Biosphere 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biosphere 2
Exterior of Biosphere 2
General information
Type	Research facility
Location	Oracle, Arizona, U.S.
Address	32540 S Biosphere Rd, Oracle, AZ 85739
Coordinates	32°34′44″N 110°51′02″WCoordinates: 32°34′44″N 110°51′02″W
Elevation	3,820 ft (1,164 m)
Construction started	1987
Completed	1991
Owner	The University of Arizona
Technical details
Floor area	3.14 acres (12,700 m2)
Grounds	40 acres (160,000 m2)
Website
biosphere2.org

Biosphere 2 is an American Earth system science research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. It has been owned by the University of Arizona since 2011. Its mission is to serve as a center for research, outreach, teaching, and lifelong learning about Earth, its living systems, and its place in the universe. It is a 3.14-acre (1.27-hectare) structure originally built to be an artificial, materially closed ecological system, or vivarium. It remains the largest closed system ever created.

Biosphere 2 was originally meant to demonstrate the viability of closed ecological systems to support and maintain human life in outer space. It was designed to explore the web of interactions within life systems in a structure with different areas based on various biological biomes. In addition to the several biomes and living quarters for people, there was an agricultural area and work space to study the interactions between humans, farming, technology and the rest of nature as a new kind of laboratory for the study of the global ecology. Its mission was a two-year closure experiment with a crew of eight humans ("biospherians"). Long-term it was seen as a precursor to gain knowledge about the use of closed biospheres in space colonization. As an experimental ecological facility it allowed the study and manipulation of a mini biospheric system without harming Earth's biosphere. Its seven biome areas were a 1,900-square-meter (20,000 sq ft) rainforest, an 850-square-meter (9,100 sq ft) ocean with a coral reef, a 450-square-meter (4,800 sq ft) mangrove wetlands, a 1,300-square-metre (14,000 sq ft) savannah grassland, a 1,400-square-meter (15,000 sq ft) fog desert, and two anthropogenic biomes: a 2,500-square-meter (27,000 sq ft) agricultural system and a human habitat with living spaces, laboratories and workshops. Below ground was an extensive part of the technical infrastructure. Heating and cooling water circulated through independent piping systems and passive solar input through the glass space frame panels covering most of the facility, and electrical power was supplied into Biosphere 2 from an onsite natural gas energy center.

Biosphere 2 was only used twice for its original intended purposes as a closed-system experiment: once from 1991 to 1993, and the second time from March to September 1994. Both attempts, though heavily publicized, ran into problems including low amounts of food and oxygen, die-offs of many animals and plants included in the experiment (though this was anticipated since the project used a strategy of deliberately "species-packing" anticipating losses as the biomes developed), group dynamic tensions among the resident crew, outside politics and a power struggle over management and direction of the project. Nevertheless, the closure experiments set world records in closed ecological systems, agricultural production, health improvements with the high nutrient and low caloric diet the crew followed, and insights into the self-organization of complex biomic systems and atmospheric dynamics. The second closure experiment achieved total food sufficiency and did not require injection of oxygen.

In June 1994, during the middle of the second experiment, the managing company, Space Biosphere Ventures, was dissolved, and the facility was left in limbo. Columbia University assumed management of the facility in 1995 and used it to run experiments until 2003. It then looked in danger of being demolished to make way for housing and retail stores, but was taken over for research by the University of Arizona in 2007. The University of Arizona took full ownership of the structure in 2011.

Planning and construction

Biosphere 2 was originally constructed between 1987 and 1991 by Space Biosphere Ventures, a joint venture whose principal officers were John P. Allen, inventor and executive chairman; Margaret Augustine, CEO; Marie Harding, vice-president of finance; Abigail Alling, vice president of research; Mark Nelson, director of space and environmental applications, William F. Dempster, director of system engineering, and Norberto Alvarez-Romo, vice president of mission control. Project funding came primarily from the joint venture's financial partner, Ed Bass's Decisions Investment. The project cost US$200 million from 1985 to 2007.

It was named "Biosphere 2" because it was meant to be the second fully self-sufficient biosphere, after the Earth itself.

Location

Biosphere 2 sits on a sprawling 40-acre (16-hectare) science campus that is open to the public

 

Exterior showing parts of the rainforest biome and of the habitat, with the West lung in the background.

 

The glass and spaceframe facility is located in Oracle, Arizona at the base of the Santa Catalina Mountains, about 50 minutes north of Tucson. Its elevation is around 4,000 feet (1,200 m) above sea level.

Engineering

Biosphere 2, view from the thornscrub, a transition zone between Savannah and Desert (foreground) and Ocean (background) sections.

 

The fog desert section of Biosphere in 2005

 

The tropical rainforest biome in February, 2017

 

The above-ground physical structure of Biosphere 2 was made of steel tubing and high-performance glass and steel frames. The frame and glazing materials were designed and made to specification by a firm run by a one-time associate of Buckminster Fuller, Peter Jon Pearce (Pearce Structures, Inc.). The window seals and structures had to be designed to be almost perfectly airtight, such that the air exchange would be extremely low, permitting tracking of subtle changes over time. The patented airtight sealing methods, developed by Pearce and William Dempster, achieved a remarkable leak rate of less than 10% per year. Without such tight closure, the slow decline of oxygen which occurred at a rate of less than 1/4% per month during the first two-year closure experiment might not have been observed.

During the day, the heat from the sun caused the air inside to expand and during the night it cooled and contracted. To avoid having to deal with the huge forces that maintaining a constant volume would create, the structure had large diaphragms kept in domes called "lungs" or variable volume structures.

Since opening a window was not an option, the structure also required a sophisticated system to regulate temperatures within desired parameters, which varied for the different biomic areas. Though cooling was the largest energy need, heating had to be supplied in the winter and closed loop pipes and air handlers were key parts of the energy system. An energy center on site provided electricity and heated and cooled water, employing natural gas and backup generators, ammonia chillers and water cooling towers.

First mission

The first closed mission lasted from September 26, 1991 to September 26, 1993. The crew were: medical doctor and researcher Roy Walford, Jane Poynter, Taber MacCallum, Mark Nelson, Sally Silverstone, Abigail Alling, Mark Van Thillo, and Linda Leigh.

The agricultural system produced 83% of the total diet, which included crops of bananas, papayas, sweet potatoes, beets, peanuts, lablab and cowpea beans, rice, and wheat. No toxic chemicals could be used, since they would impact health and water and nutrients were recycled back into the farm soils. Especially during the first year the eight inhabitants reported continual hunger. Calculations indicated that Biosphere 2's farm was amongst the highest producing in the world "exceeding by more than five times that of the most efficient agrarian communities of Indonesia, southern China, and Bangladesh.”

They consumed the same low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet which Roy Walford had studied in his research on extending lifespan through diet. Medical markers indicated the health of the crew during the two years was excellent. They showed the same improvement in health indices such as lowering of blood cholesterol, blood pressure, enhancement of immune system. They lost an average of 16% of their pre-entry body weight before stabilizing and regaining some weight during their second year. Subsequent studies showed that the biospherians' metabolism became more efficient at extracting nutrients from their food as an adaptation to the low-calorie, high nutrient diet. "The overall health of the biospherians crews inside Biosphere 2 confirm that the original design of the Biosphere 2 technosphere systems did avoid a buildup of toxins, and the bioregenerative technologies and life systems inside Biosphere 2 maintained a healthy environment."

Some of the domestic animals that were included in the agricultural area during the first mission included four African pygmy goats and one billy goat, 35 hens and three roosters (a mix of Indian jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), Japanese silky bantam, and a hybrid of these), two sows and one boar Ossabaw dwarf pigs, as well as tilapia fish grown in a rice and azolla pond system originating millennia ago in China.

A strategy of "species-packing" was practiced to ensure that food webs and ecological function could be maintained if some species did not survive. The fog desert area became more chaparral in character due to condensation from the space frame. The savannah was seasonally active; its biomass was cut and stored by the crew as part of their management of carbon dioxide. Rainforest pioneer species grew rapidly, but trees there and in the savannah suffered from etiolation and weakness caused by lack of stress wood, normally created in response to winds in natural conditions. Corals reproduced in the ocean area, and crew helped maintain ocean system health by hand-harvesting algae from the corals, manipulating calcium carbonate and pH levels to prevent the ocean becoming too acidic, and by installing an improved protein skimmer to supplement the algae turf scrubber system originally installed to remove excess nutrients. The mangrove area developed rapidly but with less understory than a typical wetland possibly because of reduced light levels. Nevertheless, it was judged to be a successful analogue to the Everglades area of Florida where the mangroves and marsh plants were collected.

