WASHINGTON, July 10 (UPI) -- Unless NASA plans to expand the International Space Station and allocate more astronaut time for experiments, the agency should cease justifying the program on its scientific merits, a top-level panel of scientists announced in a report released Wednesday.
"That's a very strong statement," said Carnegie Mellon University physicist Robert Sekerka, a long-time NASA observer who serves on independent science advisory councils. "NASA has touted research aboard the space station as one of the primary drivers -- if not the primary driver -- for the space station."
Faced with a multi-billion-dollar cost overrun, NASA canceled plans to develop a seven-person station crew lifeboat -- limiting the current crew size to three -- as well as a habitation module to house an expanded crew, science facilities and other hardware originally planned for the space station.
"I hope this report will have the impact of making folks realize that even though it's extremely important to get the budget under control, you cannot for budgetary reasons cut off your nose to spite your face," Sekerka said.
Trying to soothe the political hot potato her advisory group lobbed into the contentious debate about space station funding and NASA's priorities, chairwoman Rae Silver and co-chairman David Shirley stopped short of saying the program was scientifically a wash if no more funding is made available to build the orbital outpost beyond its currently planned configuration.
However, added Shirley, formerly with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, "If it is a science-driven program, (NASA) should anticipate going further at a suitable time in the future."
The report, prepared by the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force, also called for an increase in the number of shuttle re-supply missions to the space station, noting if NASA-provided data about shuttle capability and research programs are correct, the current planned flight rate of four station missions per year will be inadequate to support a full research program.
The task force ranked the station's scheduled science programs into groups of four, opting to sacrifice depth in any one area of investigation, such as biomedical research, rather than breadth. For example, the top priority in medical research should be clinical and operational medicine, behavior and performance studies and radiation health, the report said. Lower on the priority list are environmental health issues and experiments that focus on evolutionary biology. Similar rankings were made for biological, physical and other scientific disciplines.
The panel strongly urged NASA to include a centrifuge for biological research and to designate one station astronaut as the science officer, even if the crew size remains limited to three members.
"It's an important step to maximize science right now," said Silver.
The task force's recommendations are expected to be included in a NASA Advisory Council report due to agency officials in September.
