- Email: [email protected]
Four educational programs in space life sciences
Adv. SpaceRea. Vo]. 14, No. 8, pp. (8)439-(8)446, 1994 Copyright © 1994 COSPAR Priated ia Great Brittia. All rights reserved. 0273-1177/94 $6.00 + 0.00
Pergamon
FOUR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS SPACE LIFE SCIENCES
IN
M. W. Luttges, L. S. Stodieck and D. M. Klaus BioServe Space Technologies, University of Colorado, CampusBox 429, Boulder, CO 80309, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT Four different educational programs impacting Space Life Sciences are described: the NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program, the NASA Special!Ted Center of Research and Training (NSCORT) Program, the Centers for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) Program, and the NASA Graduate Research Fellow Program. Each program makes somewhat different demands on the students engaged in them. Each program, at the University of Colorado, involves Space Life Sciences training. While the Graduate Student Research Fellow and NSCORT Programs are discipline oriented, the Advanced Design and CCDS Programs are focused on design, technologies and applications. Clearly, the "training paradioL:~r~s"differ for these educational endeavors. But, these paradigms can be made to mutually facilitate enthusiasm and motivation. Disciplineoriented academic programs, ideally, must be flexible enough to accommodate the emergent cross-disciplinary needs o f Space Life Sciences students. Models for such flexib~dity and resultant student performance levels are discussed based upon actual academic and professional records. INTRODUCTION Educational support for students in any technical discipline provides a continuing flow of new, highly qualified personnel into that discipline. These personnel are enthusiastic, filled with fresh ideas and motivated to succeed. And, the educational experience can assure that such personnel are professionally productive in the short term. Student support is a strong if not an absolutely necessary requirement for technical activity growth in the country. Students become the technological base and infrastructure tor in0ustrial achievement. The thesis of the present paper is that several very different educational programs serve as a conduit for space life sciences professionals. Each program differs from the other. Having supported four such programs, we present an outline of each and discuss the amalgamated experiences that students can derive from them. Since the implementation of any educational program is dependent on the academic environment that hosts the activity, a brief descn~ption of that environment is offered. It is an engineering environment with a heavy emphasis on bioengineering activities. In addition to the usual physics and math background, the students axe required to take additional chemistry and biology as technical electives. Opportunities to participate in one or another space life sciences program usually occur at the upper division or graduate level. These opportunities fall within the domain of "capstone" open-emied design courses or within the constraints of ongoing graduate research projects. Both types of activities axe recognized parts of a student's overall curriculum. ($)439
(8)440
M.W. Luttge~et al.
The educational programs that will be considered are the NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program, an NSCORT sponsored program, a CCDSprogram and the Graduate Student Researcher Program. These programs have existed side-by-side in the above noted environment. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program v
Started as a pilot program in 1985, this program provides for generalized direction and assistance from NASA Field Centers coupled with modest funding from NASA Headquarters/1,2/. The program was envisioned and implemented by NASA and USRA personnel working closely with each other. It provided the opportunity for students to become involved with space mission design and later it was broadened to include innovative aeronautical design. At present, the program includes about 30 participating institutions. In most instances, this program provides a focal point and starting challenge to students committed to innovation. In our particular interactions, the design activities have been in the area of space life sciences, A capstone course, Space Habitation, enrolls students to pursue mission and hardware designs that are to enable future space life sciences activities. The students work as a design team where effective interactions and communications are essential. They refine and define the elements of the project to be undertaken. Then, they research the background literature to determine the foundations for their particular activities. These foundations range from overarching NASA visions, to political perspectives and, finally, to specific technical and cost issues. Projects most often span the two semesters of an academic year. Some, but not all, students participate for the full year. So some students must bring their activities to a reasonable point of fruition while others must use existing information to get-up-to-speed. There exists, then, a need for students to fully document their design decisions as well as the process through which they arrived at these decisions. And, there exists a need for new students to evaluate both the process and the product. These are usually novel experiences for students. But, these are crucial capabilities required for reasonably large, complex design projects. Engineers, generally speaking, are not familiar with life sciences language or life sciences data. The design students must learn to work with the new language and data. Often, new ways of expressing technical data are required to facilitate quantitative "trades" studies between different design options. In devising novel "metrics" or measurement scales the students learn the value of ordinal and interval scaling methodologies. These metrics can be mixed with those dependent on the more usual ratio scales. Once again, full documentation of process and product is essential. Creativity and resourcefulness are essential in handling these matters. The students can't be discouraged by the absence of a proven track or an existing paradigm. A design challenge of this type is often the first time that students must cumulatively manage their resources. How much time can each student reasonably expend on each stage of the design process? What are the shared responsibilities and which are the responsibilities assigned to a single student? How does the overall group maintain quality control? Are there lessons to be derived from new total quality management initiatives? What is clear to all students is that the design project must be completed at the end of the academic year. In this particular program, the project is presented together with those from other schools at a Summer D e s ~ Conference where critical reviews are done both by NASA and industry professionals. In the design process the'students learn a team approach, they become familiar with the NASA methodologies for project definition and realization and they learn to deal with integrating information and technologies that are initially quite "alien" to their respective backgrounds. In this particular course, many students from non-engineering disciplines have been involved. This became the basis for design engineering students to learn how
EducationalProgramsin the SpaceLifeSciences
(8)441
to communicate across disciplinary lines and how to use special expertise to enhance the design qualities. Over the years, this design course has produced mission scenarios that in~uded a Geosynchronous Space Station designed for satellite servicing where dealing with radiation was a major issue, as well as a Lunar Oasis where combined robotic and crewed activities led to a safe, productive return to the Lunar surface at a specifically selected site. The course has spawned a quantitative approach to assessing the proper types and balance of life forms, including tlaeir respective supporting technologies, required for a Closed Ecological Life Support System (CELSS). In addition, a detailed design of hardware needed for space biotechnology was produced. This payload effort called for specific understanding of the research protocols needed to provide fully autonomous support of cell/tissue culture testing in space. Various aspects of these design projects are represented in Figure 1. Biological I~tnt~hlo"t" r
LCELSS
J~U~t,...~,,,-~" ty
wAsrm ~ . . k
\
~
tT---?J \ rood
/ ~ W.
