Tag: Science

Learning to Control Colloids with International Space Station Research

In today’s A Lab Aloft, guest blogger Donald Barker explains the complex world of colloids and how studying them aboard the International Space Station helps us understand and use them better here on Earth.

Colloids are fascinating. They are part of our daily lives, found in everything from our bodies to the products we purchase at the convenience store. Manufacturers use colloids and their unique structure and properties for wine making, coloring glass, and fabric softeners. You will even find them in your daily glass of milk!

So what exactly is a colloid? In our daily lives we generally think of traditional forms of matter: solids, liquids, gasses. Colloids, however, exist around and near the boundaries of these states—not quite being one or the other. Colloids generally take one of the following forms: aerosols, emulsions, gels, sols, foams or films.

Colloids form when particles disperse throughout a solvent, usually a liquid, depending on the purpose of the mixture. Colloidal particles are too small to be seen with ordinary optical microscopes. The size of the particles is somewhere between atoms and molecules, roughly 10 to 1,000 nanometer (or 1 micrometer). At such minute scales, physical interactions seem to work in mysterious and magical ways. This critical particulate size range is exactly where it needs to be in order to make it unlikely that they will settle out of their mixture; this property is why they are so useful.

For researchers interested in colloids, the International Space Station provides a unique laboratory environment to examine their properties. On Earth, gravity-induced settling or sedimentation changes or destroys the structure of a colloid over time. In microgravity, scientists have a stable setting where they can observe the particle interactions and structures while changing various environmental parameters, such as temperature and pressure.

Researchers are directly interested in the interactions occurring between the surface of the colloidal particles and their solvent. The mixture behaves in different ways, based on both the size of the colloid particles and their interactions with the solvent. Ongoing colloid investigations make use of space station facilities like the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG), the Fluids Integrated Rack (FIR) and the Light Microscopy Module (LMM).

 
Don Pettit, Expedition 30 Flight Engineer, working with the Microgravity Sciences Glovebox (MSG) in the U.S. Laboratory. (Credit: NASA)

Understanding the behavior of colloids allows scientists to create models and process that can be used to enhance food and chemical preservation, evenly distribute ingredients used to produce glues, jellies and gelatins or even to control the movement of light in optical devices and materials. Controlling colloidal mixtures can help global industries create better, more reliable products and processes.

 
Astronaut T.J. Creamer working at the Light Microscopy Module, or LMM, facility aboard the International Space Station. (Credit: NASA)

Colloid studies occur regularly on the space station and one of these investigations is the Advanced Colloids Experiment-1, or ACE-1. The ACE-1 containment device holds up to 20 sample disks that, in turn, each hold up to 10 wells of colloidal particles. Astronauts mix the samples in each disk and then observe them using the LMM. The crew member takes pictures for downlink to investigators for analysis on the ground, where the investigators monitor and record colloidal structural changes and particle interactions.

The goal of ACE-1 is to understand how colloids move over time in the microgravity environment. By seeing how these particles naturally aggregate or cluster without the pull of gravity, scientists can learn how to control them. Essentially, they are looking to see how nature grows at the particle level, forming order out of disorder. Researchers hope to see how well their theoretical understanding compares to the world of everyday observations.

 
Scanning electron microscope, or SEM, images of a mixture of 3.8 micron diameter “seed” particles together with the bulk colloid—0.33 micron diameter Polymethylmetachrylate, or PMMA, spheres. Recent International Space Station colloid studies show a cycle of replication, as large crystals generate smaller ones that separate and continue to grow and produce. (Credit: P.M. Chaikin and A.D. Hollingsworth, New York University)

Another set of colloid studies aboard station is the Binary Colloidal Alloy/Aggregation Test, or BCAT investigation. The BCAT-6 study is the latest in a series of related experiments run on the station. It uses a sample growth module that holds 10 couvettes—small test tubes, each with a different colloid solution mixture. Observations begin following the stirring of each sample. Manual and automated time-lapse photographs record the separation over time.

Objectives of the BCAT suite of investigations include studying the dynamics between phase separation and crystallization in the solution, as well as how order arises out of disorder in microgravity.


These images show the BCAT sample growth module (left) and a close up of a BCAT-5 sample (right) showing structural changes in the mixture aboard the International Space Station. (Credit: NASA)

Another station investigation is the Selectable Optical Diagnostics Instrument – Aggregation of Colloidal Suspensions, or SODI-Colloid. This is a series of experiments using cell chambers that hold individual samples that are measured optically using a Near-Field Scattering (NFS) technique within the MSG.

Understanding how the particles making up colloids react, move, arrange and form crystals as the temperature reaches the critical point can help with the development of materials for devices using electromagnetic waves and signals to manipulate optics, such as plasma TVs.

 
This image shows a false color NFS image during aggregation showing the distribution of particles on the smallest of scales. (Credit: S. Mazzoni, ESA)

A very different colloidal mixture—a magnetic one—is studied in Investigating the Structure of Paramagnetic Aggregates from Colloidal Emulsions-3, or InSPACE-3. This series of microgravity studies focuses on mixtures with magnetizable particles of varying shape (spheres to ellipsoids) exposed to an alternating magnetic field.

These kinds of fluids are considered to be “smart” materials, which transition into a solid-like state or gel when exposed to a magnetic field. Understanding how to control and produce colloidal materials of this kind may help in the engineering of vibration dampening systems, enhanced earthquake structural designs, robotic systems, tunable dampers, and brake and clutch systems.

 
This image shows the evolution of colloidal structure within an applied alternating magnetic field. (Credit: N. Hall, NASA)

On Earth, colloids tend to collapse, change form, or sink, depending on particle size, shape, composition, fluid solvent mixture or environmental conditions; all highly dependent on the effects of gravity. This is why the space station provides an ideal laboratory setting for researchers to tease out the underlying physical properties of colloidal solutions. As we better understand the special and fascinating properties of colloids, researchers will be able to devise better technologies and products for use back here on Earth.


Donald C. Barker (Credit: NASA)

Donald C. Barker is a scientist with the International Space Station Program Science Office. Previously Barker served as a lead systems engineer, flight controller and researcher at the Johnson Space Center. He holds a double Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and Psychology from Colorado State University, Master of Science degrees in Physics, Psychology, Mathematics and Space Architecture, and he is currently pursuing a Doctor in Philosophy in Planetary Geology at the University of Houston.

Flights of Flames for Fire Safety in Space

In today’s A Lab Aloft guest blogger, Sandra Olson, Ph.D., reveals some of the mysteries of how flames burn in microgravity, as well as how flame studies on the ground and aboard the International Space Station help with fire suppression and safety in space.

Whether dropping through a hole in the ground as part of a drop test or zipping through space aboard the International Space Station, flames behave in fascinating ways in microgravity! In the Zero Gravity Research Facility, or ZGRF, at NASA’s Glenn Research Center, I get to study solid fuel combustion behavior first hand. ZGRF is a historic landmark and the deepest drop tower in the world with a freefall of 432 feet. Drop test experiments, like the one pictured below, look at material flammability during the brief, 5.18-second period of microgravity achieved as the sample package falls.


During a Zero Gravity Research Facility tour, Facility Manager Eric Neumann (far left) shows International Space Station Program Scientist Julie Robinson (front center) and her colleagues one of the drop packages used in the facility. The top of the white vacuum drop shaft is in the background. (NASA/Marvin Smith)

The drop test was remotely run from the ZGRF control room. Controllers activated the miniature wind tunnel apparatus to establish a spacecraft ventilation flow environment, then ignited the material and dropped the experiment. Once the sample releases into freefall, the experiment is completely automated. The drop vehicle lands in the catch-bucket at the end of the 5.18 second test.

 
Experiment images (left) and catch-bucket facility images (right) appear on the ZGRF control room screen. (NASA/Marvin Smith)

We have performed many drop tests studying how materials burn in microgravity compared to how they burn in normal gravity, or 1g. What we have found is that many materials actually burn better in the spacecraft flow environment than in 1g. This is because on Earth the buoyant flow—created when less dense materials rise within greater density environments—is strong enough to blow the flame out with oxygen reduction. In low ventilation, however, the slow flow provides the oxygen at an optimum rate, so the flame can survive to lower oxygen levels than in 1g. To learn more about the concepts of microgravity and combustion in the space environment, watch this “NASA Connect” video.


