Critical Thinking - "Shift & Share" Interim Reports
Langdon Morris
Please come and take a seat. One person from each group will stay in their
area and report out to the four or five people that come to their groups.
When all the report-outs are done the teams will go back to their original
teams and incorporate the ideas that they have heard.
Team Assignments
Team One Assignment Report Cheryl Nickerson |
Team Two Assignment Report Gerard Heyenga |
Team Three Assignment Report Louis Stodieck |
Team Four Assignment Report Regina North |
Team Five Assignment Report Bonnie Dalton |
Team Six Assignment Report Chris Maese |
Team Seven Assignment Report Terri Lomax |
Team Eight Assignment Report Beverly Girten |
Team Nine Assignment Report Lynn Harper |
Team Ten Assignment Report Bruce Pittman |
Team Eleven Assignment Report Patricia Allen |
Team Twelve Assignment Report Cathy Kramer |
Suppose that at the conclusion of this workshop, it was clear that the scenario described here had a number of fatal flaws and was therefore judged impractical or unfeasible.
Your assignment is to develop 3 other, different scenarios according to which the biotech industry could develop a significant presence in low-Earth orbit other than the model presented here.
What events that are outside of the scope of each of these scenarios would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario.
In what ways would these scenarios contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
We developed three alternative scenarios to the concept we discussed this morning. The first scenario involves minimal changes from the scenario we presented.
We started by looking at a variety of launch vehicles.
We also looked at ways of funding these ideas. We played with the idea of federal grants or “launch vouchers” to fund the development of launch technologies.
This system can be governed in a variety of ways. NASA could run it. We might introduce a new federal organization. We might also create a market-driven organization.
We might commercialize the ISS even further. We could offer “condos in space” that companies could rent and allow their own scientists to do research on orbit.
Finally, we looked at a totally commercial scenario. How would biotech proceed if the ISS were not available? Some of the non-traditional competitors could band together to create a commercially-oriented space station. People are starting to bring their own money to the game – this can change everything. NASA may not be a monopoly for much longer.
We have been talking about biotech as a monolithic market, but it is actually quite fragmented. Each of these researchers works in a very narrow field, and we should target the “low hanging fruit”.
The “condo” idea is based on a real estate model. How else can we use this metaphor? If the ISS is “leased up”, then should we not build another facility to address this demand? Should we sell off the ISS to our international partners?
Please critique the Biotech-on-ISS scenario as presented this morning.
- What are the strongest points of the case?
- What points remain to be sufficiently demonstrated, or lack credibility?
- On what points do you need additional information before an assessment can be made?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario.
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
What are the strong points for using ISS for biotech? There are some very important ideas here. The ISS exists today, and it can be used – this is not a fantasy. There is a history of biotech flights over the last 18 years. There is a similarity of business models between space and biotech – there is a culture similarity as well in their willingness to make long-term investments. This is very relevant to US public interests, especially as the population ages. We need to demonstrate how space research can impact human longevity. This may increase public support for federal funding of the ISS. The G-Connection by Dr. Vornikos represents the cutting edge in our aging research. ISS investments will drive the US’s competitive advantage in biotech – this will become very important as China and India develop their space programs.
What points need to be demonstrated or rectified? NASA needs to demonstrate its ability to commit to the ISS for the long term.
We believe that the premise behind this workshop – that the drug industry will serve as a strong customer for the ISS – is a good one. We think that there is enough interesting information here to pursue a dialogue.
Is there a way to engage entrepreneurs (not just large, established companies) in ISS research? ISS research represents a big risk for entrepreneurs. The payoff for ISS discoveries will be several years down the road.
What is needed to make the launch infrastructure system work?
Develop a detailed view of the launch scenario:
- How soon could the commercial aerospace community provide the required launch frequency?
- Which companies/technologies could be in position to provide those services within 5 years?
- If we assume that there was a requirement for monthly launches, what cost level would be reasonable to assume (order of magnitude)?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
We talked about enabling infrastructure. We need commercial market forces. The primary customer will be the government, but we hope to transition to a commercial marketplace. We would like the investment to shift away from NASA to private industry. Even if the government may pay for infrastructure up front, but some of this development cost might be amortized and recouped over several years. The infrastructure must offer flexible facilities on orbit. Manned flight requirements will be a major factor in defining requirements. We want to move to the next stage in order to start making commercial agreements.