- = -
/
8OLAR ARRAY 8HIELOING~BOOM~HABITATIOMODULE N
--,+ ~ . . m , o, mm c o m rmm~ __insure__ A u~_+ mum mmommmvm romm ~ "
C-MASS Isometric View 35 re,r, Trma~er Tip Camera 8torqe ~ "ff~ ~ Centrifttle.
MAONETB
~OCKING
Ac,"tCB8$ TUEEJ ~
LUNAR SITE
HUB ~ -
ROBOTI ARM C
Video
Camera glcro.cope
// I / / ~=:::(=~'-.d[~Jlj[.L...~ Tape
~
/
Expertment.al Volume
Drive
Polycorder
Fig. 1. Advanced design program project activities Most importantly, this educational program has motivated and prepared young l~rofessionals to accept the challenges of doing innovative life sciences activities in space. IJetter, they advocate the benefits to be derived from well designed life sciences activities. In some narrow definitions of space life sciences this program does not qualify. But, in terms of the realistic implementation of meaningful, ongoing space life sciences activities in the future, a cadre of interdisciplinary scientists and engineers is essential.
(8)442
M.W. Lut~es et al.
NASA Soecialized Centers of Research and Trainin~ w
This program was initiated two years ago by NASA. It provides the opportunity for academic consortia to develop research and training programs in selected areas of endeavor critical to space life sciences/3,4/. The Centers are to provide a critical mass where innovative research flourishes and provides the basis for excellence in education. Basic groundbased research germane to space flight is to be pursued. Students involved in these programs are largely graduate level students. However, most NSCORT's have outreach programs that involve undergraduate as well as high school and grade school students. Considering only the graduate level students, the educational experience largely resides with research that follows established laboratory paradigms. The training often includes specialized classes focused on space flight data and effects. In these efforts the students are exposed to and participate in high quality, highly specialized research using state of the art analysis tools. The work addresses cellular mechanisms that may be perceived as candidate targets for spaceflight effects that will modulate the underlying life sciences processes as shown in Figure 2.
Mk~lllamer4s
Fig. 2. Underlying cellular mechanisms perceived as candidate targets for spaceflight effects on living organisms In the educational thrust of these programs the most solid training occurs in the fundamental disciplinary approach to research. Since these typically are not flight programs, the progress of the students must be measured by thetr achievements using productive groundbased paradigms. These achievements can often move quite far in the direction of understanding previously reported flight effects or in preparing excellent foundations for experiments yet to be flown. There is little doubt that these students learn and practice the details of life sciences laboratory procedures. The quality of their published work attests to this. In our particular environment NSCORT students often work quite closely with students actually involved in flight projects. Two significant advantages accrue to these students. They can learn to provide the essence of cutting edge paradigms to those students who must support flight programs and they can learn about the special constraints that various spaceflight carders exert on such groundbased paradigms. The communication, involvements and mutual interests enhance the education of each of these types of students. The basis of the flight program will be discussed later.
