’s commitment to the essential role biology will play in the 21st century and establish the core of biological and physical sciences research needed to support agency strategic objectives. OBPR was created under the premise that revolutionary solutions to science and technology problems are likely to emerge from scientists, clinicians, and engineers who are working at the frontier of their respective disciplines and also engaged in dynamic interdisciplinary interactions.
OBPR asks questions that are basic to the future of humanity: How do fundamental laws of nature shape the evolution of life? How can human existence expand beyond the home planet to achieve maximum benefits from space?
The office pursues and disseminates the answers to these questions by: using the space environment as a laboratory to test the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry and biology; conducting research to enable the safe and productive human habitation of space; enabling and promoting commercial research in space for the benefit of life on earth; and conducting educational outreach activities to promote public awareness of its research efforts and results.
[see Mon, Feb. 4, 2002 NASA HQ release].
This was to be accomplished through five administrative units: Physical Sciences Division; Fundamental Space Biology Division; Bioastronautics Research Division; Research Integration Division; and Policy and Program Integration Division.
By FY 2004 the proposed budget for OBPR was 973 million dollars, of which 357 million was for biological sciences research. Thus, it appeared that the overall goals and monetary support for space biology research were favorable. Recent events, however, indicate that such may not be the case. Flight time for fundamental biology research has decreased; there have been only four shuttle flights since the Columbia disaster in 2003, and these were dedicated to establishing the cause of the disaster and improving the engineering of ISS. It appears that there will be 16 or 17 more shuttle flights between now and 2010, when the shuttle program will be terminated, but these will be dedicated to the construction necessary to complete the ISS. Thus, it does not appear that there will be much flight time for fundamental space science research in the next 4 years.
Funds for biological research are also threatened. A geographically diverse group from the AIAA Life Sciences Technical Committee, the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology (ASGSB), which includes scientists and bioengineers, and others, recently pointed out that FY 2006 NASA budget planning promises to eliminate the majority of biological flight research (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16410). It also reduces ground-based research to levels that essentially represent a phasing out of the program. Space biologists are concerned that basic insights into biology and astronaut health issues will be negatively impacted by the elimination of key research programs. Many, if not most, of the ground-based 3–year NASA life science grants were ended 1 year early. Some graduate students and postdoctoral fellows found their salary and research support eliminated. What message does this send to the current and next generation of space biologists?
Congress also recently weighed in on the ISS science cuts. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space, in a letter to NASA administrator Dr. Michael Griffon, expressed concern that NASA may be considering suspension of ISS research for up to a year (NASA Watch 8–11-06, http://www.nasawatch.com/). Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) cosigned the letter. The text of the letter follows:
... we want to make it clear that any option to further reduce, or curtail altogether, research aboard the ISS would be an unacceptable option and entirely inconsistent with the policy guidance enacted by the Congress, as well as, we believe, the intent of the Vision for Exploration.
Hopefully, this will have a positive impact on funding for experiments designed for the ISS and for current life sciences grants and contracts. The rationale for withdrawing support is that research planned for the ISS has little connection with President Bush’s plan to return to the moon and continue on to Mars. This of course is arguable.
Are we ready for a manned trip to Mars? Like Krauss 15 years ago, I think not for some time. The biological groundwork still is not there, and the research funding and research time continue to be insufficient.
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTNASA LIFE SCIENCES IN...REFERENCES |
|---|
Related Articles
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