Biosphere 2 because of its small size and buffers, concentration of organic materials and life, had greater fluctuations and more rapid biogeochemical cycles than are found in Earth's biosphere. Most of the introduced vertebrate species and virtually all of the pollinating insects died, though there was reproduction of plants and animals. Insect pests, like cockroaches, flourished. Many insects had been included in original species mixes in the biomes but a globally invasive tramp ant species, Paratrechina longicornis, unintentionally sealed in, had come to dominate other ant species. The planned ecological succession in the rainforest and strategies to protect the area from harsh incident sunlight and salt aerosols from the ocean worked well, and a surprising amount of the original biodiversity persisted. Biosphere 2 in its early ecological development was likened to an island ecology.

Group dynamics: psychology, conflict, and cooperation

View of part of the crew dining room, serving counter from kitchen and stairway up to an entertainment area.

 

The crew's kitchen as it originally looked during the first mission.

 

Much of the evidence for isolated human groups comes from psychological studies of scientists overwintering in Antarctic research stations. The study of this phenomenon is "confined environment psychology", and according to Jane Poynter it was known to be a challenge and often crews split into factions.

Before the first closure mission was half over, the group had split into two factions and, according to Poynter, people who had been intimate friends had become implacable enemies, barely on speaking terms. Others point out that the crew continued to work together as a team to achieve the experiment's goals, mindful that any action that harmed Biosphere 2 might imperil their own health. This is in contrast to other expeditions where internal frictions can lead to unconscious sabotage of each other and the overall mission. All of the crew felt a very strong and visceral bond with their living world. They kept air and water quality, atmospheric dynamics and health of the life systems constantly in their attention in a very visceral and profound way. This intimate “metabolic connection” enabled the crew to discern and respond to even subtle changes in the living systems. (Alling et al., 2002; Alling and Nelson, 1993). "Appreciation of the value of biosphere interconnectedness and interdependency was appreciated as both an everyday beauty and a challenging reality", Walford later acknowledged "I don't like some of them, but we were a hell of a team. That was the nature of the factionalism... but despite that, we ran the damn thing and we cooperated totally".

The factions inside the bubble formed from a rift and power struggle between the joint venture partners on how the science should proceed, as biospherics or as specialist ecosystem studies (perceived as reductionist). The faction that included Poynter felt strongly that increasing research should be prioritized over degree of closure. The other faction backed project management and the overall mission objectives. On February 14, a portion of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) resigned. Time Magazine wrote: "Now, the veneer of credibility, already bruised by allegations of tamper-prone data, secret food caches and smuggled supplies, has cracked ... the two-year experiment in self-sufficiency is starting to look less like science and more like a $150 million stunt". In fact, the SAC was dissolved because it had deviated from its mandate to review and improve scientific research and became involved in advocating management changes. A majority of the SAC members chose to remain as consultants to Biosphere 2. The SAC's recommendations in their report were implemented including a new Director of Research [Dr. Jack Corliss], allowing import/export of scientific samples and equipment through the facility airlocks to increase research and decrease crew labor, and to generate a formal research program. Some sixty-four projects were included in the research program that Walford and Alling spearheaded developing.

Undoubtedly the lack of oxygen and the calorie-restricted, nutrient-dense diet contributed to low morale. The Alling faction feared that the Poynter group were prepared to go so far as to import food, if it meant making them fitter to carry out research projects. They considered that would be a project failure by definition. 

In November 1992, the hungry Biospherians began eating seed stocks that had not been grown inside the Biosphere 2. Poynter made Chris Helms, PR Director for the enterprise, aware of this. She was promptly dismissed by Margret Augustine, CEO of Space Biospheres Ventures, and told to come out of the biosphere. This order was, however, never carried out. Poynter writes that she simply decided to stay put, correctly reasoning that the order could not be enforced without effectively terminating the closure. 

Isolated groups tend to attach greater significance to group dynamic and personal emotional fluctuations common in all groups. Some reports from polar station crews exaggerated psychological problems. So, although some of the first closure team thought they were depressed, psychological examination of the biospherians showed no depression and fit the explorer/adventurer profile, with both women and men testing very similar to astronauts. One of the psychologists noted, "If I was lost in the Amazon and was looking for a guide to get out, and to survive with, then [the biospherian crew] would be top choices."

Challenges

Among the problems and miscalculations encountered in the first mission were unanticipated condensation making the "desert" too wet, population explosions of greenhouse ants and cockroaches, morning glories overgrowing the rainforest area, blocking out other plants and less sunlight (40-50% of outside light) entering the facility than originally anticipated. Biospherians intervened to control invasive plants when needed to preserve biodiversity, functioning as "keystone predators". In addition, construction itself was a challenge; for example, it was difficult to manipulate the bodies of water to have waves and tidal changes. Engineers came up with innovative solutions to supplement natural functions the Earth's biosphere normally performs, e.g. vacuum pumps to create gentle waves in the ocean without endangering marine biota, sophisticated heating and cooling systems. All the technology was selected to minimize outgassing and discharge of harmful substances which might damage Biosphere 2's life.

There was controversy when the public learned that the project had allowed an injured member to leave and return, carrying new material inside. The team claimed the only new supplies brought in were plastic bags, but others accused them of bringing food and other items. More criticism was raised when it was learned that, likewise, the project injected oxygen in January 1993 to make up for a failure in the balance of the system that resulted in the amount of oxygen steadily declining. Some thought that these criticisms ignored that Biosphere 2 was an experiment where the unexpected would occur, adding to knowledge of how complex ecologies develop and interact, not a demonstration where everything was known in advance. H.T. Odum noted: “The management process during 1992-1993 using data to develop theory, test it with simulation, and apply corrective actions was in the best scientific tradition. Yet some journalists crucified the management in the public press, treating the project as if it was an Olympic contest to see how much could be done without opening the doors”.

The oxygen inside the facility, which began at 20.9%, fell at a steady pace and after 16 months was down to 14.5%. This is equivalent to the oxygen availability at an elevation of 4,080 meters (13,400 ft). Since some biospherians were starting to have symptoms like sleep apnea and fatigue, Walford and the medical team decided to boost oxygen with injections in January and August 1993. The oxygen decline and minimal response of the crew indicated that changes in air pressure are what trigger human adaptation responses. These studies enhanced the biomedical research program.

Managing CO₂ levels was a particular challenge, and a source of controversy regarding the Biosphere 2 project's alleged misrepresentation to the public. Daily fluctuation of carbon dioxide dynamics was typically 600 ppm because of the strong drawdown during sunlight hours by plant photosynthesis, followed by a similar rise during the nighttime when system respiration dominated. As expected, there was also a strong seasonal signature to CO₂ levels, with wintertime levels as high as 4,000-4,500 ppm and summertime levels near 1,000 ppm. The crew worked to manage the CO₂ by occasionally turning on a CO₂ scrubber, activating and de-activating the desert and savannah through control of irrigation water, cutting and storing biomass to sequester carbon, and utilizing all potential planting areas with fast-growing species to increase system photosynthesis. In November 1991, investigative reporting in the Village Voice alleged that the crew had secretly installed the CO₂ scrubber device, and claimed that this violated Biosphere 2's advertised goal of recycling all materials naturally. Others pointed out there was nothing secret about the carbon dioxide device and it constituted another technical system augmenting ecological processes. The carbon precipitator could reverse the chemical reactions and thus release the stored carbon dioxide in later years when the facility might need additional carbon.

Many suspected the drop in oxygen was due to microbes in the soil. The soils were selected to have enough carbon to provide for the plants of the ecosystems to grow from infancy to maturity, a plant mass increase of perhaps 20 tons (18,000 kg). The release rate of that soil carbon as carbon dioxide by respiration of soil microbes was an unknown that the Biosphere 2 experiment was designed to reveal. Subsequent research showed that Biosphere 2's farm soils had reached a more stable ratio of carbon and nitrogen, lowering the rate of CO₂ release, by 1998.