A flame burning in microgravity at the end of a 5.18-second drop from the Zero Gravity Research Facility. The material for this test was cotton fabric burning in 5 centimeter per second air flow, which is the typical International Space Station atmosphere. Crew clothing is often made of cotton. (NASA)

Enhanced flammability in space was recently proven in longer duration burn experiments aboard the space station as part of the Burning and Suppression of Solids, or BASS, investigation. For this study, the crew of the space station gets to play with fire. As a co-investigator, I get to observe via video on the ground and directly talk to the crew as they ignite a flame in the controlled area of the Microgravity Science Glovebox, or MSG, filming the behavior of the burn.

After his recent return to Earth, Astronaut Don Pettit, who worked on the BASS flame study in space, testified to a Senate subcommittee about the investigation and the importance of combustion experiments in microgravity.

“If you look at fire, fire and its either discovery or learning how to tame fire is what literally brought us out of the cave and allows us to have our civilization in terms of what we know now,” said Pettit. “Fire gives us our electricity. Fire allows us to have vehicles, airplanes and cars, and machines. It literally turns the wheels of our civilization…space station now offers us the ability to dissect deeper down into what the processes are in combustion… by looking at it in an environment free from gravity, free from the gravitational-driven convection. And this allows us to look at things and figure out what’s going on at a level that you could never see without taking it to space…and what we found is that things are more flammable than what we thought.”


(Left) Astronaut Joe Acaba runs BASS in the Microgravity Science Glovebox, or MSG. (Right) Astronaut Don Pettit holds up a burned acrylic sphere to show the science team on the ground how a fine layer of soot coats the wake region of the material, while the front part of the sphere looks like a meteorite with the surface marred with many craters. (NASA)

These experiments so far have confirmed that when the air flow is turned off, the flame extinguishes rapidly as it runs out of oxygen, with no fresh air flow. The MSG provides an enclosed work area, sealed to contain fluids, gasses and equipment for the safe running of combustion experiments. The crew views the burning material through the front window. The flame can be seen through this window in the picture with Joe Acaba (above). You also can see Don Pettit working on a previous run of BASS aboard station in this video.

This finding reaffirms the space station fire alarm protocol to turn off any forced air flow in the event of a fire alarm. Surprisingly, though, when the astronauts used a small nitrogen jet built into the flow duct for fire suppression testing, the flame did not go out when the air flow was turned off, if the nitrogen jet was on. In fact, the flame appeared to get brighter. Researchers intend to continue to study this unexpected discovery in which the nitrogen jet was able to entrain air all by itself, as the finding has important implications for gaseous fire suppression systems like the
CO2 suppression system currently employed on station.


Acrylic sphere burning as part of the Burning and Suppression of Solids, or BASS, investigation aboard the International Space Station. (NASA)

BASS results also catch the attention of future spacecraft designers. One of the sample materials burned in BASS is acrylic, also called Plexiglas. This material is under consideration for spacecraft windows because of its excellent strength, mass and optical properties. However, it also burns quite well in the space station air environment. BASS payload summary reports mentioning acrylic have spurred a number of recent inquiries to the investigator team about the flammability of this material. After all, you don’t want your spacecraft windows to catch on fire!


A wax candle flame in very low air flow is nearly spherical with an inner sooty layer near the wick, and an outer blue layer. This blue is due to chemiluminescence, which is when a chemical reaction emits light. (NASA)

The BASS investigation has direct applications to spacecraft fire safety and astronaut wellbeing. A combustion experiment, BASS was jointly designed by scientists and engineers at NASA and the Universities Space Research Association, or USRA. BASS operations are scheduled to begin again aboard the space station in the spring of 2013.

The best part of my job as a researcher is the thrill of discovering new phenomena unique to microgravity. It is exciting to work with something as beautiful and powerful as fire, especially in these unique microgravity environments. The fire images have inspired me to create art images from them. 

 
2009 Art “Fire’s Ribbons and Lace”
The delicate and fractal nature of charring cellulose is amplified here in repeated magnified images of a flame spread front over ashless filter paper. (Sandra Olson)


2011 Art “Flaming Star”
Microgravity flames converging toward the center of the starburst ‘implode’ against an outflow of wind, creating a diffusion flame ‘supernova.’ (Sandra Olson)

The more we understand the behavior of flames with given materials and conditions, the better prepared we will be to harness their potential and contribute to fire safety in future space exploration. What’s next will depend on what we discover from these ongoing tests, building on the knowledge already gained from these important combustion studies.


Sandra Olson, shown here with the microgravity wind tunnel drop apparatus.

Sandra Olson, Ph.D., is a spacecraft fire safety researcher at NASA’s Glenn Research Center, as well as the project scientist and co-investigator for the BASS investigation. She has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. She has worked at NASA since 1983, most of that time studying microgravity combustion.   

 

Remodeling Research for Astronaut Bone Health

In today’s A Lab Aloft blog post, guest blogger Scott M. Smith, Ph.D., reflects on the recent publication of results on human health space station research regarding the beneficial connections between bone density, diet and exercise.

This month, September 2012, marks the publication of a paper in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research documenting how crew members that ate well, had good vitamin D status, and exercised hard maintained their bone mineral density. There are several remarkable things in and about this paper that I would like to share in this blog.

From a science perspective, this marks the first documentation of protecting bone mineral density during space flight. It’s amusing that I have already gotten several questions about whether or not we can tell if it was the exercise or the nutrition that made the beneficial difference. The answer is no, we can’t. 

I suspect some folks would like to think it is just the exercise. I am quick to point out, however, that while I am somewhat biased as a nutritionist, I believe that all aspects were critical to the success of the program. There are plenty of non-NASA studies showing that inadequate nutrition leads to bone loss. I’ve also seen online summaries of research giving vitamin D the lead role—I guess it all depends on your perspective.

Regardless, nutrition (including and beyond vitamin D) and exercise are both very important. We are not going to set up experiments to determine if limiting one of these factors has a negative effect on bone, given that would clearly be the wrong thing to do for the crew of the International Space Station.

NASA astronaut Don Pettit, Expedition 30 flight engineer, is pictured near a snack floating freely in the Unity node of the International Space Station. (Credit: NASA)

There has been immediate reaction to the Benefits for Bone from Resistance Exercise and Nutrition in Long-Duration Spaceflight: Evidence from Biochemistry and Densitometry paper. Some people feel that we can now proclaim spaceflight-induced bone loss a fixed problem and move on. This is clearly not the case, however, as what we found is that bone seems to be remodeling. In other words, bone breakdown still increases, but what happened here is that bone formation tended to increase as well, which appears to help maintain bone mineral density.

A big question remains: is the bone as strong after flight as it was before flight? Follow-on studies are underway to help answer this. Nonetheless, it is better to maintain bone mineral density with a question about strength, than to not maintain bone mineral density—which is where we’ve been up to now. We also hope to optimize both exercise protocols, for example using the Sprint Investigation aboard station, and nutritional aspects of bone health, as seen with the SOLO and Pro K studies. You can read more about these topics in my earlier blog entry on omega-3 fatty acid: Of Fish, Astronauts, and Bone Health on Earth.

NASA astronaut Mike Fossum, Expedition 29 commander, performs a SPRINT leg muscle self scan in the Columbus laboratory of the International Space Station. (Credit: NASA)

Another striking thing about this paper was the team. We had two of NASA’s bone experts, Linda Shackelford and Jean Sibonga; one of NASA’s muscle/exercise experts, Lori Ploutz-Snyder; and nutrition experts from NASA and ESA, Sara Zwart, Martina Heer, and myself. Getting all teams to come together to work on this paper required a fair amount of choreography, including agreements on presentation, interpretation and description of the data.