Educational Programs in the Space Life Sciences
(8)443
Students trained in the NSCORT programs are undoubtedly positioned to be the new science cadre for the space life sciences efforts of NASA. They are being trained to do first quality science focused on the effects of space flight. They author scientific papers and they devise progressive improvements in productive validated experimental paradigms. In our particular venue the same students are aware of the difficulties associated with space flight testing. Protocols and methodologies are devised to meet and circumvent these difficulties. Using these in groundbased studies provides the controls and foundations for more effective space flight testing. An added asset is that a whole new round of experiments made to match space flight and space flight hardware characteristics is not required. Space flight-dictated protocols are "built in" to the original groundbased testing. Centers for the Commercial Development of Space The CCDS program was initiated in 1985 and now includes a total of 17 Centers nationwide /5,6/. The major emphasis of the program is to commercialize space. Through technology innovation and transfer, various consortia of business, academic and government entities are formed to use the spaceflight environment to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness. To match corporate strategies, these activities must be commercial. This means that flights for commercial development must be timely, low cost and reliable. Since the flight projects are driven by industrial interests, the activities reflect new interactions between academia, government and industry. Basically, new ways of working are called for. This environment has turned out to be an excellent educational experience for the students that are involved. Life sciences oriented companies are generally not staffed in a manner that permits easy preparations for doing testing in the space environment. And, sound corporate policies generally prevent companies from investing large sums in activities having unknown or poorly understood economic potential. Nevertheless, a variety of companies numbering nearly 400 are making investments in using space to develop new products and processes. In many instances the life sciences companies bring their proprietary science and technologies to bear on the spaceflight experiments. And, there is little doubt that many U.S. life sciences companies possess absolutely first rate science capability. Exposure to these professionals, to government experts and to other acadenucians is an excellent educatmnal experience for the students. Since the majority of these exposures center about flight projects, the students are intimately involved in preparations for flight, in supporting actual flight tests and inpost-flight analyses. In several instances the students have had to design, build and qualify low cost but reliable hardware to support the flight needs of various commercial consortia. With tight budgets and timelines much of the hardware has been dependent on existing off-the-shelf commercial products. In many instances these hardware components have been contributed by the project participants. To date, the performance of such commercial hardware has been robust and reliable. Figure 3 depicts three such payloads developed at the University of Colorado. The Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) is designed to accommodate a variety of life sciences experiments requiring crew interaction as an orbiter middeck payload. Two additional payloads, A-MASS and P-MASS, designed to autonomously support mice and plants, respectively, are currently manifested on the first flight of the COMmercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) recoverable carrier. Although not a major driver for the CCDS program, the educational experience for graduate students has been remarkable. Working in different kinds of technical consortia, performing within time and budget constraints and supporting various different flight systems are the benchmarks of these educational experiences. The emerging rofessionals will undoubtedly impact the space flight programs of this country. We elieve such an impact will be healthy and will lead to vigorous new ways of using the space environment. As noted above, these participants in the CCDS programs enrich their colleagues as part of the overall educational experience. They enable better science, they learn to collaborate effectively, they have first-hand flight experience and they work effectively within business constraints. Clearly, they understand much of the NASA space
~
(8)444
M.W. Luttges et aL
flight system and they learn to use available flight opportunities to the advantage of all of the consortia participants.
rl'~ I
,°.,.S,or,. 2y
; ____~
"'
Se~or
i
,
Chamber
m c u ~ r o R ~oouL£
Pow[n S~TCH
COWER COe~[CT01~
,
0
HEATIR CONTROL SWlTC. PINIL
Fig. 3. Shuttle middeck and autonomous commercial payloads developed and operated with student involvement
NASA Graduate Student Researcher Pro~,ram
This program has been in existence for some time /7/. It is the oldest of the four programs discussed here, Only a smallpercentage of these graduate researchers are engaged in research that focuses on life sciences. Nevertheless, this program has supported excellent students having well developed interests and professional commitments to the space program. Unlike the above programs, this program is largely onethat is undertaken witha single student, a productive faculty researcher and, often, a Field Center professional. Theprime focus is on the maximized, customized educational experience that is put together for the one student. This student most often works in an environment that includes others interested in similar research and educational goals. But, the achievements and the work relate specifically to a single student. One example, illustrated in Figure 4, depicts a project undertaken by a research fellow designed to quantify inputs and outputs through living organisms. This "black box" approach facilitates engineering integration of biological data into a Closed Ecological Life Support System (CELSS) designed for a space craft. This particular project selection actually stemmed from the student's prior involvement in the Space Habitation advanced design course, emphasizing the benefits obtained through interaction of the various programs. This kind of program is likely to yield a very highly specialized, competent researcher with the potential to develop meaningful space flight capabilities. But, m many instances this talented individual is not prepared to meet the challenges of adopting new protocols, to fulfill the conjoint needs of a research group or to work on highly proscribed timelines.