It will take two years for an unmanned vehicle to come online. It will take four years for a manned vehicle, and 4-5 years for a clean sheet. Major aerospace companies can provide this capiabilities in five years, and about 12 smaller firms can contribute realistically.
Today, 12,500 pounds costs $13-$17M to laumch. 2200 pounds will cost $5-6M. 3800 pounds costs about $1B to launch with the Shuttle.
We believe that a biotech breakthrough (homerun) will break this market wide open. We may also get more funding if an international competitor comes onto the scene. This will help the US keep its competitive edge.
How does exploration benefit from this investment? Once we justify ISS commercially, then Congress will look more favorably on the exploration mission. It will free up resources and it will improve NASA’s track record. This will benefit the entire space vision.
What is needed to make the cargo infrastructure system work?
Develop a detailed view of the cargo scenario:
- How soon could the commercial aerospace community provide the required cargo carrying frequency?
- Which companies/technologies could be in position to provide those services within 5 years?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
What is required for cargo infrastructure, and what companies can do this in the next five years? Boeing, Lockheed, Space Hab will be able to do this job in five years. Space X and Rocketplane are other options. Federal Express might be able to do it in the future as well.
There are three segments – ground, launch and on-orbit. On the ground, there is a need for a customer interface organization to complete all of the ISS interfacing. This must be a private, commercial company. This company will provide the manifesting function. Another function is mission control and payload processing.
In the launch segment, we need a launch vehicle with acceptable loads, mass and price ratios. There must be commercially acceptable risk – so a low-cost vehicle might be able to fail relatively more often. This risk could be managed with insurance. They will require frequent access – frequent launches. There is a late access requirement.
On-orbit, communications is very important and may require a global network of ground stations. We need a mating system (not just a docking or birthing system). There must be a safe rendezvous system. The stowage system is very important for minimizing the impact on crew time. Operations and power are other critical issues. Waste disposal might be handled differently than today. We want to minimize downmass requirements – we may be able to do more analysis on ISS and reduce the need to bring samples back to earth.
What is needed to make the on-orbit services system work?
Develop a detailed view of the on-orbit services system:
- How soon could the commercial aerospace community provide the required cargo carrying frequency?
- Which companies/technologies could be in position to provide those services within 5 years?
- What human presence is required on ISS?
- What capability/expertise is required onboard ISS?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
What is needed to make the return-to-Earth system work?
Develop a detailed view of the return-to-Earth scenario:
- How soon could the aerospace community provide the required carrying frequency?
- Which companies/technologies could be in position to provide those services within 5 years?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
Our assignment was to focus on returning to earth. This depends on what you are returning. Today, we have large spacecraft to return items both large and small. These vehicles will not be appropriate for weekly trips. Small vehicles like SPEED will be appropriate for small items. You will need mid-size (Mars rover-sized) or large vehicles (like the Shuttle) to transport equipment that needs repair. We will need a spectrum of sizes of vehicles.
How soon could this kind of frequency be provided? Weekly returns are not feasible today. We would need to send a Lockheed rocket booster up with 50 or so of these small capsules, and then store them on the ISS. We do not have the capability on the ISS today to launch small object like the SPEED. It would probably take about five years to develop this capability. We would need to adapt existing interfaces, which will take design time. We could bypass this to some degree by using a docked Russian vehicle to launch small objects after it has been unloaded. This does not provide the weekly frequency that we’re looking for.
Someone needs to come up with a “home run” experiment in order to accelerate this scenario.
Suppose that at the conclusion of this workshop, it was clear that the scenario described here had a number of fatal flaws and was therefore judged impractical or unfeasible.
Your assignment is to develop 3 other, different scenarios according to which the biotech industry could develop a significant presence in low-Earth orbit other than the model presented here.