As an aside, in the late 1990’s Dr. Shackelford led an effort to conduct bed rest studies with resistance exercise here on the ground. She published results that mirror what we found in the flight study. Bed rest is a model of space flight, and results in a different magnitude bone loss, but nonetheless it provides evidence useful in assessing flight studies. This is a perfect example of why we test things on the ground first, but then also test them in flight. We want to be sure to know what happens in actual space flight.

Another unique aspect of this paper is the time it took to pull everything together. It was early this year, on January 26, Sara Zwart and myself were sitting in the office trying to assess what data from the Nutrition investigation we should look to try to publish next. I mentioned that we had not published any of the bone marker data, and perhaps we could look at ARED/iRED differences. ARED is the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device aboard station that the crew uses to simulate free weight exercises on orbit, while the iRED is the Interim Resistive Exercise Device used for upper body strength development.

NASA astronaut Dan Burbank, Expedition 30 flight commander, exercises, using the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device, or ARED, in the Tranquility node of the International Space Station. (Credit: NASA)

Sara and I met very early, around 1 the next morning, at the Telescience Center—one of the back rooms in Mission Control. We were waiting for the crew aboard station to awaken so astronaut Don Pettit could collect his FD30 blood sample for the Nutrition and Pro K studies. Sara mentioned that she’d looked at the blood and urine bone marker data, and there didn’t appear to be major differences between the groups: resorption (bone breakdown) wasn’t different, and formation trended up, but wasn’t overly striking. I asked Sara if she’d looked at the bone densitometry (DEXA) data to see what happened with bone and body composition, and she said no, but she would. She logged in to our lab database, and about 30 minutes later turned and said, “I take it back—there’s something there!”

I told Sara I would start working words, and she should start working tables. By 9:30 the morning of the January 27, 24-hours after we first discussed it, we had a 17-page draft of the manuscript, which included 3 tables of data and complete statistical analysis. It took us about a week (and some sleep) to clean up the draft, and we then sent it out to the coauthors to start the process of bringing in their expertise and adding in details. This was especially important regarding the exercise aspects and the bone measurement details, which elude us nutrition types, along with overall interpretations.

Essentially taking eight months from concept to publication, the journey for this paper is simply incredible! We’ve never had a scientific paper go from essentially the first look at the numbers to print this quickly before, and, well…you never count on something like this to happen again.

Cover of the September 2012 edition of the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research where the Benefits for Bone from Resistance Exercise and Nutrition in Long-Duration Spaceflight: Evidence from Biochemistry and Densitometry paper on astronaut bone health published. (Credit: JBMR)

Scott M. Smith leads NASA’s Nutritional Biochemistry Lab at Johnson Space Center. He completed his doctorate in nutrition at Penn State and conducted postdoctoral research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Human Nutrition Research Center in North Dakota. Smith leads experiments, both on the ground and in space, aimed at improving astronaut nutrition. Smith’s two space station experiments include Nutritional Status Assessment and Pro K.  The Pro K study is designed to investigate the roles of animal protein and potassium in bone loss.

 

Growing Future Scientists with Plant Signaling Space Study

In today’s A Lab Aloft guest post, International Space Station Plant Signaling study Principal Investigator Imara Perera, Ph.D., shares the importance of involving students in science today to groom them for careers in research tomorrow.

I find working with the International Space Station for plant growth studies inspiring, and it’s important to me to share my enthusiasm with the next generation of researchers. Most of the students that work with me in the lab come through some sort of internship program and get class credit for doing research. Students can also apply for research awards from North Carolina State University to fund their work.

My current project, Plant Signaling, generated a lot of interest when I spoke at the university biology club. This talk resulted in several volunteers who wanted to work in the lab, because everyone is excited about doing experiments in space.

The flight portion of the investigation went well. We have images from two experimental runs in the European Modular Cultivation System (EMCS) centrifuge, which the students help us analyze for measurements of plant growth. For the analysis, students measure the root lengths in flight photos to get an idea of the total amount of growth.


Freshman student Kalyani Joshi, analyzing images from the Plant Signaling investigation. (North Carolina State University)

One of the goals of this study is to look at the impact of microgravity on the Arabdopsis thaliana plant growth by comparing how the roots and shoots orient themselves. Seed samples for the study include a wild type and a transgenic line. Plants from the transgenic line are genetically modified to affect their ability to sense and respond to environmental changes.

When examining the images, the first thing we look at is how well the seeds grew. The germination was excellent, and because we have images from different time points—every six hours during five days of operations in orbit—we can compare between the different lines and between the different gravity settings for how the seedlings grew during that period of time.

 
Astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria works with European Modular Cultivation System experiment containers aboard the International Space Station. (NASA)

We have many images from both the micro-g and 1g environment samples thanks to the setup of the EMCS. The EMCS has two chambers, which is nice because it includes two centrifuges. This allows you to do your 1g ground control in space at the same time you do the microgravity testing. This means you only have the one variable of microgravity, while all other aspects of the space environment are the same.

Usually for microgravity studies you do a ground control vs. a flight experiment; but, it’s not just the gravity that’s different. There are other things that you cannot measure or replicate from that environment, such as radiation, vibration or the presence of other gases. This is a very beneficial control if you want to get at just the difference between microgravity and 1g. In addition, by carrying out a ground reference control on Earth, we can get an idea of some of the other space effects that are not so well defined at this time.


View of the European Modular Cultivation System experiment container replace activity performed in the Destiny laboratory module of the International Space Station. (NASA)

We would like to do more advanced analysis to see if there is any difference in the microgravity vs. the 1g plants. We expect less organized growth in space compared to on the ground, however this is not obvious from looking at the images. We may need to analyze the images more closely, and we are looking at options to see whether or not the pattern of growth is different. As of now we’ve just looked at the total amount of growth and there does not appear to be major differences.

Flight samples returned to Earth with SpaceX Dragon on March 26, so once we get them we can analyze the genetics of the physical samples to understand their changes at a molecular level—specifically in how the plants sense the microgravity environment and how this influences their growth and development. To do that, we will carry out global transcription profiles of the plants, which is like taking a “snapshot” of all the genes that were expressed in the plant. This tells us how the plants are responding, because even though they may look the same, at a molecular level there may be different pathways that are up or down regulated—showing an increase or decrease in cell response—in the transgenic line compared to the wild type.


The image above shows seedlings from the Plant Signaling investigation aboard the International Space Station. (NASA)

By comparing those two plant types, we hope to understand what signaling pathways are involved in plant responses, not just to microgravity, but also based on the space environment’s other factors. We have data from previous years of ground work where we looked at the response of these transgenic plants, and we know they are a little bit delayed and slow to respond to gravity stimulation. If you place a plant horizontally, after some time the shoots and roots reorient back to vertical. The transgenic plants have a harder time doing that, so we have an idea that this pathway is involved in sensing gravity and responding to it.

Just as experiments can produce surprising findings, I often find something unexpected from student participation in my research. Since I’m in a plant biology department, I usually get students that come to work with me with a strong biology background. But this study generated a lot of interest from students within bioengineering programs, so we had some interns who actually didn’t have that much of a biology emphasis, which turned out to be a learning experience both ways.


Students Will Smith (left) and Peter Svizeny (right) working with plants at the North Carolina State University lab. (North Carolina State University)

One student, Benjamin Cowen, was from the physical sciences, and he did some ground-based work using some of the prototype hardware that we use for the flight experiment. It was quite an inspiration for him, and now he’s looking to enter an astrobiology graduate program. It’s useful to have the different backgrounds, because people do not have the same preconceived ideas that we may have developed in biology studies.

I’ve had positive feedback from participating students, including some who have returned to continue working on the study. I had one local high school student, Kalyani Joshi, who came to talk to me before the investigation went up on the flight to the space station. Kalyani was excited about the study and came to volunteer and work in the lab. When she graduated from high school, she applied and was admitted to North Carolina State University. Now she’s a freshman and received some undergraduate research funding, so she’s going to continue to work in the lab. Kalyani’s been doing a lot of the measurements of the space images and really enjoys the project.