Educational Programsin the Space Life Sciences
(8)445
Educational experiences are more likely to reflect the customized selections that this student made from among existing course and research opportunities. This leads to healthy diversification but may lead to alienation from space research issues, as well. The extent to which Field Center experience is available and exposure to co-existing programs is possible, are mediating elements in this educational program. The native talents of these students and their motivation are unquestionably high. BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
COMPLEMENTARY
SI~STEIMS
O.~
ROT .m.q I~.I¢~..R~¥ PILOT.CAlm.Fa~ !1C011P
uqums I
SOLIDS[ ]
8 O 8M m N N [ ] PLANTS [ ~ ANIMALS
Fig. 4. Analytical method of characterizing living organism behavior engineering integration into a CELSS
for
COMMENT, SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT Having had the opportunity to participate first hand in each of the above educational programs related to life sciences, it seems reasonable that some critique be offered. Some ideas regarding synthesis and program interactions seem warranted. We recognize that these comments reflect but a limited perspective. They are offered here only to provide a kind of direction for emerging interests in space life sciences. What we can say with certainty is that the new cadre of space professionals is filled with excitement and expectations. They are highly motivated a n d a r e the source of an enduring advocacy for space life sciences. First we wish to pick the highlights from each of the above programs, as we have seen them. The NASA/USRA program typically teaches a design process for space life sciences projects, missions and hardware. Students develop an awareness for the job that NASA must do. They look to the formality of organization and processes. But, they also develop a perspective wherein their efforts become meaningful to both N A S A and the country. This is particularly easy for life sciences endeavors. Discussions and research efforts have often turned to environmental issues such as water and air quality. Medical effects of spaceflight have turned students' attention to similar terrestrial maladies. And, the students become aware of the large investments needed to sustain the U.S. space program. They begin to understand many of the sociopolitical realities of their chosen professional endeavors. Despite this increase in overall perspective, these students are still not able to handle the details of a design carried to useful fruition. But, they are motivated to move toward this goal. The NSCORT programs provide temporal continuity in a focused approach to critical space life science issues. As a national focal point, the educational opportunities arise both from specific efforts in established laboratories and from the collaboration that arises between laboratories both on site and across the country. The concept of a critical mass is operative where germane resources and knowledge are readily accessible. This
(8)446
M.W. Luttges
et al.
educational experience provides both excellent individual opportunities and cumulative achievements. The special perspective offered to the students is that of many solid methodologies being available to solve similar and related problems. The CCDS program is one that best utilizes and trains advanced graduate students. The educational impacts are strongly supported b)~ actual short-term flight opportunities. At the time that the students become involved m these programs, it is necessary that they have a perspective of the U.S. space program as well as a proficiency in one or more professional technology. These students are often expected to carry full flight project responsibilities. No two projects can be the same when they arise from different consortia of interests, when they focus on very different life sciences questions and when they may involve very different flight systems. As noted above, these students may represent the engineering expertise for space flight in certain life science consortia. These can hardly be considered protected or h~ghly directed classroom or laboratory educational experiences. A major part of the training resides in proactive preparations and retroactive critiques. Finally, the Graduate Student Researcher program is one that best handles specific graduate student talents. It is potentially the most intensive in terms of individualized direction. As such, this program may have the best chance for maximized student achievement. This may not, however, be an instance in which students can derive erspective and learn lessons in resourcefulness. But, in our situation these students have een able to experience all of the above programs and have contributed to each. This has been a crucial feature in the professional development of these researchers.
~
Overall we have been part of an interesting educational evolution. We have seen the benefits of different programs realized in new and different educational experiences for students. Experience within specific academic disciplines is crucial. Without this the students are left without useful tools with which to work. But, the students need perspective. They must begin to understand how the whole picture of space life sciences goes together and where they can contribute to this picture. Finally, there are challenging and novel methods to be explored in conducting innovative life sciences activities in space. Prepared young professionals must have the opportunity to be involved in these explorations. We have been fortunate enough to be able to provide such opportunities. The excitement of interactions between students has been infectious. What we have seen is the full educational development of a cadre of space life science professionals able to carry new, productive programs well into the next century. REFERENCES
1. NASA/USRA University Advanced Design Program Handbook for Faculty, Teaching Assistants and Students, NASA Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology and the Minority University Programs Office, 1991-92 Academic Year. 2. V.S. Johnson, "Tying It All Together - The NASA/USRA University Design Program", AIAA Aerospace Design Conference, (AIAA92-1040), February 3-6, 1992. 3. J.A. Guikema and B.S. Spooner, "Educational Opportunities within the NASA Specialized Center for Research and Training (NSCORT) in Gravitational Biology", World Space Congress, COSPAR Symposium (F1.3-M.1.03), Sept. 5, 1992. 4. G. Coulter, L. Lewis and D. Atchison, "NASA's Space Life Sciences Training Program", World Space Congress, COSPAR Symposium (F1.3-M.1.09), Sept. 5, 1992.
5. Commercial Use of Space: A New Economic Strength for America, NASA Office of Commercial Programs (Code C/PAO), NASA NP-113.
6. Centers for the Commercial Development of Space, ed. S.E. Walker, NASA Office of Commercial Programs (Code C/PAO), NASA PAM-525.
