Research in Space (was: Robber Barons in Space)

--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, "jdr7181" wrote:
--- In ssi_list@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Zelnio wrote:
> Jack,
>
> There was substantial effort in the 1980s to
> explore commercializing microgravity research. This
> is well documented in an excellent book by Joan Lisa
> Bromberg called "NASA and the Space Industry". I
> recommend this book to anyone looking at plans to
> develop in space.

Sounds like a book I need to add to my library. Thanks for the
recommendation.

> Unfortunately I don't have the book in front of me
> as its in my library at home but in essence the
> government pushed to privatize micrograv research and
> a company was formed to do this. Just as they were
> getting underway the challeneger accident occured and
> the carpet was pulled out under the company and they
> were dissolved. I believe the name of the project was
> the Industrial Space Facility and it was a project
> backed heavily by McDonnell-Douglas with research
> partners with 3m. Astronautix has put together a good
> synapses of this debacle at:
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/indility.htm.

I am familiar with the ISF - it wasn't the Challenger accident, it
was the market. Another problem with the ISF was it was man-tended
requiring significant interactions with NASA astronauts for servicing.

> Currently to my knowledge, there has been only one
> semi-successful microgravity commercial product. That
> was Japanese Hemoglobin replacements. There was also
> some talk a year or so back on a pure optical fiber
> cable called Zblan and on an extremely lightweight but
> strong structural aerogel. As for medicines, the only
> advantages microgravity has identified use for is in
> protein formation and crystal growth. Neither of
> these have yet to pan out though.

This is simply untrue. I would urge all to do more research into the
potential of space-based R&D (microgravity research). Aerogel and
ZBLAN are two examples with some potential, though aerogel has little
commercial viability and ZBLAN would be great if we can ever create
the network hardware to support the high speed capacity of ZBLAN.
It's been a while since I researched those specific products, so
someone with more knowledge may be able to shed some light on them. I
don't consider either likely in the near-term.

Please read up on NASA commercial space centers to hear more about
what has been accomplished and what sectors stand to gain from on-
going, long-term research.

[The following is excerpted from Dr. Richard Crews excellent work
on "MULE Research" that I will post separately. Dr. Richard Crews is
my editor and co-board member of LUF and SEE.]

Here are some examples of commercial space research and development
projects. Although all of these have an Earth-bound foundation and
ongoing ground-based support aspects, the emphasis in the projects
selected here is the use of the space environment -- as, for example,
would be available aboard a MULE module.

Example 1 -- BioServe Space Technologies is working with Amgen to
study the effects of OPG, a natural human protein being developed for
the treatment of osteoporosis. BioServe developed a model that
incorporates aging mice with spaceflight. A BioServe scientist
determined that certain strains of aging mice demonstrate a
consistent pattern of bone loss. However, the time period it takes
to observe this loss presents a challenge for preclinical trials due
to the expense of administering a test drug and the reaction of
antibody development in mice towards human-based therapies. Space
flight provides an opportunity to observe changes on a 1-2 month time
period that would normally take 6-12 months on the ground.
[www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe/biomedicine.html]

Example 2 -- BioServe Space Technologies has examined the effects of
space flight on antibiotic fermentation processes. They have
demonstrated increases in antiobiotic production up to 200% over
ground-based controls. A more efficient fermentation process -- even
by a small percentage -- could potentially save millions of dollars
in production costs. They have also noted that the development of
drug resistance in pathogens is often significantly retarded in
microgravity.
[http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe/biomedicine.html]

Example 3 -- The Center for Macromolecular Crystallography (CMC)
located at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has used the low-
gravity environment of space to grow protein crystals for use in drug
design. The CMC has attempted to crystallize hundreds of proteins in
space, each with a potential product. One product that is working
toward market readiness is a treatment for influenza. Neuraminidase
is a protein crucial to the flu's ability to infect the body. The
CMC was able to grow neuraminidase crystals in space, leading to
structurally purer crystals and thus more accurate crystallographic
analysis. The resulting structural data led to improvements in a
neuraminidase inhibitor that began clinical trials in 1998. Another
product resulting from improved X-ray diffraction analysis of
crystals grown in microgravity is an inhibitor to Factor D. Factor D
is a naturally occuring protein that causes problems for heart attack
and stroke victims, and for heart surgery patients.
[http://microgravity.nasa.gov/pegBiot.html]