The patch design for the International Space Station Plant Signaling investigation. (NASA)

When we were preparing for the experiment, I had another student, Caroline Smith, who worked as my research associate. She is in graduate school now, but plans to come back to help analyze the flight samples. She’s really interested in the findings, as she was instrumental in setting up the experiment.


Research Associate Caroline Smith (foreground) works alongside Principal Investigator Imara Perera at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., assembling the Plant Signaling investigation. (NASA)

I’m highly committed to including students in the lab setting, having worked with half a dozen for this research project. I anticipate continuing to foster that collaboration. It will be fascinating to see not only what we learn when the Plant Signaling samples come in for analysis, but also to see what comes next for the students inspired by this study.



Imara Perera, principal investigator for the International Space Station Plant Signaling investigation shown here in the lab at North Carolina State University. (North Carolina State University)

Imara Perera, Ph.D., is a research associate professor in the Department of Plant Biology at North Carolina State University. Her primary research interests are in understanding the role of lipid-mediated signaling in plant responses to environmental signals and stress, with the long term goal of improving plant growth under unfavorable conditions. She has been involved in plant gravitational biology research since her postdoctoral work, and she has been a principal investigator on NASA-funded ground-based research since 2001. Currently, Perera is the principal investigator on a spaceflight project entitled “Plant Signaling in Microgravity” to characterize the molecular mechanisms of plant responses to microgravity that was conducted aboard the International Space Station in 2011. 

 

Comparing Platforms: Suborbital and International Space Station Research

The following is aninterview with International Space Station Associate Program Scientist TaraRuttley and Southwest Research Institute Associate Vice President for Researchand Development Alan Stern as they discuss the benefits and differences betweenthe space station and suborbital research platforms.

A Lab Aloft’s JessicaNimon: Alan and Tara, thank you forjoining me. Today we are talking about the topic of microgravity researchplatforms. I sometimes hear people treat suborbital and orbital laboratoryoptions as synonymous. These options, however, offer distinctly differentbenefits. Alan, can you tell me what makes suborbital research unique?

Stern: Suborbitalis special for a number of reasons. First of all, it offers low cost and morefrequent spaceflight than we can currently achieve with orbital research. Italso provides the space station with a great training and proving ground. Sodespite its many amazing capabilities, space station is highly constrained interms of crew time, how much equipment you can get back and forth and room toplace investigations. Naturally, only the most important experiments can go upto station and they receive limited crew time. This is part of why it isimportant for the station to have a proving ground—like suborbital—where youcan test the equipment, the techniques and the science. This way selections forwhich experiments should go up to station can be made based on experience inresearch, not just theory.

My analogy for the relationship between the station andsuborbital research is a baseball one: the major leagues rely on the minors asa feeder system and I think this is a similar relationship between station (i.e.,the major leagues) and suborbital (i.e., the minors). Without the minorleagues, the majors would be crippled; they would not have the farm teams todevelop techniques and players. I think the station can use suborbital in thesame way and very cost effectively.

Ruttley: I agreewith Alan that suborbital research can help to pare out the tests thatinvestigators want to do. It could be a way for a scientist to get a goodhandle on a hypothesis prior to working with the space station. Once aninvestigator knows what might be seen in microgravity, a decision can be madeon the next step.

One of the advantages of working with the space station isthis ability for continuous testing. On the ground, scientists do oneexperiment, look at the results, and then repeat in a lab setting withcontrolled variables. The space station provides a researcher the ability toperform multiple trials to increase the data set, thereby offering longevitywith a sustainable presence in space.

You have large opportunities for data and power, as well. Theseare huge resources for investigations like the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer or AMS.This study could not sustain itself without the space station’s power and data capabilities.Space station also provides a humanin the loop to help troubleshoot in real time and potentially move theinvestigation on to the next step.


The starboard truss of theInternational Space Station with the newly-installed Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2, or AMS,
visible at center left.
(NASA Image S134E007532)

Something else to consider is that the space station offersnot only the U.S. laboratory, but also access to our international partnerlabs. Each partner module has its own range of facilitiesfor investigators to potentially take advantage of. This includes externalmounting for studies seeking exposure to the space environment. It is appealingto researchers that we have this massive, interdisciplinary, resupplied andfully-outfitted research laboratory on orbit.

A Lab Aloft’s Jessica Nimon: Alan, you mentioned thatsuborbital research can feed into station investigations. I’m curious, doesthis ever occur in reverse? Have findings from station studies contributed to suborbitalresearch?

Stern:  Not yet. I think that’s largely the outcomeof limitations with the current suborbital program at NASA. For one, NASA’scurrent suborbital program does not fly very often and it’s very expensive. Secondly,it’s primarily a Science Mission Directorate program and station does not do alot of planetary science, astrophysics or much Earth science—the mainstays ofthe Science Mission Directorate. These could be future areas, however, for thespace station to expand into.

But I also think the new commercially reusable suborbitalefforts are going to really change current paradigms and allow things to workin both directions. This is because the user community will vastly expand withdaily flights—instead of monthly flights—and lower costs will enable more trialand error experimentation like in a regular lab. The people interested incommercial suborbital are not necessarily looking at the same goals at the ScienceMission Directorate. They are looking instead at the things that fit betterwith station, in terms of the user base: microgravity, life sciences,technology tests.

Ruttley:  There are a few NASA research announcements sponsoredby the Science Mission Directorate right now that encompass the use of thespace station. These are the ResearchOpportunities in Space and Earth Sciences, or ROSES, and the Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice,or SALMON.

Stern:  There are many places in the directorateportfolio that space station could assist with. Putting these things on thealready existing station platform makes sense; it would allow many kinds ofresearch to move forward faster. It is true, however, that while in many casesthis will work, some kinds of research just aren’t compatible with station. Forinstance, since station is a human space facility—which by nature has a lot ofoutgassing—it is too dirty for some kinds of external investigations.

A Lab Aloft’s JessicaNimon:  Do you see a difference in interest or a preference from users towardseither platform?

Stern:  Most of what I’ve heard is that there arelimited resources and too lengthy of a timeline for both station and suborbitalresearch. Fixing this for both arenas would be a home run hit. I think usersfind that suborbital is easier to work with, due to the faster timescales. Youcould spend 5 to 10 years in the past getting something to fly on shuttle, and2 or 3 years getting ready for a sounding rocket flight, but the commercialresearch and development cycle is usually less than a year—which is the verytimescale the new suborbital vehicles are comfortable with for arrangingflights.

If station can streamline its experiment manifesting andoperations, with COTS [commercial off-the-shelf] and commercial cargo goingback and forth, this may change. Now that we have great facilities aboard thespace station, I’d like to see the use of existing hardware to getinvestigations going more swiftly. Otherwise, the timescale is too big abarrier to most users. The space station needs to adapt the customer’s needs, Ithink, to increase its user base.

Ruttley:  That has been the case in the past, Alan, butrecent National Lab efforts have done a lot to improve the timeline. TheNational Lab has been successful in securing several agreements with governmentagencies, commercial users, and universities for the use of the space station.National Lab Manager Marybeth Edeen recently wrote a blogon this topic of improving the timeline to flight. Payload developers usingexisting hardware have been able to fly to station in as little time as sixmonths . This is not the standard yet, but it is possible by pairingresearchers with existing certified payload developers to really accelerate theprocess.

Stern:  I don’t think this is well known yet. Withthis changing for the positive, people need to know that the story haschanged—let’s get the word out faster.

Ruttley:  That’s part of what we’re doing with thisblog and with our other media efforts, like the storieswe publish on our International Space Station Research and Technology Website.With the National Lab effort, over 50 percent of NASA’s assets are available tousers. Perhaps the new non-profitmanagement planned for National Lab will have additional ways to help getthe word out.

Stern:  It’s good that the word is now starting toget out, but I think that more could be done to reach more users. PerhapsNational Lab can send representatives to host workshops at the meetings andconferences scientists attend, whether industrial or academic. Just to talk tothem and answer their questions on how to do business. Usually researchers arelooking for money, too, since universities don’t usually have their own for investigations.