7. NASA 1991/92 Graduate Student Researchers Program, NASA University Programs Branch, Educational Affairs Division, NASA HDQ, Washington, DC.
Pergamon
FOUR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS SPACE LIFE SCIENCES
IN
M. W. Luttges, L. S. Stodieck and D. M. Klaus BioServe Space Technologies, University of Colorado, CampusBox 429, Boulder, CO 80309, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT Four different educational programs impacting Space Life Sciences are described: the NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program, the NASA Special!Ted Center of Research and Training (NSCORT) Program, the Centers for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) Program, and the NASA Graduate Research Fellow Program. Each program makes somewhat different demands on the students engaged in them. Each program, at the University of Colorado, involves Space Life Sciences training. While the Graduate Student Research Fellow and NSCORT Programs are discipline oriented, the Advanced Design and CCDS Programs are focused on design, technologies and applications. Clearly, the "training paradioL:~r~s"differ for these educational endeavors. But, these paradigms can be made to mutually facilitate enthusiasm and motivation. Disciplineoriented academic programs, ideally, must be flexible enough to accommodate the emergent cross-disciplinary needs o f Space Life Sciences students. Models for such flexib~dity and resultant student performance levels are discussed based upon actual academic and professional records. INTRODUCTION Educational support for students in any technical discipline provides a continuing flow of new, highly qualified personnel into that discipline. These personnel are enthusiastic, filled with fresh ideas and motivated to succeed. And, the educational experience can assure that such personnel are professionally productive in the short term. Student support is a strong if not an absolutely necessary requirement for technical activity growth in the country. Students become the technological base and infrastructure tor in0ustrial achievement. The thesis of the present paper is that several very different educational programs serve as a conduit for space life sciences professionals. Each program differs from the other. Having supported four such programs, we present an outline of each and discuss the amalgamated experiences that students can derive from them. Since the implementation of any educational program is dependent on the academic environment that hosts the activity, a brief descn~ption of that environment is offered. It is an engineering environment with a heavy emphasis on bioengineering activities. In addition to the usual physics and math background, the students axe required to take additional chemistry and biology as technical electives. Opportunities to participate in one or another space life sciences program usually occur at the upper division or graduate level. These opportunities fall within the domain of "capstone" open-emied design courses or within the constraints of ongoing graduate research projects. Both types of activities axe recognized parts of a student's overall curriculum. ($)439
(8)440
M.W. Luttge~et al.
The educational programs that will be considered are the NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program, an NSCORT sponsored program, a CCDSprogram and the Graduate Student Researcher Program. These programs have existed side-by-side in the above noted environment. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program v
Started as a pilot program in 1985, this program provides for generalized direction and assistance from NASA Field Centers coupled with modest funding from NASA Headquarters/1,2/. The program was envisioned and implemented by NASA and USRA personnel working closely with each other. It provided the opportunity for students to become involved with space mission design and later it was broadened to include innovative aeronautical design. At present, the program includes about 30 participating institutions. In most instances, this program provides a focal point and starting challenge to students committed to innovation. In our particular interactions, the design activities have been in the area of space life sciences, A capstone course, Space Habitation, enrolls students to pursue mission and hardware designs that are to enable future space life sciences activities. The students work as a design team where effective interactions and communications are essential. They refine and define the elements of the project to be undertaken. Then, they research the background literature to determine the foundations for their particular activities. These foundations range from overarching NASA visions, to political perspectives and, finally, to specific technical and cost issues. Projects most often span the two semesters of an academic year. Some, but not all, students participate for the full year. So some students must bring their activities to a reasonable point of fruition while others must use existing information to get-up-to-speed. There exists, then, a need for students to fully document their design decisions as well as the process through which they arrived at these decisions. And, there exists a need for new students to evaluate both the process and the product. These are usually novel experiences for students. But, these are crucial capabilities required for reasonably large, complex design projects. Engineers, generally speaking, are not familiar with life sciences language or life sciences data. The design students must learn to work with the new language and data. Often, new ways of expressing technical data are required to facilitate quantitative "trades" studies between different design options. In devising novel "metrics" or measurement scales the students learn the value of ordinal and interval scaling methodologies. These metrics can be mixed with those dependent on the more usual ratio scales. Once again, full documentation of process and product is essential. Creativity and resourcefulness are essential in handling these matters. The students can't be discouraged by the absence of a proven track or an existing paradigm. A design challenge of this type is often the first time that students must cumulatively manage their resources. How much time can each student reasonably expend on each stage of the design process? What are the shared responsibilities and which are the responsibilities assigned to a single student? How does the overall group maintain quality control? Are there lessons to be derived from new total quality management initiatives? What is clear to all students is that the design project must be completed at the end of the academic year. In this particular program, the project is presented together with those from other schools at a Summer D e s ~ Conference where critical reviews are done both by NASA and industry professionals. In the design process the'students learn a team approach, they become familiar with the NASA methodologies for project definition and realization and they learn to deal with integrating information and technologies that are initially quite "alien" to their respective backgrounds. In this particular course, many students from non-engineering disciplines have been involved. This became the basis for design engineering students to learn how
EducationalProgramsin the SpaceLifeSciences
(8)441
to communicate across disciplinary lines and how to use special expertise to enhance the design qualities. Over the years, this design course has produced mission scenarios that in~uded a Geosynchronous Space Station designed for satellite servicing where dealing with radiation was a major issue, as well as a Lunar Oasis where combined robotic and crewed activities led to a safe, productive return to the Lunar surface at a specifically selected site. The course has spawned a quantitative approach to assessing the proper types and balance of life forms, including tlaeir respective supporting technologies, required for a Closed Ecological Life Support System (CELSS). In addition, a detailed design of hardware needed for space biotechnology was produced. This payload effort called for specific understanding of the research protocols needed to provide fully autonomous support of cell/tissue culture testing in space. Various aspects of these design projects are represented in Figure 1. Biological I~tnt~hlo"t" r
LCELSS
J~U~t,...~,,,-~" ty
wAsrm ~ . . k
\
~
tT---?J \ rood
/ ~ W.