The respiration rate was faster than the photosynthesis (possibly in part due to relatively low light penetration through the glazed structure and the fact that Biosphere 2 started with a small but rapidly increasing plant biomass) resulting in a slow decrease of oxygen. A mystery accompanied the oxygen decline: the corresponding increase in carbon dioxide did not appear. This concealed the underlying process until an investigation by Jeff Severinghaus and Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory using isotopic analysis showed that carbon dioxide was reacting with exposed concrete inside Biosphere 2 to form calcium carbonate, thereby sequestering both carbon and oxygen.

Second mission

During the transition period between missions, extensive research and system improvements had been undertaken. Concrete was sealed to prevent uptake of carbon dioxide. The second mission began on March 6, 1994, with an announced run of ten months. The crew was Norberto Alvarez-Romo (Capt.), John Druitt, Matt Finn, Pascale Maslin, Charlotte Godfrey, Rodrigo Romo and Tilak Mahato. The second crew achieved complete sufficiency in food production.

On April 1, 1994 a severe dispute within the management team led to the ousting of the on-site management by federal marshals serving a restraining order, and financier Ed Bass hired Stephen Bannon, manager of the Bannon & Co. investment banking team from Beverly Hills, California, to run Space Biospheres Ventures. Some biospherians and staff were concerned about Bannon, who had previously investigated cost overruns at the site. Two former Biosphere 2 crew members flew back to Arizona to protest the hire and broke into the compound to warn current crew members that Bannon and the new management would jeopardize their safety.

At 3 am on April 5, 1994, Abigail Alling and Mark Van Thillo, members of the first crew, allegedly vandalized the project from outside, opening one double-airlock door and three single door emergency exits, leaving them open for approximately fifteen minutes. Five panes of glass were also broken. Alling later told the Chicago Tribune that she "considered the Biosphere to be in an emergency state... In no way was it sabotage. It was my responsibility." About 10% of the biosphere's air was exchanged with the outside during this time, according to systems analyst Donella Meadows, who received a communication from Ms. Alling in which she explained that she and Van Thillo judged it their ethical duty to give those inside the choice of continuing with the drastically changed human experiment or leaving, as they didn't know what the crew had been told of the new situation. “On April 1, 1994, at approximately 10 AM … limousines arrived on the biosphere site … with two investment bankers hired by Mr. Bass … They arrived with a temporary restraining order to take over direct control of the project … With them were 6-8 police officers hired by the Bass organization … They immediately changed locks on the offices … All communication systems were changed (telephone and access codes), and [we] were prevented from receiving any data regarding safety, operations, and research of Biosphere 2.” Alling emphasized several times in her letter that the “bankers” who suddenly took over “knew nothing technically or scientifically, and little about the biospherian crew.”

Four days later, the captain Norberto Alvarez-Romo (by then married to Biosphere 2 chief executive Margaret Augustine) precipitously left the Biosphere for a "family emergency" after his wife's suspension. He was replaced by Bernd Zabel, who had been nominated as captain of the first mission but who was replaced at the last minute. Two months later, Matt Smith replaced Matt Finn.

The ownership and management company Space Biospheres Ventures was officially dissolved on June 1, 1994. This left the scientific and business management of the mission to the interim turnaround team, who had been contracted by the financial partner, Decisions Investment Co.

Mission 2 was ended prematurely on September 6, 1994. No further total system science has emerged from Biosphere 2 as the facility was changed by Columbia University from a closed ecological system to a "flow-through" system where CO₂ could be manipulated at desired levels.

Steve Bannon left Biosphere 2 after two years, but his departure was marked by a civil lawsuit filed against Space Biosphere Ventures by the former crew members who had broken in. During a 1996 trial, Bannon testified that he had called one of the plaintiffs, Abigail Alling, a "self-centered, deluded young woman" and a "bimbo." He also testified that when the woman submitted a five-page complaint outlining safety problems at the site, he promised to shove the complaint "down her fucking throat." Bannon attributed this to "hard feelings and broken dreams." At the end of the trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs and ordered Space Biosphere Ventures to pay them $600,000, but also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the company $40,089 for the damage they had caused. Some have observed that Bannon orchestrated the hostile take-over and destruction of Biosphere 2 as a revolutionary total system global ecology laboratory, not because of any interest in ecological science.

Science

A special issue of the Ecological Engineering journal edited by Marino and Howard T. Odum (1999), published as "Biosphere 2: Research Past and Present" (Elsevier, 1999) represents the most comprehensive assemblage of collected papers and findings from Biosphere 2. The papers range from calibrated models that describe the system metabolism, hydrologic balance, and heat and humidity, to papers that describe rainforest, mangrove, ocean, and agronomic system development in this carbon dioxide-rich environment. Though several dissertations and many scientific papers used data from the early closure experiments at Biosphere 2, much of the original data has never been analyzed and is unavailable or lost, perhaps due to scientific politics and in-fighting.

Some of the controversy at Biosphere 2 stemmed from the long-standing division in science between analytic, reductionist science and integrative, holistic science. 

Rebecca Reider expanded her history of science thesis at Harvard into a book on Biosphere 2. She noted that because Biosphere 2's creators were perceived as outsiders to academic science, the project was scrutinized but sometimes poorly understood in the media. She noted that Biosphere 2 broke a number of unspoken taboos: “’Science’ could be performed only by official scientists, only the right high priests could interpret nature for everyone else….’Science’ was separate from art (and the thinking mind was separate from the emotional heart)…’Science’ required some neat intellectual boundary between humans and nature; it did not necessarily involve humans learning to live with the world around them. Finally, ‘science’ must follow a specific method: think up a hypothesis, test it and get some numbers to prove you were right”. After Columbia University assumed management, the scrutiny ceased because it was assumed they were "proper" scientists.

The dichotomy is a false one as there are many valid approaches to science. John Allen, the inventor of Biosphere 2, wrote: “Four basic ways uneasily co-exist in science to deal with understanding complex systems: [1] prolonged naturalist observation, description of observed regularities and classification of parts… [2] analyzing component parts of the object of study, formulating restricted hypotheses, and then, holding all else other than the chosen part as constant as possible, measure changes produced by measured impacts...[3] accept complexity as an irreducible element, and then to search for the organized structure that enables us to examine the entity as a whole, to ascertain its specific laws or regularities…[4] Put into an operating model a synthesis of these three approaches, together with test principles of engineering, to test the validity of the existent thinking’s predictive powers, and to provide a fecund base for new observations. This full interplay of observation, analysis and structuring to make a working apparatus in order to test and extend our knowledge of biospherics is the approach we used to create Biosphere 2. This interplay of all four scientific approaches is required to study Earth’s biosphere, the most complex entity yet encountered.”

Praise and criticism

One view of Biosphere 2 was that it was "the most exciting scientific project to be undertaken in the U.S. since President John F. Kennedy launched us toward the moon". Others called it "New Age drivel masquerading as science". John Allen and Roy Walford did have mainstream credentials. John Allen held a degree in Metallurgical-Mining Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. Roy Walford received his doctorate of medicine from the University of Chicago and taught at UCLA as a Professor of Pathology for 35 years. Mark Nelson obtained his Ph.D. in 1998 under Professor H.T. Odum in ecological engineering further developing the constructed wetlands used to treat and recycle sewage in Biosphere 2, to coral reef protection along the Yucatán coast where the corals were collected. Linda Leigh obtained her PhD with a dissertation on biodiversity and the Biosphere 2 rainforest working with Odum. Abigail Alling, Mark van Thillo and Sally Silverstone helped start the Biosphere Foundation where they worked on coral reef and marine conservation and sustainable agricultural systems. Jane Poynter and Taber MacCallum co-founded Paragon Space Development Corporation which has studied the first mini-closed system and the first full animal life cycle in space and assisted in setting world records in high altitude descents.

Questioning the credentials of the participants (despite the contribution in the preparation phase of Biosphere 2 of worldwide top-level scientists and among others the Russian Academy of Sciences), Marc Cooper wrote that "the group that built, conceived, and directs the Biosphere project is not a group of high-tech researchers on the cutting edge of science but a clique of recycled theater performers that evolved out of an authoritarian—and decidedly non-scientific—personality cult". He was referring to the Synergia Ranch in New Mexico, where indeed many of the Biospherians did practice theater under John Allen's leadership, and began to develop the ideas behind Biosphere 2. They also founded the Institute of Ecotechnics and began innovative field projects in challenging biomes to advance the healthy integration of human technologies and the environment where many of the biospherian candidates gained experience in operating real-time complex projects.