Ruttley:  I agree. I think the progress ofcommunication and the streamlined process will continue to improve over thenext few years. National Lab users do have to come up with their own researchfunding, but it’s been shown to be successful already. Just last year, the NationalInstitutes of Health, or NIH, gave three awardeesthe money to do their research on the station; NASA will integrate and launchthe investigations. While the National Lab and the Space Station PayloadsOffice are working on a streamlined process for launch and integration, researchfunding itself will always be the real issue for potential researchers.

A Lab Aloft’s Jessica Nimon:  Where do you see the future of suborbitalresearch?

Stern:  Right now there are five firms buildingreusable suborbital systems: Virgin Galactic, XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, MastenSpace Systems and Blue Origin. Four carry people and payloads and one—i.e.,Masten—carries only payloads. While the legacy NASA suborbital program fliesinfrequently, these commercial companies plan a far more frequent flightschedule. Between several times a week and daily, so we’ll go from roughly twodozen flights per year to hundreds per year. This will be a huge change to users’access to space. It will be more affordable, too, maybe in the hundreds of thousandsof dollars.

Ruttley:  The price of space station research is alsocoming down, because more and more experiment hardware can be reused. Companiessuch as BioServeor NanoRacks LLC offer excellent entrypoints for new experiments; you can do a lot on the space station in thehundreds of thousands range.


Dave Masten and Nadir Bagaveyev mounting the Amespayload rack onto the Xaero suborbital launch vehicle prior to a combined systems test.  
(Credit: Doug Maclise)

A Lab Aloft’s Jessica Nimon:  What is the operations duration for theseexperiments on suborbital flights?

Stern:  It’s really short. The typical time they havein microgravity is three to four minutes, which is the same as the currentstandard suborbital option. You can make a well thought-out experiment run inthis timeframe, however, and then fly it again to get more data.

Keep in mind that there are multiple experimentsrunning at once on a given flight. Each seat can hold racks capable of housing asmany as 10 experiments—in just one seat! Virgin, for instance, plans to havesix seats available on six vehicles, which they plan to fly on a daily basis.Add to this the other companies similar numbers and over time and with enoughflights, suborbital has the potential to start returning many hours of research—ifall the seats are full. The difference is that it comes in little blips, ratherthan all at once.

Currently the U.S. flies only one suborbital soundingrocket mission every two weeks. So as all of the various suborbital companiesramp up to full operations, we have a huge magnification of capability. We willhave 10s of hours per week of available human research flight time, in additionto the onboard automated experiments. We are approximately four to five yearsaway from full operations.

Ruttley:  This is a great way for short-durationexperiments to get microgravity time, especially as demand for the space station’slong-duration capabilities grows. The suborbital option can potentially free upthe station platform for investigations that need to run for longer than threeminutes in a given flight. The two options really could work in concert, asthey both meet different experiment needs, based on duration and capability.

I’d like to point out that the space station also usesracks, though of a different design and capability, to house multiple studies.These racks, which are housed in each module, can hold several investigationsat once. As far as hands-on research, however, the space station at fulloperation gets 3,500 hours of crew time per year across the whole partnership.Our long-duration capabilities enable our investigations to run according tothe needs of the research, whether in repeatable, short-duration experiments orin longer, ongoing operations. The crew can also replicate studies immediately,under the right circumstances, to look into unexpected phenomena.

A Lab Aloft’s JessicaNimon:  Alan, can you comment on current funding for suborbital flights?

Stern:  There are two sources that come to mind.There’s a request for proposals from NASA’s Chief Technologist Bobby Braun’soffice. In their flight opportunities program, they just completed finalselection for suborbital payloads. It’s a very small program, but it’s a start.Along with that, they also did another request for proposals due June 24, 2011to select launch service providers and integrators—and just announced IDIQ[indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity] contracts with seven flight providerfirms.

A Lab Aloft’s Jessica Nimon:  Tara, turning to the space station now. Wheredo you see the future of station research going?

Ruttley:  When you look at where the space station isheaded, there are really two areas to examine. The station as a whole and theNational Lab. For the station at large, our international partners each havetheir own individual goals based on their governing agency and their scientificand political climates. NASA’s own space station research goals are dependenton our mission—currently this is driven by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.So as a result, NASA focuses on areas of research that benefit spaceexploration, and relatively less fundamental physical and life sciences, thoughthey are certainly not excluded.

The second piece is the U.S. National Laboratory, with afocus on Earth benefits. The combination of these elements drives the use ofthe space station as a whole. So the future of station is to continue to marchtowards these mission directives and goals. As more users engage in NationalLab efforts, we will see more of those Earth benefits, as well. It is importantto mention, however, that any research done on station can have Earth benefits,even if that is not the original focus of the investigation.

A Lab Aloft’s Jessica Nimon:  Where are your suborbital efforts headednext?

Stern:  We do a number of things related to suborbitalflight at the Southwest Research Institute.We will launch our own payload specialists and payloads in this effort; currentlywe have nine launches funded and options on three more.

A Lab Aloft’sJessica Nimon:  What do you hope to see ahead for orbitalresearch?

Stern:  I think one of the things this decade willhopefully see—and which may amp up the space station program—is an effort tohost commercial payload specialists. Whether in government or commercial taxis,these payload specialists could stay weeks or months on station using the NationalLab. It’s hard to tell if this will happen, in the government world, but it wouldbe a great program for the space station. We had something like this forshuttle and I think it would benefit station, as well.

Ruttley:  I think the real key is that efforts tohave commercial companies flying people into space are going to be importantfor both research on the space station and other flight opportunities. Witheasy access to both station and abbreviated platforms like suborbital flights,scientists will finally be unconstrained and able to do experiments where theysee fit. The discovery potential is amazing!

Tara Ruttley, Ph.D., is Associate Program Scientist for theInternational Space Station for NASA at Johnson Space Center in Houston. Dr.Ruttley previously served as the lead flight hardware engineer for the ISSHealth Maintenance System, and later for the ISS Human Research Facility. Shehas a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and a Master of Science degree inMechanical Engineering from Colorado State University, and a Doctor ofPhilosophy degree in Neuroscience from the University of Texas Medical Branch.Dr. Ruttley has authored publications ranging from hardware design toneurological science, and also holds a U.S. utility patent.


Dr. Tara Ruttley
(NASA Image)

Alan Stern, Ph.D., is the Associate Vice President for Research andDevelopment for Southwest Research Institute Boulder, Colo. He also served asNASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate in 2007-2008.Stern is a planetary scientist and an author who has published more than 175technical papers and 40 popular articles. He has a long association with NASA,serving on the NASA Advisory Council and as the principal investigator on anumber of planetary and lunar missions. Stern earned a doctorate inastrophysics and planetary science from the University of Colorado at Boulderin 1989.


Alan Stern
(ISPCS 2010)

A Station with a View: The Importance of Earth View to Crew Mental Health

Our exploration future is focused on the goal of sending humans beyond Earth orbit. This is an incredible aim and the International Space Station has an important role to play in the achievement. If you are following this blog and the stories published on the International Space Station Research and Technology Website, you already know of many investigations that support NASA’s objective. In fact, the very experience of living on the space station can provide important insight into human health, leading to benefits for future explorers.

One aspect of long-duration spaceflight you may not have considered is the experience of isolation that can impact the psychological well being of crewmembers. Those lucky enough to experience interplanetary travel will be cut off from their families, homes, and even their planet. As the explorers travel, even the comfortingly familiar green and blue globe of Earth will resemble a feint blue dot.

A recent crew survey found that astronauts reported one area of spaceflight they found particularly enriching involved their perception of the Earth. The flip side to this finding is the implication that the lack of an Earth view may negatively impact crew psychological well being. To seek verification of this emotional tie to a view of our planet, my colleagues and I chose to examine available data from the Crew Earth Observations or CEO. The goal was to see if there was a correlation between crew photography and mental well being based on the frequency of self-initiated images vs. those mandated by scientific directives.