What events that are outside of the scope of each of these scenarios would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways do these scenarios contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
Team Seven Report
We looked at an alternate orbital biotech without that is done without
ISS. We thought that there would be three ways to do this: 1) Free-flyer
spacecraft. We would need some parameters to do this. 2) Another thing
is an alternative station like MIR II or Bigelow's work. 3) The only other
thing is a secondary payload adapter.
Basically where we're at is that biology and gravity haven't talked to each other much. Most biologists aren't aware of the benefits of the RWV and microgravity. You really have to beat on this drum and get the word out about the benefits. Biologists and engineers don't speak the same language and that's a barrier that we have to cross. It takes a long time to get your arms around an area you were not trained in. It's starting to happen though, biology and engineering are coming together.
We have basic programs like freezing that are needed in biology. RNA breaks down if it's not froze hard. If we could freeze it more effectively then a lot of this would get more acceptable from a science standpoint. Freezing is a massive undertaking.
Do you have any ideas or questions?
The idea of free fall towers is a new one the way you've proposed it.
You don't need any new technology you just need a way of effectively using the technology that is already out there.
We can do on orbit analysis but that says that nanoset launch vehicles would be more important. NLV data could be beamed to other satellites.
Suppose that at the conclusion of this workshop the framework of the scenario described here was generally validated.
In detail, describe the necessary next steps be to implement the scenario.
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
What are the practices, policies, and/or legislative actions are needed to enable or accelerate the commercial development of space?
Which of these are particularly relevant to the Biotech-on-ISS scenario? How?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
Team Nine Report
I start my discussion by saying that my presentation tomorrow depends
on your input. Our issue is if we were running the US what would we put
into place to accelerate the growth of commercial space use.
1) We said we would form a space investment bank(s).
2) Then we would institute by legislative action advisory council.
3) Would be federal investment and tax credits.
4) Next we would extend and enhance IP protection for the space industry and R&D.
5) Legislative action is needed and enabling very frequent launches at commercial and government launch sites.
6) Address international relations and tech transfer issues for multinational projects.
After looking at this we said which of these things would affect biotech the most. We determined that 1, 2, and 3 can be focused on bio space.
Next we looked at what possible things could fall out of the sky and influence this.
A) One is that the commercial space industry moves ahead in spite of us. Rapid, regular access to low earth orbit is achieved by the Comm Space Industry.
B) There is an unknown breakthrough technology.
C) Foreign government competition
D) A private space bio consortium is established.
E) Some major market driver occurs that we cannot foresee.
Finally we looked at how this contributes to the exploration mission.
If we establish a space investment bank we can free up funds and not be dependent on government dollars.
If we established an advisory council then that should lead to an unbiased point of view and consistency.
Tax credits and IP protection contributes because it helps to reduce risks.
Legislative action would be essential to removing the perceived obstacle to throughput.
And lastly, by addressing the international issue we can enable cost sharing and speed up joint technological advances.
Describe the role that NASA should play in the development of the biotech industry in space.
Describe the role that NASA should play in the development of the biotech industry as a customer for the ISS.
Describe the role that NASA should play in the development of an entrepreneurial space industry.
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
Team Ten Report
We were asked to talk about NASA's role in the venture. So we looked at
what NASA should and should not do. Our basic model is that NASA should
provide the equivalent of an earth based laboratory. A manned platform
at no cost to the user. NASA would basically be a good landlord. They're
not providing launch services or funding the actual research and they
are not prioritizing the research. They can't be in constant approval
mode. Finally, NASA cannot be doing the science ground operations.
They have to maintain the ISS. They have to put in the initial money. They have to provide long-term assurance that the platform will be usable. Basically, they have to be a good landlord. They have to protect the IP. They have to provide basic lab equipment but not specifics. The customer would be on a case-by-case basis. They have to transfer the existing habitat or knowledge.
Our model is that the companies would be the interface to biotech. The company would schedule from NASA the use of the facility. NASA would do all the integration. The station will still be maintained by NASA from a safety standpoint.
NASA would manage lab scheduling -- it's on a first come, first serve basis. We felt schedules would be phased in time. They will provide support like communications and power.
To convince the community, NASA has to demonstrate the turnaround. So they might have to pay for the first commercial launch in part to get it going. We felt that the showstopper in the past has been reliable LV/access.