One of their own scientific consultants was earlier critical. Dr. Ghillean Prance, director of the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew, designed the rainforest biome inside the Biosphere. Although he later changed his opinion, acknowledging the unique scope of this experiment and contributed to its success as a consultant, in a 1983 interview (8 years before the start of the experiment), Prance said, "I was attracted to the Institute of Ecotechnics because funds for research were being cut and the institute seemed to have a lot of money which it was willing to spend freely. Along with others, I was ill-used. Their interest in science is not genuine. They seem to have some sort of secret agenda, they seem to be guided by some sort of religious or philosophical system." Prance went on in the 1991 newspaper interview to say "they are visionaries.,.And maybe to fulfill their vision they have become somewhat cultlike. But they are not a cult, per se....I am interested in ecological restoration systems. And I think all sorts of scientific things can come of this experiment, far beyond the space goal... When they came to me with this new project, they seemed so well organized, so inspired, I simply decided to forget the past. You shouldn't hold their past against them." 

Poynter in her memoir rebuts the critique that because some of the creative team of Biosphere 2 weren't highly credentialed scientists, that that ad hominem argument invalidates the results of the endeavor. "“Some reporters hurled accusations that we were unscientific. Apparently because many of the SBV managers were not themselves degreed scientists, this called into question the entire validity of the project, even though some of the world’s best scientists were working vigorously on the project’s design and operation. The critique was not fair. Since leaving Biosphere 2, I have run a small business for ten years that sent experiments on the shuttle and to the space station, and is designing life support systems for the replacement shuttle and future moon base. I do not have a degree, not even an MBA from Harvard, as John [Allen] had. I hire scientists and top engineers. Our company’s credibility is not called into question because of my credentials: we are judged on the quality of our work”. H.T. Odum noted that mavericks, outsiders have often contributed to the development of science: “The original management of Biosphere 2 was regarded by many scientists as untrained for lack of scientific degrees, even though they had engaged in a preparatory study program for a decade, interacting with the international community of scientists including the Russians involved with closed systems. The history of science has many examples where people of atypical background open science in new directions, in this case implementing mesocosm organization and ecological engineering with fresh hypotheses”.

The Biosphere 2 Science Advisory Committee, chaired by Tom Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution, in its report of August 1992 reported: "The committee is in agreement that the conception and construction of Biosphere 2 were acts of vision and courage. The scale of Biosphere 2 is unique and Biosphere 2 is already providing unexpected scientific results not possible through other means (notably the documented, unexpected decline in atmospheric oxygen levels.) Biosphere 2 will make important scientific contributions in the fields of biogeochemical cycling, the ecology of closed ecological systems, and restoration ecology." Columbia University assembled outside scientists to evaluate the potential of the facility after they took over management, and concluded the following: "A group of world-class scientists got together and decided the Biosphere 2 facility is an exceptional laboratory for addressing critical questions relative to the future of Earth and its environment."

Columbia University

In December 1995 the Biosphere 2 owners transferred management to Columbia University of New York City which embarked on a successful eight-year run at the Biosphere 2 campus. Columbia ran Biosphere 2 as a research site and campus until 2003. Subsequently, management reverted to the owners. 

In 1996, Columbia University changed the virtually airtight, materially closed structure designed for closed system research, to a "flow-through" system, and halted closed system research. They manipulated carbon dioxide levels for global warming research, and injected desired amounts of carbon dioxide, venting as needed. During Columbia's tenure, students from Columbia and other colleges and universities would often spend one semester at the site.

Important research during Columbia's tenure demonstrated the devastating impacts on coral reefs from elevated atmospheric CO2 and acidification that will result from continued global climate change. Frank Press, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, described these interactions between atmosphere and ocean, taking advantage of the highly controllable ocean mesocosm of Biosphere 2, as the “first unequivocal experimental confirmation of the human impact on the planet”.

Studies in Biosphere 2’s terrestrial biomes showed that a saturation point was reached with elevated CO2 beyond which they are unable to uptake more. The studies' authors noted that the striking differences between the Biosphere 2 rainforest and desert biomes in their whole system responses “illustrates the importance of large-scale experimental research in the study of complex global change issues".

Site sold

In January 2005, Decisions Investments Corporation, owner of Biosphere 2, announced that the project's 1,600-acre (650 ha) campus was for sale. They preferred a research use to be found for the complex but were not excluding buyers with different intentions, such as big universities, churches, resorts, and spas. In June 2007 the site was sold for $50 million to CDO Ranching & Development, L.P. 1,500 houses and a resort hotel were planned, but the main structure was still to be available for research and educational use.

Acquisition by University of Arizona

On June 26, 2007, the University of Arizona announced it would take over research at the Biosphere 2. The announcement ended fears that the structure would be demolished. University officials said private gifts and grants enabled them to cover research and operating costs for three years with the possibility of extending funding for ten years. It was extended for ten years, and is now engaged in research projects including research into the terrestrial water cycle and how it relates to ecology, atmospheric science, soil geochemistry, and climate change. In June 2011, the university announced that it would assume full ownership of Biosphere 2, effective July 1.

Biosphere 2, 2015

CDO Ranching & Development donated the land, Biosphere buildings and several other support and administrative buildings. The Philecology Foundation (a nonprofit research foundation founded by Ed Bass) pledged US$20 million for the ongoing science and operations.

Current research

There are many small-scale research projects at Biosphere 2, as well as several large-scale research projects including:

• the Landscape Evolution Observatory (LEO), a project which uses 1800 sensors to monitor millions of pounds of abiotic volcanic rock to track how this nonliving soil slowly develops over several years into a rich soil which is able to support microbial and vascular plant life.
• the Lunar Greenhouse, a second prototype of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center which seeks to understand how to grow vegetables on Mars by developing a bioregenerative life support system which recycles and purifies water through plant transpiration.
• a vertical farming project to be built in Biosphere 2's west lung, in collaboration with the private company Civic Farms, in an effort to develop an indoor plant growth cycle with LED lamps configured to specific wavelengths aimed at the goal of increasing water efficiency, producing zero farm runoff, with no pests or pesticides, and zero effect from external weather conditions.

Psychological and sociological effects of spaceflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crew members (STS-131) on the International Space Station (14 April 2012).

 

Psychological and sociological effects of space flight are important to understanding how to successfully achieve the goals of long-duration expeditionary missions. Although robotic spacecraft have landed on Mars, plans have also been discussed for a human expedition, perhaps in the 2030s, or as early as 2021 for a return mission, or even in 2018 for a 501-day flyby mission for a crew of two with no landing on Mars.

A Mars return expedition may last two to three years and may involve a crew of four to seven people, although shorter flyby missions of approximately one and half years with only two people have been proposed, as well as one-way missions that include landing on Mars with no return trip planned. Although there are a number of technological and physiological issues involved with such a mission that remain to be worked out, there are also a number of behavioral issues affecting the crew that are being addressed before launching such missions. In preparing for such an expedition, important psychological, interpersonal and psychiatric issues occurring in human spaceflight missions are under study by national space agencies and others. 

In October 2015, the NASA Office of Inspector General issued a health hazards report related to human spaceflight, including a human mission to Mars.

Psychosocial issues on-orbit

Researchers have conducted two NASA-funded international studies of psychological and interpersonal issues during on-orbit missions to the Mir and the International Space Station. Both crew members and mission control personnel were studied. The Mir sample involved 13 astronauts and cosmonauts and 58 American and Russian mission control personnel. The corresponding numbers in the ISS study were 17 space travelers and 128 people on Earth. Subjects completed a weekly questionnaire that included items from a number of valid and reliable measures that assessed mood and group dynamics. Both studies had similar findings. There was significant evidence for the displacement of tension and negative emotions from the crew members to mission control personnel. The support role of the commander was significantly and positively related to group cohesion among crew members, and both the task and support roles of the team leader were significantly related to cohesion among people in mission control. Crew members scored higher in cultural sophistication than mission control personnel. Russians reported greater language flexibility than Americans. Americans scored higher on a measure of work pressure than Russians, but Russians reported higher levels of tension on the ISS than Americans. There were no significant changes in levels of emotion and group interpersonal climate over time. Specifically, there was no evidence for a general worsening of mood and cohesion after the halfway point of the missions, an occurrence some have called the 3rd quarter phenomenon.