Astronaut Jeff Williams prepares to photograph
the Earth from the Zvezda Service Module
aboard the International Space Station.
(NASA image)

These images reside in an online collection of imagery called the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. In the recently published paper, Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from ISS—Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience?, we looked at the photos taken between Expedition 4 and Expedition 11. This duration spanned from December 2001 to October 2005 and provided 144,180 Earth images to review. Of these photos, 15.5% were taken by space station crewmembers in response to requests by scientists. This means that the other 84.5% were crew-initiated photographs.


This crew-initiated image of São Paulo, Brazil, at night is an example of photography using a
homemade tracking system to capture long-exposure images under low light conditions,
which was assembled by astronaut Don Pettit.
(NASA image ISS006E44689)

Upon examining the images, the data showed that crewmembers took more photos when they had free time. When ramping up for increased activity on orbit, voluntary photography declined, whereas during reduced times of work, imagery increased. Likewise, if the crewmember was already at the window with the camera in hand for a CEO objective, they were more likely to continue photographing the Earth. The longer the individual was on station the more frequently they photographed the Earth, likely due to task familiarity and general acquaintance with station life.

Surprisingly, there was no connection between crewmember photography and areas of specific interest—such as hometowns or birthplaces. This may have to do with the fact that in this study these places were chosen by the researchers, rather than by the crewmembers themselves. Perhaps a future examination delving into the crew’s preference, as compared with the available data, may show alternate findings.

There was also an element of challenge via Earth photography, including learning and perfecting a new skill with the station cameras, that appears to have engaged the crew’s interest. For instance, the choice to shoot more frequently with the 800mm lens, a much more difficult focal length to manage and control, implies enjoyment. For the same reason someone may pick up a crossword puzzle, those on the space station may seek to fill time with tasks of mental dexterity. This implies the benefits of providing extended exploration participants with not only a creative outlet, but objectives that require intellectual acuity.


This view, taken with using the 800-millimeter lens combination, shows a portion of an image
of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California, taken during Expedition 13 by
astronaut Jeff Williams from aboard the International Space Station.
(NASA image ISS013E65111)

When you consider that a round trip mission to Mars could last as long as three years, it is not hard to understand why we are concerned about possible negative psychological impacts of isolation and confinement. As for all our human exploration risks, we are seeking ways to mitigate the impacts. The significantly large percent of images that were self-initiated in this study indicates that—time permitting—viewing, photographing, and subsequently sharing pictures of Earth is important to crewmembers. Likewise, providing challenging, enjoyable, and comforting leisure activities for the crew may be the key to securing long-term mental health while they are far from home.

Julie A. Robinson, Ph.D.
International Space Station Program Scientist

 

Sharing the Love

This week on A Lab Aloft, comments from guest blogger Justin Kugler, Systems Engineer with the National Laboratory Office, as he recalls his experience at the STS-135 Tweetup at Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

Our mission in the International Space Station National Laboratory Office is to make the unique capabilities of the station more open to other government agencies, industry partners, and education programs. Fulfilling that mandate from Congress has introduced me to a wide variety of researchers, technologists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and educators. I have every expectation that the National Lab portfolio will only grow more eclectic with time.

As the admin for the National Lab Office Twitter account, @ISS_NatLab, it was exciting to move out from behind the keyboard and take the stage at the STS-135 Launch Tweetup at Kennedy Space Center, Fla. on July 7, 2011. Presenting alongside me was scientist Tracy Thumm with the International Space Station Program Scientist’s Office. This is a great example of how NASA has embraced the power of social media to connect with the public and share our stories.

Tracy Thumm and Justin Kugler
speak at the STS-135 NASA
Tweetup (NASA image)

Back home, our colleges with @ISS_Research supported the Tweetup and posted updates for our followers on Twitter. Tracy and I spoke about the science, technology, and exploration research planned for the final mission of the Space Shuttle Program and aboard the space station. In addition to the physical group of 150 of NASA’s biggest fans, we had countless virtual participants through the live video stream and online forums.

Some of the topics we covered for STS-135 included advanced vaccine research and the J. Craig Venter Institute’s bacteriological survey of the station environment. I also had the privilege of presenting some of the new technologies that will be broken in on the station in preparation for future deep space exploration, such as new carbon dioxide scrubbers, non-toxic propellants, inflatable modules, and advanced telerobotics. 

I really enjoyed the Q&A session that followed my talk, as it allowed us to answer in greater detail how research opportunities are expanding on the station. For example, I shared a training module from a commercial partner, NanoRacks, LLC. This 10-cm cubed platform, with USB port for power and data, houses and integrates small experiments aboard the station. Using ready-made platforms like this enables researchers with a good idea, but relatively little funding to obtain sustained exposure to the microgravity environment. We also talked about the planned use of commercial lab equipment—such as a plate reader—modified for the station that will allow NASA to send data back to researchers on the ground without having to return samples. This reduces the time lag to get results.

My colleague Tracy fielded a question regarding the length of time till scientist see results from station research. In fact, we are already seeing results, such as a recently published study on the stability of pharmaceuticals in space. The International Space Station Research and Technology Website keeps tabs on the results, as they become available to the public. The actual duration for results varies from investigation to investigation.

One of my favorite questions, though, was about what we still need to learn to send humans on long-duration missions and where people can learn more. There are, relatively speaking, only a handful of data points for how the human body behaves in the space environment and billions of data points here on Earth. We understand very little of what happens in between, such as with the one-third-normal gravity of Mars. Future human research studies on the station will help us fill in those gaps so we can design vehicles and missions to keep human explorers healthy, safe, and sane on their journeys. NASA’s Human Research Roadmap covers this in much greater detail.

Later, I was told that the tent was quiet—except for the background hum of the portable air conditioners—because everyone was listening intently, taking notes for their blogs or posting our answers in real-time to Twitter. Attendees continued to come up to Tracy and I to ask questions about the work being done on the station throughout the rest of the event.

The Tweetup also included a special visit from Deputy Administrator Lori Garver and an entertaining interview between astronauts Mike Massimino and Doug Wheelock and Sesame Street star, Elmo. The Muppet, interestingly enough, had as many questions as the astronauts! 

Sesame Street’s Elmo interviews
astronauts Mike Massimino and
Doug Wheelock at the STS-135
NASA Tweetup.
(NASA Image)

After the rains of that Thursday passed, the attendees all made their way out to the lawn near Pad 39A to visit the shuttle Atlantis. The crowd was electrified by the breathtaking unveiling of the orbiter, as the rotating service structure retracted from view to clear the pad for launch. Despite the amorphous grey clouds in the background, the stark contrast between the orange external tank, black and white thermal tiles on the orbiter, and the white cylinders of the boosters was truly riveting.

The rotating service structure
retracting from Atlantis
(Image courtesy of Justin Kugler)

Surprises were in store for the Tweetup participants throughout the morning of launch day. This included a visit from astronaut legend, Bob Crippen, and the introduction of Bear McCreary’s “Fanfare” for STS-135 by Seth Green (an unabashed NASA enthusiast). As the hours rolled by, the anticipation was at a fever pitch. The weather was progressively improving and everyone had a sense that the launch would actually happen.

The passing of the Astrovan further raised the level of anticipation. We had our first indication that the “final four” were close from the passing of the escort helicopter. A spontaneous cheer went up when the van and its security entourage turned the corner and came into view. There was one last stop to let off anyone not going to the pad, then the crew of Atlantis pressed on to their destination and a beautiful launch!

One last stop for the Astrovan.
(Image courtesy of Justin Kugler)

After Atlantis’ ascent, people made their way back to their laptops in the Tweetup tent or established a connection with their smartphone, the blog posts, Tweets, and picture uploads resumed en masse. Each of the Tweetup attendees became an ambassador to the rest of the world for NASA.

That relationship is what NASA Tweetups are all about. Even in the twilight of the Space Shuttle Program, the love and passion for spaceflight was alive and well in us all. I believe it is the responsibility of those who experienced the final shuttle launch—NASA employees and honored guests alike—to share this connection with the rest of the world and to look forward to the next decade of research on the space station.