- = -
/
8OLAR ARRAY 8HIELOING~BOOM~HABITATIOMODULE N
--,+ ~ . . m , o, mm c o m rmm~ __insure__ A u~_+ mum mmommmvm romm ~ "
C-MASS Isometric View 35 re,r, Trma~er Tip Camera 8torqe ~ "ff~ ~ Centrifttle.
MAONETB
~OCKING
Ac,"tCB8$ TUEEJ ~
LUNAR SITE
HUB ~ -
ROBOTI ARM C
Video
Camera glcro.cope
// I / / ~=:::(=~'-.d[~Jlj[.L...~ Tape
~
/
Expertment.al Volume
Drive
Polycorder
Fig. 1. Advanced design program project activities Most importantly, this educational program has motivated and prepared young l~rofessionals to accept the challenges of doing innovative life sciences activities in space. IJetter, they advocate the benefits to be derived from well designed life sciences activities. In some narrow definitions of space life sciences this program does not qualify. But, in terms of the realistic implementation of meaningful, ongoing space life sciences activities in the future, a cadre of interdisciplinary scientists and engineers is essential.
(8)442
M.W. Lut~es et al.
NASA Soecialized Centers of Research and Trainin~ w
This program was initiated two years ago by NASA. It provides the opportunity for academic consortia to develop research and training programs in selected areas of endeavor critical to space life sciences/3,4/. The Centers are to provide a critical mass where innovative research flourishes and provides the basis for excellence in education. Basic groundbased research germane to space flight is to be pursued. Students involved in these programs are largely graduate level students. However, most NSCORT's have outreach programs that involve undergraduate as well as high school and grade school students. Considering only the graduate level students, the educational experience largely resides with research that follows established laboratory paradigms. The training often includes specialized classes focused on space flight data and effects. In these efforts the students are exposed to and participate in high quality, highly specialized research using state of the art analysis tools. The work addresses cellular mechanisms that may be perceived as candidate targets for spaceflight effects that will modulate the underlying life sciences processes as shown in Figure 2.
Mk~lllamer4s
Fig. 2. Underlying cellular mechanisms perceived as candidate targets for spaceflight effects on living organisms In the educational thrust of these programs the most solid training occurs in the fundamental disciplinary approach to research. Since these typically are not flight programs, the progress of the students must be measured by thetr achievements using productive groundbased paradigms. These achievements can often move quite far in the direction of understanding previously reported flight effects or in preparing excellent foundations for experiments yet to be flown. There is little doubt that these students learn and practice the details of life sciences laboratory procedures. The quality of their published work attests to this. In our particular environment NSCORT students often work quite closely with students actually involved in flight projects. Two significant advantages accrue to these students. They can learn to provide the essence of cutting edge paradigms to those students who must support flight programs and they can learn about the special constraints that various spaceflight carders exert on such groundbased paradigms. The communication, involvements and mutual interests enhance the education of each of these types of students. The basis of the flight program will be discussed later.