Much has been learned from experiences on the International Space Station about important psychological, interpersonal and psychiatric issues that affect people working on-orbit. This information should be incorporated in the planning for future expeditionary missions to a near-Earth asteroid or to Mars.

 

Other psychosocial studies involving astronauts and cosmonauts have been conducted. In one, an analysis of speech patterns as well as subjective attitudes and personal values were measured in both on-orbit space crews and people working in space analog environments. The researchers found that, over time, these isolated groups showed decreases in the scope and content of their communications and a filtering in what they said to outside personnel, which was termed psychological closing. Crew members interacted less with some mission control personnel than others, perceiving them as opponents. This tendency of some crew members to become more egocentric was called autonomization. They also found that crew members became more cohesive by spending time together (for example, joint birthday celebrations), and that the presence of subgroups and outliers (e.g., scapegoats) negatively affected group cohesion. In a study of 12 ISS cosmonauts, researchers reported that personal values generally remained stable, with those related to the fulfillment of professional activities and good social relationships being rated most highly.

Another study examined potentially disruptive cultural issues affecting space missions in a survey of 75 astronauts and cosmonauts and 106 mission control personnel. The subjects rated coordination difficulties between the different space organizations involved with the missions as the biggest problem. Other problems included communication misunderstandings and differences in work management styles.

In a study of 11 cosmonauts regarding their opinions of possible psychological and interpersonal problems that might occur during a Mars expedition, researchers found several factors to be rated highly: isolation and monotony, distance-related communication delays with the Earth, leadership issues, differences in space agency management styles, and cultural misunderstandings within international crews.

In a survey of 576 employees of the European Space Agency (ESA), a link was found between cultural diversity and the ability of people to interact with one another. Especially important were factors related to leadership and decision-making.

Another study looked at content analysis of personal journals from ten ISS astronauts that were oriented around a number of issues that had behavioral implications. Findings included that 88% of the entries dealt with the following categories: Work, Outside Communications, Adjustment, Group Interaction, Recreation/Leisure, Equipment, Events, Organization/Management, Sleep, and Food. In general, the crew members reported that their life in space was not as difficult as they expected prior to launch, despite a 20% increase in interpersonal problems during the second half of the missions. It was recommended that future crew members be allowed to control their individual schedules as much as possible.

On-orbit and post-spaceflight psychiatric issues

A number of psychiatric problems have been reported during on-orbit space missions. Most common are adjustment reactions to the novelty of being in space, with symptoms generally including transient anxiety or depression. Psychosomatic reactions also have occurred, where anxiety and other emotional states are experienced physically as somatic symptoms. Problems related to major mood and thought disorders (e.g., manic-depression, schizophrenia) have not been reported during space missions. This likely is due to the fact that crew members have been screened psychiatrically for constitutional predispositions to these conditions before launch, so the likelihood of these illnesses developing on-orbit is low. 

Post-mission personality changes and emotional problems have affected some returning space travelers. These have included anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse, and marital readjustment difficulties that in some cases have necessitated the use of psychotherapy and psychoactive medications. Some astronauts have had difficulties adjusting to the resultant fame and media demands that followed their missions, and similar problems are likely to occur in the future following high-profile expeditions, such as a trip to Mars.

Asthenization, a syndrome that includes fatigue, irritability, emotional lability, attention and concentration difficulties, and appetite and sleep problems, has been reported to commonly occur in cosmonauts by Russian flight surgeons. It has been observed to evolve in clearly defined stages. It is conceptualized as an adjustment reaction to being in space that is different from neurasthenia, a related neurotic condition seen on Earth.

The validity of asthenization has been questioned by some in the West, in part because classical neurasthenia is not currently recognized in the American psychiatric nomenclature, whereas the illness is accepted in Russia and China. Retrospective analysis of the data from the Soviet Space Biology and Medicine III Mir Space Station study has shown that the findings did not support the presence of the asthenization syndrome when crew member on-orbit scores were compared with those from a prototype of asthenization developed by Russian space experts.

Positive outcomes

Isolated and confined environments may also produce positive experiences. A survey of 39 astronauts and cosmonauts found that all of the respondents reported positive changes as a result of flying in space. One particular measure stood out: Perceptions of Earth in general were highly positive, while gaining a stronger appreciation of the Earth’s beauty had the highest mean change score.

Since the early 1990s, research began on the salutogenic (or growth-enhancing) aspects of space travel. One study analyzed the published memoirs of 125 space travelers. After returning from space, the subjects reported higher levels on categories of Universalism (i.e., greater appreciation for other people and nature), Spirituality, and Power. Russian space travelers scored higher in Achievement and Universalism and lower in Enjoyment than Americans. Overall, these results suggest that traveling in space is a positive and growth-enhancing experience for many of its individual participants.

From low-Earth orbit to expeditions across the inner Solar System

Research to date into human psychological and sociological effects based on on-orbit near-Earth experiences may have limited generalizability to a long-distance, multi-year space expedition, such as a mission to a near-Earth asteroid (which currently is being considered by NASA) or to Mars. In the case of Mars, new stressors will be introduced due to the great distances involved in journeying to the Red Planet. For example, the crew members will be relatively autonomous from terrestrial mission control and will need to plan their work and deal with problems on their own. They are expected to experience significant isolation as the Earth becomes an insignificant bluish-green dot in the heavens, the so-called Earth-out-of-view phenomenon. From the surface of Mars, there will be two-way communication delays with family and friends back home of up to 44 minutes, as well as low-bandwidth communication channels, adding to the sense of isolation.

The Mars 500 Program

From June 2010 to November 2011, a unique ground-based space analog study took place that was called the Mars 500 Program. Mars 500 was designed to simulate a 520-day round-trip expedition to Mars, including periods of time where the crew functioned under high autonomy conditions and experienced communication delays with outside monitoring personnel in mission control. Six men were confined in a simulator that was located at the Institute for Biomedical Problems in Moscow. The lower floor consisted of living and laboratory modules for the international crew, and the upper floor contained a mock-up of the Mars surface on which the crew conducted simulated geological and other planetary activities.

During a 105-day pilot study in 2009 that preceded this mission, the mood and group interactions of a six-man Russian-European crew, as well as the relationships of this crew with outside mission control personnel, were studied. The study found that high work autonomy (where the crew members planned their own schedules) was well received by the crews, mission goals were accomplished, and there were no adverse effects, which echoed positive autonomy findings in other space analog settings. During the high autonomy period, crew member mood and self-direction were reported as being improved, but mission control personnel reported more anxiety and work role confusion. Despite scoring lower in work pressure overall, the Russian crew members reported a greater rise in work pressure from low to high autonomy than the European participants.

Several psychosocial studies were conducted during the actual 520-day mission. There were changes in crew member time perception, evidence for the displacement of crew tension to mission control, and decreases in crew member needs and requests during high autonomy, which suggested that they had adapted to this condition. The crew exhibited increased homogeneity in values and more reluctance to express negative interpersonal feelings over time, which suggested a tendency toward "groupthink". Additionally, the crew members experienced increased feelings of loneliness and perceived lower support from colleagues over time, which had a negative effect on cognitive adaptation. A number of individual differences in terms of sleep pattern, mood, and conflicts with mission control were found and reported using techniques such as wrist actigraphy, the psychomotor vigilance test, and various subjective measures. A general decrease in group collective time from the outbound phase to the return phase of the simulated flight to Mars was identified. This was accomplished by the evaluation of fixed video recordings of crew behavior during breakfasts through variations in personal actions, visual interactions, and facial expressions.