The Tweetups are successful because they embody more than just telling people about what we do at NASA. Attendees have the chance to participate and share the story on their own terms. It is this bond between NASA and the public that can sustain interest in and support for our nation’s space program and future exploration. We still have a lot of work to do on the space station and to prepare for missions in deep space, so I look forward to many more Tweetups to come.

The STS-135 Launch Tweetup participants.
(NASA image)

Justin Kugler works at NASA Johnson Space Center in the International Space Station National Laboratory Office. There he supports systems integration activities for science payloads. He has a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Texas A&M University and a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Rice University.

 

The Advantage of Laboratory Time in Space

This week, commentsfrom guest blogger and International Space Station Principal Investigator Dr.Mark Weislogel, as he reflects on the importance, advantages and joys oflong-duration investigations on the space station.

Scientists who have not used the International Space Stationbefore don’t always have a feel for how space experiments can be as successful,if not more so than those using other low-g environments. Researchers used tothe shuttle experience think in terms of a very small window of time to makechanges and adapt. Short duration investigations are intense and competitive.In hindsight, it seems they are high risk. If you have a three-hour slot to runyour experiment and some setback occurs that cannot be resolved, you lose aportion of your data.

On the space station this can also happen, but when youengage in long-duration investigations, you quickly realize that you have timeto think things over. Because of this, when unexpected events occur, you canrespond in a creative and curious way. The success factor of long-durationexperiments is high—barring any failures in equipment, a risk in any lab. Infact, you are very likely to discover things you would not anticipate; thingscompletely peripheral to the goal, which you will observe for the first time,due to man’s limited experience in microgravity.

When a setback occurs on the station, you get partialresults and then the investigation goes into storage or offline for a time.When you come back, you’ve had time to think about things. In my experiencewith the CapillaryFlow Experiment or CFE, the participating astronaut also had suggestions,an advantage to working with humans in space. Procedures were changed around fromthe previous run and we ended up with more data than ever planned and saw newthings en route. [Ground operations for the CFE investigation took place at theNational Center for Microgravity Research and Glenn Research Center, Cleveland,Ohio.]


NASA astronaut ScottKelly, Expedition 26 commander, works on the hardware setup for a CapillaryFlow Experiment (CFE) Vane Gap-1 experiment. The CFE is positioned on theMaintenance Work Area in the Destiny laboratory of the International SpaceStation. CFE observes the flow of fluid, in particular capillary phenomena, inmicrogravity.
(NASA Image ISS026E017024)

Transitions in fluid locations due to slight changes incontainer geometry. As a central vane is rotated in this elliptic cylindercontainer critical wetting geometries are established leading to wicking alongthe vane-wall gap, and/or a bulk shift of fluid from right to left.
(Image Credit: Suni Williams)

Time and resources factor into any discovery, of course, andsignificant astronautinvolvement makes a big difference, too; certainly more so than inautomated or robotic investigations. But even with the CapillaryChannel Flow or CCF investigation that I am working on right now, it is amazing! If you have a pump and some valves, you can configure them in many ways you did not anticipate and widen your data set. You want to get what you planned on, but it is a delight to get all this extra information that you never expected!

My previous experience dealt with handheld, smallexperiments, so to me CCF is a complicated investigation. CCF is focused ontwo-phase flow—a liquid system with gas bubbles. In space, the gas does notrise and we have not had many opportunities to study systems like this inmicrogravity. The investigation has pumps and valves and plungers andseparation chambers. While there are other studies devoted only to two-phaseflow, CCF has two-phase flow all throughout it just to generate the flow thatwe are interested in watching. CCF operates continuously, controlled from theground through the Microgravity Science Glovebox or MSG interface and does notrequire crew interaction.

We have gotten to the point with CCF where we can get around20 data points per day and we are on our way to where we can get hundreds andhundreds of data points in a 24/7 operation. The system is working, thoughthere are setbacks—often times with loss of signal during our commanding or dueto our own thing—in trying to take inventories of where the fluids and gasesare in the system. We are regularly downloading high resolution, high speedimages and plotting them right alongside of our analysis on the ground andseeing new things there, too. The 24/7 collection is exhausting, but we know wecan do it!


In the image above, single and multi-bubble migration and phaseseparation are driven passively by specific control of container shape. A taper ina polygonal sectioned conduit leads to capillary pumping of liquid from rightto left driving bubble left to right. Such mechanisms may be invoked by fluidsystems aboard spacecraft to separate and store fluids by phase without movingparts.
(Image Credit: Scott Kelly and Cady Colemen)

On the ground, the joint German-US team started with 24/7 operationsto learn the experiment in the first 2 to 3 weeks. Then the team travelled toGermany and slowed the pace, learned the system, then ramped up again to 24/7operations. [Development and ground operations for CCF take place at the GermanAerospace Center, headquartered in Cologne, Germany.] Our operations are muchmore controlled than before, because we were working 16-hour days to supportthat. The team then continued running for a few weeks until we finished ourfirst set of objectives.

Unexpected developments are part of the joy in microgravityinvestigations. When you make a discovery, you think, “Oh my, of course thisshould happen!” But no one has seen it before, because no one has had this nicelow-g environment for such a long duration. This is fun because it kindles the samekind of excitement that you have in your lab when you are definitelydiscovering something. It’s very exciting!

The thing is that the chances for discovery are much higherwith long-duration investigations on the space station. This is because we do notlive in that environment. You may be trying to verify a theory—and that isgreat—but en route you are very likely to see things to compliment orsupplement your investigation and even take you in different directions. Youwon’t have thought of these discoveries until you actually see them. That’swhat it is like with fluids in microgravity, as well as with combustion, materialsscience, and other fields.

One thing I feel very good about is that most of myinvestigation results can apply in the real world right away. Our work hasalready led to design concepts to improve the performance and reliability ofadvanced systems, such as condensing heat exchangers and waste-water treatmentdevices. It can also help with liquid fuel tank and fuel transfer designs. Theresults give new insight, confirm theories, and are useful for space and groundresearch. So there is not always a long lead time between the science productsand their use. This generates a good feeling, seeing that there is contributionin an observable timescale. This is not common in science and usually takesdecades to realize. Instead, these results can improve design and space systemdesign right now.

Dr. Mark Weislogel isa professor in the Thermal and Fluid Sciences Group in the Maseeh College ofEngineering and Computer Science at Portland State University. He has researchexperience from government and private institutions. While employed by NASA, heproposed and conducted experiments relating to microgravity fluid mechanics.This unique subtopic area within fluid mechanics provides significantchallenges for designers of fluids management systems for aerospaceapplications. Weislogel continues to make extensive use of NASA ground-basedlow-gravity facilities and has completed experiments via space shuttle, theRussian Mir Space Station, and the International Space Station. While in theprivate sector, Weislogel served as principal investigator for applied researchprojects concerning high-performance heat transport systems,micrometeorite-safe space-based radiators, microscale cooling systems,emergency oxygen supply systems, and astronaut sleep stations. His current researchincludes passive non-capillary cooling cycles for satellite thermal control andcapillary fluidics at both micro- and macro length scales. Weislogel has writtenover 50 publications; see http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mmw/for further details.



ISS Research in the Decade Ahead

International Space Station astronaut Suni Williams recently addressed a symposium at the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) annual meeting regarding research in extreme environments. In this entry for A Lab Aloft, she shares her perspective on extreme research on the International Space Station.

The upcoming decade of utilization is an exciting time for the International Space Station. As an astronaut, I had the opportunity to help build the station, to live and work on it, and I hope to go back someday. I think many people are unaware of the different aspects of this incredible laboratory: the various control centers; the communications that are involved just to prepare, make, and operate the station; as well as the different countries involved. Just providing operations for the station requires a tremendous amount of communication and control. And for the last 10 years, the station has also been furthering science.