Educational Programs in the Space Life Sciences
(8)443
Students trained in the NSCORT programs are undoubtedly positioned to be the new science cadre for the space life sciences efforts of NASA. They are being trained to do first quality science focused on the effects of space flight. They author scientific papers and they devise progressive improvements in productive validated experimental paradigms. In our particular venue the same students are aware of the difficulties associated with space flight testing. Protocols and methodologies are devised to meet and circumvent these difficulties. Using these in groundbased studies provides the controls and foundations for more effective space flight testing. An added asset is that a whole new round of experiments made to match space flight and space flight hardware characteristics is not required. Space flight-dictated protocols are "built in" to the original groundbased testing. Centers for the Commercial Development of Space The CCDS program was initiated in 1985 and now includes a total of 17 Centers nationwide /5,6/. The major emphasis of the program is to commercialize space. Through technology innovation and transfer, various consortia of business, academic and government entities are formed to use the spaceflight environment to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness. To match corporate strategies, these activities must be commercial. This means that flights for commercial development must be timely, low cost and reliable. Since the flight projects are driven by industrial interests, the activities reflect new interactions between academia, government and industry. Basically, new ways of working are called for. This environment has turned out to be an excellent educational experience for the students that are involved. Life sciences oriented companies are generally not staffed in a manner that permits easy preparations for doing testing in the space environment. And, sound corporate policies generally prevent companies from investing large sums in activities having unknown or poorly understood economic potential. Nevertheless, a variety of companies numbering nearly 400 are making investments in using space to develop new products and processes. In many instances the life sciences companies bring their proprietary science and technologies to bear on the spaceflight experiments. And, there is little doubt that many U.S. life sciences companies possess absolutely first rate science capability. Exposure to these professionals, to government experts and to other acadenucians is an excellent educatmnal experience for the students. Since the majority of these exposures center about flight projects, the students are intimately involved in preparations for flight, in supporting actual flight tests and inpost-flight analyses. In several instances the students have had to design, build and qualify low cost but reliable hardware to support the flight needs of various commercial consortia. With tight budgets and timelines much of the hardware has been dependent on existing off-the-shelf commercial products. In many instances these hardware components have been contributed by the project participants. To date, the performance of such commercial hardware has been robust and reliable. Figure 3 depicts three such payloads developed at the University of Colorado. The Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) is designed to accommodate a variety of life sciences experiments requiring crew interaction as an orbiter middeck payload. Two additional payloads, A-MASS and P-MASS, designed to autonomously support mice and plants, respectively, are currently manifested on the first flight of the COMmercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) recoverable carrier. Although not a major driver for the CCDS program, the educational experience for graduate students has been remarkable. Working in different kinds of technical consortia, performing within time and budget constraints and supporting various different flight systems are the benchmarks of these educational experiences. The emerging rofessionals will undoubtedly impact the space flight programs of this country. We elieve such an impact will be healthy and will lead to vigorous new ways of using the space environment. As noted above, these participants in the CCDS programs enrich their colleagues as part of the overall educational experience. They enable better science, they learn to collaborate effectively, they have first-hand flight experience and they work effectively within business constraints. Clearly, they understand much of the NASA space
~
(8)444
M.W. Luttges et aL
flight system and they learn to use available flight opportunities to the advantage of all of the consortia participants.
rl'~ I
,°.,.S,or,. 2y
; ____~
"'
Se~or
i
,
Chamber
m c u ~ r o R ~oouL£
Pow[n S~TCH
COWER COe~[CT01~
,
0
HEATIR CONTROL SWlTC. PINIL
Fig. 3. Shuttle middeck and autonomous commercial payloads developed and operated with student involvement
NASA Graduate Student Researcher Pro~,ram
This program has been in existence for some time /7/. It is the oldest of the four programs discussed here, Only a smallpercentage of these graduate researchers are engaged in research that focuses on life sciences. Nevertheless, this program has supported excellent students having well developed interests and professional commitments to the space program. Unlike the above programs, this program is largely onethat is undertaken witha single student, a productive faculty researcher and, often, a Field Center professional. Theprime focus is on the maximized, customized educational experience that is put together for the one student. This student most often works in an environment that includes others interested in similar research and educational goals. But, the achievements and the work relate specifically to a single student. One example, illustrated in Figure 4, depicts a project undertaken by a research fellow designed to quantify inputs and outputs through living organisms. This "black box" approach facilitates engineering integration of biological data into a Closed Ecological Life Support System (CELSS) designed for a space craft. This particular project selection actually stemmed from the student's prior involvement in the Space Habitation advanced design course, emphasizing the benefits obtained through interaction of the various programs. This kind of program is likely to yield a very highly specialized, competent researcher with the potential to develop meaningful space flight capabilities. But, m many instances this talented individual is not prepared to meet the challenges of adopting new protocols, to fulfill the conjoint needs of a research group or to work on highly proscribed timelines.