Psychosocial and psychiatric issues during an expedition to Mars

There are a number of psychosocial and psychiatric issues that may affect crew members during an expeditionary mission to Mars. In terms of selection, only a subset of all astronaut candidates will be willing to be away from family and friends for the two- to three-year mission, so the pool of possible crew members will be restricted and possibly skewed psychologically in ways that cannot be foreseen. Little is known about the physical and psychological effect of long-duration microgravity and the high radiation that occurs in deep space. In addition, on Mars the crew members will be subjected to a gravity field that is only 38 percent of Earth gravity, and the effect of this situation on their physical and emotional well-being is unknown. Given the long distances involved, the crew must function autonomously and develop their own work schedules and solve operational emergencies themselves. They must also be able to deal with medical and psychiatric emergencies, such as physical trauma due to accidents as well as suicidal or psychotic thinking due to stress and depression. Basic life support and staples such as water and fuel will need to be provided from resources on Mars and its atmosphere. There will be a great deal of leisure time (especially during the outbound and return phases of the mission), and occupying it meaningfully and flexibly may be a challenge.

Furthermore, Kanas points out that during on-orbit or lunar missions a number of interventions have been implemented successfully to support crew member psychological well-being. These have included family conferences in real time (i.e., with no appreciable delays), frequent consultations with mission control, and the sending of gifts and favorite foods on resupply ships to enhance morale. Such actions have helped to provide stimulation and counter the effects of isolation, loneliness, asthenization, and limited social contact. But with the delays in crew-ground communication and the inability to send needed resupplies in a timely manner due to the vast distances between the habitats on Mars and Earth, the currently used Earth-based support strategies will be seriously constrained, and new strategies will be needed. Finally, since gazing at the Earth’s beauty has been rated as the major positive factor of being in space, the experience of seeing the Earth as an insignificant dot in the heavens may enhance the sense of isolation and produce increased feelings of homesickness, depression and irritability. This may be ameliorated by having a telescope on board with which to view the Earth, thus helping the crew feel more connected with home.

Commercial Crew Development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First group of nine astronauts selected for the NASA Commercial Crew Development program and the two selected spacecraft, the Boeing CST-100 Starliner (left) and SpaceX Crew Dragon

 

NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo
Initiative	Period
Development
Commercial Cargo Development	2006–2013
Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities	2007–2010
Commercial Crew Development (phase 1)	2010–2011
Commercial Crew Development (phase 2)	2011–2012
Commercial Crew integrated Capability (phase 3) (base period milestones)	2012–2014
Commercial Crew integrated Capability (phase 4) (optional period milestones)	2014–2017
Certification
Certification Products Contract (crew)	2012–2014
Commercial Crew Transportation Capability	2014–2017
Services
Commercial Resupply Services (cargo)	2011–2016
ISS Crew Transportation Services (crew)	2017–present
NASA's COTS program Private spaceflight companies

Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) is a multiphase, space technology development program that is funded by the U.S. government and administered by NASA. The program is intended to stimulate development of privately operated crew vehicles to be launched into low Earth orbit. The program is run by NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO).

In 2010, in the first phase of the program, NASA provided $50 million combined to five American companies; the money was intended for research and development into private-sector human spaceflight concepts and technologies. NASA solicited a second set of CCdev proposals for technology development projects lasting for a maximum of 14 months in October of that year. In April 2011, NASA announced they would award up to nearly $270 million to four companies as they met their CCDev 2 objectives. 

NASA awarded Space Act Agreements for the third phase, named CCiCap, in August 2012; this would last until 2014. CCiCap is followed by CCtCap with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 contracts, which formed the fourth and final phase of the program. Contracts were awarded to SpaceX and Boeing in September 2014. Test flights of both spacecraft are scheduled for late 2018. SpaceX and Boeing have contracts with NASA to each supply six flights to ISS between 2019 and 2024. The first group of astronauts assigned to fly on the two selected spacecraft were announced on August 3, 2018.

Requirements

The key, high-level requirements for the Commercial Crew vehicles include:

• Deliver and return four crew members and their equipment to International Space Station (ISS);
• Provide assured crew return in the event of an emergency;
• Serve as a 24-hour safe haven in the event of an emergency;
• Capable of remaining docked for 210 days—the Space Shuttle could only remain docked for a maximum of 12 days.

Program overview

Flag left aboard ISS by the crew of STS-135 is to be retrieved by the next crew launched on an American vehicle.

The NASA CCDev program followed Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), a program for developing commercial launch capability to send cargo into low Earth orbit. In December 2009, NASA provided the following description of the CCDev program:

The objectives of the Commercial Crew & Cargo Program are to implement U.S. Space Exploration policy with investments to stimulate the commercial space industry; facilitate U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit; and create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers.

The Commercial Crew & Cargo Program is applying Recovery Act funds to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. NASA plans to use funds appropriated for "Exploration" under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) through its C3PO to support efforts within the private sector to develop system concepts and capabilities that could ultimately lead to the availability of commercial human spaceflight services. These efforts are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research and to promote economic recovery as capabilities for new markets are created.

ARRA provided $400 million for space exploration related activities. Of this amount, $50 million is to be used for the development of commercial crew space transportation concepts and enabling capabilities. This effort is known as CCDev. The purpose of this activity is to provide funding to assist viable commercial entities in the development of system concepts, key technologies, and capabilities that could ultimately be used in commercial crew human space transportation systems. This development work must show, within the timeframe of the agreement, significant progress on long lead capabilities, technologies and commercial crew risk mitigation tasks in order to accelerate the development of their commercial crew space transportation concept.

Contract funding for the CCDev program is different from traditional space industry contractor funding used on the Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury programs. Contracts are explicitly designed to fund subsystem technology development objectives that NASA wants for NASA purposes; all other system technology development is funded by the commercial contractor. Contracts are issued for fixed-price, pay-for-performance milestones. "NASA's contribution is fixed".

Funding and effect on schedule

Requested vs appropriated funding by year

The first flight of the CCDev program was planned to occur in 2015, but insufficient funding caused delays. Administrator of NASA Charles Bolden attributed the delays to insufficient funding from Congress. Michael López-Alegría, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, also attributed the delays in the program to funding problems.

For the fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget, US$500 million was requested for the CCDev program, but Congress granted only $270 million. For the FY 2012 budget, $850 million was requested but Congress approved a budget of $406 million, and as a result the first flight of CCDev was postponed from 2016 to 2017. For the 2013 budget, 830 million was requested but Congress approved $488 million. For the FY 2014 budget, $821 million was requested, Congress approved $696 million. In FY 2015, NASA received $805 million from Congress for the CCDev program; 95% of the $848 million requested by the Obama administration and the largest annual amount since the beginning of the program.

Spaceflight gap after STS

Saturn IB mounted on the "milkstool" platform. Its 1975 flight was the last manned U.S. mission until 1981

After the last flight of the STS in 2011 the clock began ticking on a U.S. spaceflight gap. The previous spaceflight gap was between 1975 (a Saturn IB launch) and the first STS flight in April 1981, about six years. Unlike the last human spaceflight gap, the U.S. has bought seats on the still-active Russian launcher as part of their continuing joint international project, the International Space Station. U.S. Congress was aware such a gap could occur and accelerated funding in 2008 and 2009 in preparation for the retirement of the Shuttle. At that time the first crewed flight of the planned Ares I launcher would not have occurred until 2015, and its first use at ISS until 2016. Steps were also taken to extend STS operation past 2010. However, in 2010 the Ares I was cancelled and focus shifted to the Space Launch System and the commercial crew program. As of 2016 the first manned flight of SLS is Exploration Mission 2, to launch in 2021 at the earliest. As of 2016 a manned commercial crew mission might occur as early as 2018. If NASA does get access to its own launcher it may be able to again trade seats rather than buy them, or the two countries may organize another sale. NASA has bought seats for 2018, and it may need to buy seats for 2019 also.

NASA bought seats on the Russian launcher even while the Space Shuttle was active, and partners in the International Space Station project needed to cross-train on each-others launchers and equipment. When the STS program ended, this aspect of the involvement in ISS continued, and NASA has a contract for seats until at least 2017. The price has varied over time, and the batch of seats from 2016 to 2017 works out to 70.7 million per passenger per flight. The use of the Russian launcher Soyuz by NASA was a part of the ISS program which was orchestrated in the 1990s when that project was planned out: it is used as the emergency lifeboat for the station even before the Space Shuttle retired so anyone staying on the station had to train on this spacecraft regardless. The first Soyuz flight to ISS in 2000 included a U.S. astronaut (Soyuz TM-31 as part of Expedition 1). U.S. astronauts regularly flew on the Soyuz while the Shuttle program regularly visited the Station, even as it brought major components. Likewise Russian and other international partners also flew on the Space Shuttle and the Soyuz spacecraft, sometimes only on one direction of the journey.