There are fascinating opportunities for scientists with the space station going forward. An awareness of this can spur on ideas of ways to do investigations in space. Just looking at the science that has already been done during the last decade of assembly is inspirational. Think about it; when building projects are being erected, they do not usually operate at the same time. Take a hospital, for instance—it does not take patients while under construction. When you sit back and look at how much research was done while the station was under construction, it is pretty amazing.


Astronaut Sunita L. Williams, Expedition 15 flight engineer, performs one of
multiple tests of the Capillary Flow Experiment (CFE) investigation in the
Destiny laboratory of the International Space Station. CFE observes the flow
of fluid, in particular capillary phenomena, in microgravity.
(NASA Image ISS015E05039)

Compared to other laboratories, being in such a harsh environment adds some unique challenges. It also requires a lot to take care of it. When a toilet brakes, when the oxygen generation system does not work, when a solar array does not supply power, the crew are the only six people who can and have to go out and fix things. Control systems have to be maintained and this reduces the amount of science we can get done, compared to six people in a friendly environment here on Earth.

One of the main differences between the space station and other laboratories is that most labs work on only one experiment discipline, perhaps with variables. On the station, however, you really have to multitask; there are so many different investigations that people have wanted to do for a long time: biology and biotechnology, Earth and space sciences, education, human research, physical sciences, and technology. In a given day you could be doing experiments in all of these fields, which is different from other labs.

When interfacing with primary investigators on the ground, they are the scientists and I am somewhat of a tech operator while on the station. Astronauts are the hands-on connection, and there are good and bad parts to that. Sometimes we may need coaching from the investigator, but in exchange we bring an untainted perspective. We know what to look for from training, but we may notice some phenomenon that raises questions. This interaction is known as the human in the loop and it is really necessary. For instance, I was able to make unexpected observations for the Capillary Flow Experiment during my time on the space station. It was exciting to help scientists make new discoveries! There are some experiments we can automate 24/7, but others we don’t really know if we will find something without a critical eye observation.


Astronaut Sunita L. Williams, Expedition 15 flight
engineer, works at a portable glovebox facility in the
Destiny laboratory of the International Space Station.
(NASA Image ISS015E08308)

Now that I have returned from my work on the station, I am amazed to see the results coming out. For instance, there has been some exciting progress in vaccine development and even an approach to delivering a chemotherapy drug, due to space station investigations. This research is targeted to benefit people all over the world.

We all have to be a little bit patient, however, in waiting for such findings. For instance, I flew in 2006 and it is now 2011 and we are just now starting to see these positive results. What is encouraging now is that since science experiments have been going on, they are building upon themselves and yielding results. Follow-up experiments will continue to further investigate the problems and seek answers. I think getting concrete results is the most rewarding part of working on the space station and now is the time that we should start seeing it more frequently as science experiments get done.

We have a decade to use this lab, and it is time to start investing in the work. We are going to have humans in space for the next 10 years living and working on the station. The research and technology testing will provide us enough data and information for us to smartly build the next spacecraft to take us a little bit further. We need to find out things about the human body, the atmosphere, the spacecraft and how it is surviving. We are investigating things that happen in low earth orbit, and this gives us the confidence for humans to go one step farther. So I hope this is the stepping stone and inspiration for the next generation of explorers. We have to go someplace else.

Suni Williams is a NASA astronaut with and flight engineer for the International Space Station. She launched to the station on STS-116 (December 22, 2006) as part of Expedition 14 and Expedition 15, returning to Earth with STS-117 (June 22, 2007). During her increment in space, Williams set a new record for females of 195 days in space. In today’s blog, Williams shares her thoughts and perspective as a crewmember aboard the International Space Station with the readers of A Lab Aloft.



Research to Watch on the STS-133 Shuttle Launch to the International Space Station

The STS-133 shuttle flight, which launched to the International Space Station on February 24, 2011, includes 5 investigations for crewmembers to perform, delivery of 24 studies with hardware or samples, and 22 investigations with samples or data coming home on the return trip. Allow me to share with you a few of the highlights from this extensive list.

A major milestone from this flight is the final outfitting of the interior of the space station laboratory. NASA launched the last of the Express Racks on STS-133. These workhorses are bench-like structures used to support experiment equipment with power, data, and thermal sensors. The final addition of Express Rack 8 completes the furnishing of the laboratory, making way for full use of the station for research. Future National Lab users will employ about 50 percent of the space available in these racks, doing research that will benefit discovery and economic development of the nation through 2020 and beyond.

Cytokines on a Mission

This flight also includes a unique experiment that will study the very puzzling effects of spaceflight on the immune system. The Effect of Space Flight on Innate Immunity to Respiratory Viral Infections investigation looks at the impact of microgravity on the immune system by challenging it with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). These studies will help determine the biological significance of space flight-induced changes in immune responses, which astronauts experience in microgravity. NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are both interested in using the space station to understand the immune system for astronauts and for the health of people here on Earth.

Boiling without Buoyancy

The first premier boiling facility, the Boiling eXperiment Facility (BXF) also launched on STS-133. This equipment enables the study of boiling in space, paving the way for two new investigations to take place on station: Microheater Array Boiling Experiment (BXF-MABE) and Nucleate Pool Boiling Experiment (BXF-NPBX). The boiling process is really different in space, since the vapor phase of a boiling liquid does not rise via buoyancy. Spacecraft and Earth-based systems use boiling to efficiently remove large amounts of heat by generating vapor from liquid. For example, many power plants use this process to generate electricity. An upper limit, called the critical heat flux, exists where the heater is covered with so much vapor that liquid supply to the heater begins to decrease. The goal of BXF-MABE is to determine the critical heat flux during boiling in microgravity. This will facilitate the optimal design of cooling systems on Earth, as well as in space exploration vehicles.

 

Without buoyancy or convection, boiling fluids behave quite differently in space.
(Video courtesy of NASA)

 

The second experiment, BXF-NPBX, studies nucleate boiling, which is bubble growth from a heated surface and the subsequent detachment of the bubble to a cooler surrounding liquid. Bubbles in microgravity grow to different sizes than on Earth and can transfer energy through fluid flow. The BXF-NPBX investigation provides an understanding of the heat transfer and vapor removal processes that take place during nucleate boiling in microgravity. This knowledge is necessary for optimum design and safe operation of heat exchange equipment that uses nucleate boiling as a way to transfer heat in extreme environments, like the deep ocean for submarines and microgravity for spacecraft.

All Fired Up

Also on this flight are some great new combustion experiments. Burning and Suppression of Solids (BASS) tests the hypothesis that materials in microgravity burn as well, if not better than, the same material in normal gravity, all other conditions being identical. Structure and Liftoff In Combustion Experiment (SLICE) investigates the characteristics of flame structure, such as length and lift, using different fuels with varied levels of dilution. SLICE uses a small flow duct with an igniter and nozzle to collect data as a flame detaches from the nozzle and stabilizes at a downstream position. Combustion is dramatically different in space, as seen in the photo below. These studies aim to make spacecraft safer from fires and combustion processes more efficient in microgravity.

 

A flame in Earth’s gravity (left) vs. microgravity (right).
On Earth, warm air rises and cools, leading to the shape of
the orange flame. In space, there is no buoyancy, so the
flame is blue-hot and spherical.
(Image courtesy of NASA)

 

Not So Lost In Space

One of the more publicized technology demonstrations on STS-133 is a humanoid robot that seems like something right out of a sci-fi movie. Robonaut serves as a springboard to help evolve new robotic capabilities in space. Over the next few years, tests of this technology on the space station will demonstrate that a dexterous robot can launch and operate in a space vehicle, manipulate mechanisms in a microgravity environment, function for extended duration within the space environment, assist with tasks, and eventually interact with the crewmembers.

 

The current Robonaut iteration: Robonaut 2.
(Image courtesy of NASA)

 

I am eager to see the results from the various studies beginning, ongoing, and returning from the space station via STS-133. This is an exciting time of full utilization of our laboratory in low Earth orbit!

For a full list of experiments available on this flight, see the STS-133 Press kit or visit https://www.nasa.gov. 

 

Julie A. Robinson, Ph.D.
International Space Station Program Scientist