Educational Programsin the Space Life Sciences
(8)445
Educational experiences are more likely to reflect the customized selections that this student made from among existing course and research opportunities. This leads to healthy diversification but may lead to alienation from space research issues, as well. The extent to which Field Center experience is available and exposure to co-existing programs is possible, are mediating elements in this educational program. The native talents of these students and their motivation are unquestionably high. BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
COMPLEMENTARY
SI~STEIMS
O.~
ROT .m.q I~.I¢~..R~¥ PILOT.CAlm.Fa~ !1C011P
uqums I
SOLIDS[ ]
8 O 8M m N N [ ] PLANTS [ ~ ANIMALS
Fig. 4. Analytical method of characterizing living organism behavior engineering integration into a CELSS
for
COMMENT, SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT Having had the opportunity to participate first hand in each of the above educational programs related to life sciences, it seems reasonable that some critique be offered. Some ideas regarding synthesis and program interactions seem warranted. We recognize that these comments reflect but a limited perspective. They are offered here only to provide a kind of direction for emerging interests in space life sciences. What we can say with certainty is that the new cadre of space professionals is filled with excitement and expectations. They are highly motivated a n d a r e the source of an enduring advocacy for space life sciences. First we wish to pick the highlights from each of the above programs, as we have seen them. The NASA/USRA program typically teaches a design process for space life sciences projects, missions and hardware. Students develop an awareness for the job that NASA must do. They look to the formality of organization and processes. But, they also develop a perspective wherein their efforts become meaningful to both N A S A and the country. This is particularly easy for life sciences endeavors. Discussions and research efforts have often turned to environmental issues such as water and air quality. Medical effects of spaceflight have turned students' attention to similar terrestrial maladies. And, the students become aware of the large investments needed to sustain the U.S. space program. They begin to understand many of the sociopolitical realities of their chosen professional endeavors. Despite this increase in overall perspective, these students are still not able to handle the details of a design carried to useful fruition. But, they are motivated to move toward this goal. The NSCORT programs provide temporal continuity in a focused approach to critical space life science issues. As a national focal point, the educational opportunities arise both from specific efforts in established laboratories and from the collaboration that arises between laboratories both on site and across the country. The concept of a critical mass is operative where germane resources and knowledge are readily accessible. This
(8)446
M.W. Luttges
et al.
educational experience provides both excellent individual opportunities and cumulative achievements. The special perspective offered to the students is that of many solid methodologies being available to solve similar and related problems. The CCDS program is one that best utilizes and trains advanced graduate students. The educational impacts are strongly supported b)~ actual short-term flight opportunities. At the time that the students become involved m these programs, it is necessary that they have a perspective of the U.S. space program as well as a proficiency in one or more professional technology. These students are often expected to carry full flight project responsibilities. No two projects can be the same when they arise from different consortia of interests, when they focus on very different life sciences questions and when they may involve very different flight systems. As noted above, these students may represent the engineering expertise for space flight in certain life science consortia. These can hardly be considered protected or h~ghly directed classroom or laboratory educational experiences. A major part of the training resides in proactive preparations and retroactive critiques. Finally, the Graduate Student Researcher program is one that best handles specific graduate student talents. It is potentially the most intensive in terms of individualized direction. As such, this program may have the best chance for maximized student achievement. This may not, however, be an instance in which students can derive erspective and learn lessons in resourcefulness. But, in our situation these students have een able to experience all of the above programs and have contributed to each. This has been a crucial feature in the professional development of these researchers.
~
Overall we have been part of an interesting educational evolution. We have seen the benefits of different programs realized in new and different educational experiences for students. Experience within specific academic disciplines is crucial. Without this the students are left without useful tools with which to work. But, the students need perspective. They must begin to understand how the whole picture of space life sciences goes together and where they can contribute to this picture. Finally, there are challenging and novel methods to be explored in conducting innovative life sciences activities in space. Prepared young professionals must have the opportunity to be involved in these explorations. We have been fortunate enough to be able to provide such opportunities. The excitement of interactions between students has been infectious. What we have seen is the full educational development of a cadre of space life science professionals able to carry new, productive programs well into the next century. REFERENCES
1. NASA/USRA University Advanced Design Program Handbook for Faculty, Teaching Assistants and Students, NASA Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology and the Minority University Programs Office, 1991-92 Academic Year. 2. V.S. Johnson, "Tying It All Together - The NASA/USRA University Design Program", AIAA Aerospace Design Conference, (AIAA92-1040), February 3-6, 1992. 3. J.A. Guikema and B.S. Spooner, "Educational Opportunities within the NASA Specialized Center for Research and Training (NSCORT) in Gravitational Biology", World Space Congress, COSPAR Symposium (F1.3-M.1.03), Sept. 5, 1992. 4. G. Coulter, L. Lewis and D. Atchison, "NASA's Space Life Sciences Training Program", World Space Congress, COSPAR Symposium (F1.3-M.1.09), Sept. 5, 1992.
5. Commercial Use of Space: A New Economic Strength for America, NASA Office of Commercial Programs (Code C/PAO), NASA NP-113.
6. Centers for the Commercial Development of Space, ed. S.E. Walker, NASA Office of Commercial Programs (Code C/PAO), NASA PAM-525.
7. NASA 1991/92 Graduate Student Researchers Program, NASA University Programs Branch, Educational Affairs Division, NASA HDQ, Washington, DC.