The U.S. was working on an emergency escape vehicle called the HL-20 Personnel Launch System but was cancelled in 1993 in favor of using extra Soyuz spacecraft as lifeboats; not developing another spacecraft was seen as a way to save money in the aftermath of restructuring the Space Station Freedom project when the USSR dissolved in 1991. Regardless, CCDev "seats" have often been compared to Soyuz prices for comparison during its development. With no other launcher available NASA may have to buy seats until 2019 to access the international space station. The other main partners in ISS, the ESA, cancelled its own manned launch system, the Hermes mini-shuttle, in 1992. The ESA had previously traded Spacelab hardware for flights on Space Shuttles. There has been some interest from Europe in the CCDev contenders, especially with Dream Chaser, with one party saying it was, "..ideal vehicle for a broad range of space applications."

Phases

CCDev 1

Construction of the CST-100 pressure vessel was one of Boeing's CCDev 1 milestones

 

Under CCDev phase 1, NASA has entered into funded Space Act Agreements with several companies working on technologies and systems for human space flight. Funding was provided as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A total of $50 million for 2010 was awarded to five American companies with the intention of fostering research and development into human spaceflight concepts and technologies in the private sector. The phase 1 amount was originally intended to be $150 million, most of which was diverted to the Constellation program by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). All 53 delivery milestones for the five companies were scheduled to be completed by the end of 2010.

Proposals selected

NASA awarded development funds to five companies under CCDev 1:

1. Blue Origin: $3.7M for an innovative 'pusher' Launch Abort System (LAS) and composite pressure vessels. As of February 2011, with the end of the second ground test, Blue Origin has completed all work for the pusher escape system planned under the contract. It has also "completed work on the other aspect of its award, risk reduction work on a composite pressure vessel" for its vehicle.
2. Boeing: $18M for development of the CST-100 capsule it demonstrated in October 2010. According to NASA's website all milestones were completed.
3. Paragon Space Development Corporation: $1.4M for a plug-and-play environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) Air Revitalization System (ARS) Engineering Development Unit. With "the completion of testing in mid-December [2010] of its 'Commercial Crew Transport Air Revitalization System', a life support system intended for use on [multiple different] commercial crew vehicles", Paragon has completed all work under the contract.
4. Sierra Nevada Corporation: $20M for development of the Dream Chaser, a reusable spaceplane vehicle that can transport cargo and up to eight people to low Earth orbit. Sierra Nevada completed its work under the contract in December 2010, with the structural testing of its engineering test article—its fourth and final milestone.
5. United Launch Alliance: $6.7M for an Emergency Detection System (EDS) for human-rating its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs). In December 2010, ULA carried out a demonstration of its Emergency Detection System; according to NASA's website all milestones were completed.

Proposals received

During the evaluation phase of CCDev1 proposals were received from the following participants:

Ad Astra Rocket Company AlphaSpaces Andrews Space ARES Corporation Alliant Techsystems (ATK) Ball Aerospace Bigelow Aerospace Blue Origin Blue Smoke

Boeing Dii Aerospace Laboratories Exploration Partners Firestar Engineering Global Outpost HMX, Inc. IE Group KT Engineering Oceaneering Space Systems

Odyssey Space Research Orbital Outfitters Orbital Sciences Corporation Orbital Technologies Paragon Space Development Planetspace S.T.A.R. Systems Sierra Nevada Corporation SpaceED – UC Davis

SpaceX Stone Aerospace The Expanding Universe Thomas Lee Elifritz United Launch Alliance Universal Space Lines Universal Transport Systems Vivace XCOR Aerospace

CCDev 2

The construction of a Dragon crew mock-up was one of SpaceX's CCDev 2 milestones, it is seen here during an event

 

NASA sought a second set of Commercial Crew Development proposals in October 2010. These could be both new concepts and proposals that mature the design and development of system elements, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft. NASA originally planned to issue about $200 million of Space Act Agreements in March 2011. On April 18, 2011, NASA awarded nearly $270 million to four companies for developing U.S. vehicles that could fly astronauts after the Space Shuttle fleet's retirement.

In August the same year, NASA provided status on the progress milestones of the four companies developing crew vehicle technologies under CCDev 2. There are nine-to-eleven specific milestones, spread over the second quarter of 2011 through to the second quarter of 2012, that each company must meet to receive their performance-based funding for CCDev 2.

Proposals selected

Winners of funding in the second round of the CCDev were:

• Blue Origin, Kent, Washington: $22 million. Blue Origin proposed advancing technologies in support of a biconic nose cone design orbital vehicle, including launch abort systems and restartable, liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines. Blue Origin has since completed all of its CCDev 2 milestones. In November 2014, NASA announced three additional unfunded milestones, which include further testing of Blue Origin's propellant tank, BE-3 engine and pusher escape system.
• Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colorado: $80 million. Sierra Nevada proposed four phase 2 extensions of its Dream Chaser spaceplane technology. Like the Orbital Sciences proposal, the Dream Chaser was also a lifting body design. Sierra Nevada will use Virgin Galactic to market Dream Chaser commercial services and will use Virgin's WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft as a platform for drop trials of the Dream Chaser atmospheric test vehicle in 2012.
• Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California: $75 million. SpaceX proposed to develop an "integrated launch abort system design" for the Dragon spacecraft, with theoretical advantages over the more traditional tractor tower approaches used on earlier manned space capsules. The system would be part of SpaceX's Draco maneuvering system, which is currently used on the Dragon capsule for in-orbit maneuvering and de-orbit burns. SpaceX completed its CCDev 2 milestones by August 2012.
• The Boeing Company, Houston, Texas: $92.3 million. Boeing proposed additional development for the seven-person CST-100 spacecraft, beyond the objectives for the $18 million received from NASA in CCDev 1. The capsule will have personnel and cargo configurations, and is designed to be launched by multiple different rockets and be reusable up to 10 times.

Proposals selected without NASA funding

• United Launch Alliance proposed to extend development work on human-rating the Atlas V rocket. Although not selected for funding, NASA entered into an unfunded Space Act Agreement with ULA in July 2011 to share information with the goal of advancing the development of the rocket, which is the proposed launch vehicle for the Blue Origin, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corporation proposals. ULA finished completing all of their CCDev 2 milestones by September 2012.
• Alliant Techsystems (ATK) and Astrium proposed development of the Liberty rocket derived from the Ares I and Ariane 5. On September 13, 2011, it was reported that NASA intended to form at agreement with ATK to further develop the Liberty rocket as a heavy launch vehicle capable of launching humans into space. Although no funding is to be provided by NASA, the agency will share expertise and technology. ATK finished completing all of its CCDev 2 milestones by August 2012.
• Excalibur Almaz Inc. is developing a crewed system incorporating modernized, Soviet-era space hardware designs intended for tourism flights to orbit. On October 26, 2011, NASA announced it had entered into an unfunded Space Act Agreement with EAI, establishing a framework to collaborate to further develop EAI's spacecraft concept for low Earth orbit crew transportation. EAI's concept for commercial crew to the ISS is to use the company's planned three-person space vehicle with an intermediate stage and fly the integrated vehicle on a commercially available launch vehicle. Excalibur Almaz finished completing all of their CCDev 2 milestones by June 2012.

Proposals not selected

Proposals that were not awarded funds in the second round of the CCDev program were:

• Orbital Sciences proposed the Prometheus lifting-body spaceplane vehicle, about one-quarter the size of the Space Shuttle. The Vertical Takeoff, Horizontal Landing (VTHL) vehicle would be launched on a human-rated Atlas V rocket but would land on a runway. The initial design would carry a crew of four, but it could carry up to six people or a combination of crew and cargo. In addition to Orbital Sciences, the consortium included Northrop Grumman that would have built the spaceplane and the United Launch Alliance that would have provided the launch vehicle. Virgin Galactic also confirmed it would be teaming with Orbital on the Orbital CCDev 2 project. After failing to be selected for a CCDev phase 2 award by NASA, Orbital announced in April 2011 it would likely wind down its efforts to develop a commercial crew vehicle.
• Paragon Space Development Corporation proposed additional development of the Commercial Crew Transport-Air Revitalization System (CCT-ARS) program in 2011, to permit the building-out of the other parts of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to provide the complete solution for its commercial crew transport customers.
• t/Space proposed a recoverable, reusable, eight-person crew or cargo transfer spacecraft that could launch on a variety of launch vehicles including the Atlas V, Falcon 9 and Taurus II rockets.
• United Space Alliance proposed under a plan called Commercial Space Transportation Service (CSTS) to fly commercially the two remaining Space Shuttle vehicles, Endeavour and Atlantis, twice a year from 2013 to 2017.