We also felt that standard resources have to be defined for the users. That goes along with the planned ISS availability of lab resources.
Once they have a user those resources has to stay committed. That's how we felt the role of NASA should be: here's my facility, I will maintain it for you at no charge, you will pay for your own research. The industry would pay for the launch vehicle. We don't want NASA to have to schedule.
Describe the role that competition should play in the future of the ISS as a space laboratory.
- As it pertains to biotech?
- As it pertains to space infrastructure / transportation?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
Team Eleven Report
We looked at the role of competition. We're really talking about the role
of the American part of ISS. In biotech and in terms of infrastructure
there are different cases. If there isn't a lot of demand then it's a
non-issue.
If demand is high there are many issues like how many dockings will be allowed. People want vast turnarounds. We have to determine what the users can get by with. There are also different types of users. Who will allocate the time available? Is it NASA or some independent organization. Some kind of agreement will have to be developed. With commercial users they won't really be doing the experiments themselves on the station. Maybe other commercial people will want to fly up there and be more closely involved. It could be whomever has the most money makes the rules or it could be on a first come, first serve basis.
There's a question on whether NASA would allow that kind of decision-making. We also have to look at how much human interaction is needed in the experiments. If they don't need humans there could be a competitive business for commercial free-flyers. There's also a ground infrastructure issue. There could be competition between launch providers. Perhaps a party like CSI could provide a tug and that could mean more competition. And that could be good for delivery because it could cut down on launch times.
I have a question about the assumption behind the workshop. I thought it was about solving the station issue, but it seems you're looking at the station and other issues.
The groups sort of take on their own life. I think that's part of the usefulness of this whole process.
What about competition between international?
That's a good question. The Russians are competitors, they're just looking for the dollars.
Suppose that at the conclusion of this workshop the framework of the scenario described here was generally validated
What would the necessary next steps be to implement the scenario?
What events that are outside of the scope of this scenario would contribute significantly to the attainment of the goals described in the Biotech-on-ISS scenario?
In what ways does this scenario contribute the acceleration of NASA’s exploration mission?
You’ll have about 75 minutes for this activity, following which you’ll be asked to present your work to the other teams. Your presentation should last no longer than 5 minutes.
Please remember -
- If these aren’t the right questions, feel free to improve upon them.
- Use your white boards as a working surface to capture the flow of your conversation, and to prepare a final report of your work to be shared with the other teams.
Team Twelve Report
The first question was how to implement the scenario? We felt that the
utmost thing was to define the organizational structure. Right now it's
unclear. The structure could change the customer. Who's in charge? Government?
Private? Or a combination of both. Then we have to find the market sectors?
Is there a real interest to do this?
Next we looked at establishing a means of consistent long-range funding and support. If you look at the history of NASA you'll see that priorities change with administrations. The other thing is developing consistent to-and-from logistics and communicating that to the community.
Next we looked at the external and internal events that could affect this. We thought that we should identify the "big" issues and form a space research consortia. They would share information on the aspects that indicate what's happening on a cellular level but they don't share details related to the drug discoveries. The IP issues would be minimized and it would benefit the science community.
Also this would distribute the cost and the risks. The government should provide tax relief and incentives for this. One step is to re-look at the RPCs.
Any questions?
You talked about the organizational structure, I think your group should work on what that might look like.
Our next question was if we implement this, how can this accelerate the exploration vision? We thought it could minimize ISS cost. Biotech discoveries in microgravity will readily convert to the exploration application and missions. And the use of ISS in LEO (low earth orbit) spurs customer base for lunar and Mars explorations.
Along those lines you could look at it as a training path for astronauts.
The last thing was our own question which was, "is ISS the 'right' platform for biotech?" Looking at that we said we should be pursuing sharing responsibility with other agencies like DOD and NIH. NASA contributes the most to other federal agencies and we get the least from them. Maybe some of these experiments could be on a DOD platform.
Lynn Harper
I just want everyone to know that the output from this session will go
into a meeting July 5. So the work we're doing here is not purely theoretical,
it is real and will have real outcomes.
Langdon Morris
Thank you for all your hard work today. Tomorrow we will work on building
the business case for the recommendations we propose.