Example 4 -- The Medical Informatics & Technology Applications (MITA)
at Yale University has used the space environment to develop improved
commercial applications of medical informatics and telemedicine, and
enhanced electromechanical interfaces connecting a health care team
with patients. [http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm]

Example 5 -- The Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and Robotics
(WCSAR) in partnership with other organizations established that
microgravity stimulates the rate of Agrobacterium tumefaciens-
mediated transformation over 10-fold in soybeans. This method could
be useful in obtaining transgenic plants from recalcitrant crops.
The WCSAR has used similar techniques to produce plant metabolites
used for environmental decontamination, synthesis of antibiotics and
edible vaccines, and the producction of biodegradable plastic.
[http://wcsar.engr.wisc.edu/activities.html]

Example 6 -- The Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center in Houston, Texas is
developing new techniques to use the ultra-vacuum of space for
processing ultra-pure, thin-film materials for improving electronics
and computers. In space they have used a vacuum environment that is
up to 10,000 times more pure than the best vacuum chambers on Earth.
[http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csce/links.htm]

[end of excerpt]

> As for my 2c on the MULE, I have to agree with
> Tango in that we are just not ready for private
> industry in this sector.

Please do provide specific evidence for this contention. Many, many
people disagree. I have three books on my desk right now, two by
Roger Handberg (Space Policy Institute - George Washington Univ) and
another by Lou Dobbs (MoneyLine and Space.com) that suggest a great
future for microgravity research. I'm not saying that there aren't
detractors as well, nor am I saying microgravity research is our
savior. I am merely suggesting that it can provide some incentive for
increased activity in space. And it is doable now.

> All the funding is
> government based and no private companies are willing
> to take this risk right now and back a private
> initiative. Regardless of the merits of the
> engineering details, the demand is not there.
> Investment money will not come without a clear demand.
> Until then its a nice solution just looking for the
> right problem to come around.

The demand is not there? So nobody is doing research in space? Wrong.
There is some demand, not much, but some. The more important point is
that what little demand there is can be met more cheaply with the
MULE than with the ISS or other means (this applies to on-going, long-
term research).

I'm curious:

If there is no future in this why were the international partners
upset by NASA's ISS cuts? Specifically cited by numerous reports at
the time was the fact that the cuts reduced station population and
significantly hampered research efforts (most of the research
required man-tending and with so few astronauts the manpower was not
available for the research). Why would the international partners be
so upset by this reduced ability to conduct meaningful research if
there was no gain to be made from it?

Let me put this all another way. Imagine where our civilization would
be if all basic and applied research conducted throughout history was
conducted in a manner akin to the way microgravity research has been
conducted:

A laboratory is set up, research is conducted over the course of say
one day or one week. At the end of that time, the laboratory is
closed, the scientists are removed, all data is returned to a central
location and analyzed by different scientists, and all research is
halted. Three months later research is resumed only to be halted at
the end of the day or week. Three months later research is resumed
only to be halted at the end of the day or week. Etc, etc.

How great would our scientific knowledge be if all research to date
had been conducted in that manner? What would conducting research in
that manner do to technology development?

This is the manner in which microgravity research has been conducted
the last 30 years. In fits and starts. The ISS was to mark the
beginning of on-going, long-term microgravity research in space, but
due to politics and poor budget management (or whatever reason you
want to give) the cutbacks imposed resulted in limiting the ability
to conduct ON-GOING, LONG-TERM research in space.

Am I really that far off base, folks? Is there anyone willing to
admit that there is some potential here? And that some potential in
any industry in space COULD have a positive collateral effect on
other industries in space? Do you really want your space advocates to
throw up their arms and say, "we're at the mercy of big government
and big business - it's hopeless!" I sure hope not. I hope we haven't
gotten that cynical.

Jack