Commercial Crew integrated Capability

Flight testing of the Dream Chaser Engineering Test Article was one of Sierra Nevada's CCiCap milestones

 

The Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative is the third round of the CCdev program and was originally called CCDev 3. For this phase of the program, NASA wanted proposals to be complete, end-to-end designs including spacecraft, launch vehicles, launch services, ground and mission operations, and recovery. In September 2011, NASA released a draft request for proposals (RFP).

The U.S. government's was originally intended to use a new contracting mechanism for CCiCap that differed from the Space Act Agreement's fixed-price, milestone-based contracts of the previous phases. As of October 2011, NASA was planning to award competitive contracts under the more traditional Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) system instead of using Space Act Agreements. After some months of planning for the new-style contracting approach, NASA announced in mid-December 2011 it would resume use of Space Act Agreements because of Congressional funding reductions to the program for Fiscal Year 2012. NASA planned to use FAR contracts for the certification of Commercial Transportation Services to the ISS. The final RFP was released on February 7, 2012, with proposals due on March 23, 2012.

The funded Space Act Agreements were awarded on August 3, 2012, and amended on August 15, 2013. CCiCap contracts were planned to be completed by August 2014. NASA hoped facilitating development of this U.S. capability will provide safe, reliable and cost effective human transportation to low-Earth orbit (LEO).

Proposals selected

Winners of funding in the third round of the Commercial Crew Development program, announced on August 3, 2012, were:

• Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colorado: $212.5 million. Sierra Nevada Corporation proposed further development of its Dream Chaser spaceplane/Atlas V system.
• Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California: $440 million. SpaceX proposed further development of the Dragon spacecraft / Falcon 9 system.
• The Boeing Company, Houston, Texas: $460 million. Boeing proposed further development for the CST-100 spacecraft/Atlas V system.

Proposals that passed acceptability screening

• ATK – Liberty

Proposals not selected

• Space Operations
• American Aerospace
• Spacedesign Corporation

Development achievements

NASA reported that as of November 2014, Boeing had completed its CCiCap milestones; Sierra Nevada had completed 10 of its 13 milestones; SpaceX had completed 13 of its 18 milestones. SpaceX received an extra milestone that is to be completed by March 2015. The milestones are listed in the appendixes to the Funded Space Act Agreements. In May 2014, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation and SpaceX completed reviews detailing plans to meet NASA's certification requirements to transport crew members to and from the ISS.

Preparation for the next phase

In June 2014, Boeing announced it intended to send out preliminary lay-off notices to 215 employees—approximately 170 in Houston and 45 in Florida—to prepare for the possibility that Boeing would not be selected to continue work into the next phase following the expected NASA shortlist in mid-2014. These advance notices are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) legislation under U.S. law, and must be issued 60 days before any large lay-off is expected to take effect. If Boeing was selected to continue, the lay-offs would not occur and Boeing would hire an additional 75 personnel. Sierra Nevada "is not preparing any WARN notices to its Dream Chaser workforce".

Certification Products Contract (CPC) phase 1

The first phase of the Certification Products Contract (CPC) involved the review of the integrated crew transportation systems through the creation of a certification plan that would result in the development of engineering standards, tests and analyses of the systems' designs. This phase of CPC was expected to run from January 22, 2013, to May 30, 2014.

Proposals selected

Winners of funding of phase 1 of the CPC, announced on December 10, 2012, were:

• Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colorado: $10 million.
• Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California: $9.6 million.
• The Boeing Company, Houston, Texas: $9.9 million.

Certification Products Contract (CPC) phase 2

The second phase of the CPC was expected to begin in mid-2014; it would involve a full and open competition and would include the final development, testing and verifications to allow crewed demonstration flights to the ISS. Phase 2 is called Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). NASA proposed the second phase of the program would begin purchasing commercial astronaut transportation services with the CCtCap solicitation. Contract award and funding occurred in 2014; flights of NASA astronauts on CCtCap-provided vehicles would not occur before 2017. In a change from previous CCDev programs where commercial providers tested the developed technology to NASA contractual requirements, CCtCap will include Joint Test Teams (JTT) with NASA personnel operating in a traditional NASA acquisition approach in which NASA oversees some design choices and offers flexible-price cost-sharing to pay for the tests. NASA issued the draft CCtCap contract's Request For Proposals (RFP) on July 19, 2013; the response date was August 15, 2013.

According to the letter and Executive Summary:

• "The [CCtCap] contract is the second phase of a 2-phased procurement strategy to develop a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability to achieve safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from the [ISS] with a goal of no later than 2017".
• Performance-based payments are to be used in this competitive, negotiated acquisition.
• Proposed deviation language to specific FAR and NFS clauses and proposed waiving of clauses were suggested.
• Under CCtCap the final Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTE) activities necessary to achieve NASA's certification of a Crew Transportation System (CTS) will be conducted. The contract will be issued under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15 and will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

There are four separate Contract Line Items (CLINs) for CTS certification; ISS mission support, special studies and additional cargo capability if proposed. NASA was to supply four Docking System Block 1 Units on a no-charge-for-use basis. The first unit would be available in February 2016. NASA held a Commercial Crew Pre-proposal Conference at Kennedy Space Center on December 4, 2013, after formally requesting proposals for CCtCap in late November that year.

NASA's 2014 budget for CCtCap was US$696 million; it was reduced from an Obama Administration request of US$821 million. In May 2014, NASA announced each awardee was to perform at least one crewed test flight to verify the spacecraft could dock with the ISS and all its systems performed as expected. NASA intended to meet its station crew rotation requirements by including at least two, and at most six crewed, post-certification missions in the contracts. NASA also intended CCtCap would allow U.S. providers to supply other customers.

Awards

On September 16, 2014, NASA announced that Boeing and SpaceX had received contracts to provide crewed launch services to the ISS. For completing the same contract requirements, Boeing could receive up to US$4.2 billion, while SpaceX could receive up to US$2.6 billion. Both Boeing CST-100 flying on United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V and SpaceX Dragon V2 flying on Falcon 9 were awarded for the same set of requirements: completing development and certification of their crew vehicle then flying a certification flight followed by up to six operational flights to the ISS. The contracts included at least two operational flights for each company.

The total program award of US$6.8 billion covers development costs through CCtCap program funding—$3.42 billion over the years 2015–2019 with $848 million in the commercial crew budget request for FY 2015—and $3.4 billion for operational crew resupply to the ISS—12 flights with four astronauts on each flight, where NASA assumed the same per-seat price of $70.7 million it would pay for each Soyuz seat in 2016. With the program awards in September, NASA did not release the number of proposals it received or any details about the selection process; it stated such information would be released "at an 'appropriate' but unspecified date".

On September 26, 2014, Sierra Nevada Corporation submitted a protest of the CCtCap awards, stating to have undercut Boeing by $900 million while scoring close to its competitors in the other criteria. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) had until January 5, 2015, to rule on the protest. By October 1, 2014, NASA had instructed Boeing and SpaceX to halt work on the CCtCap contracts. On October 8, 2014, NASA instructed the contractors to proceed with contract work during the GAO review. In January 2015, the GAO denied Sierra Nevada Corporation's protest.

In 2016 the firms scheduled additional testing and certification milestones. The auditors do not expect the first flights until late 2018.

CCtCap contract progress

As of December 2014, both SpaceX and Boeing had started work on their Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts.

As of September 2016 although both companies are advancing they are running behind their previous schedule. Additional milestones have been agreed with NASA see Annex B (Boeing) and Annex C (SpaceX) of the September 2016 Audit of the Commercial Crew Program. Boeing increased its milestones from 23 to 34 and has achieved 15. SpaceX has increased its milestones from 18 to 21 and has achieved 8. SpaceX also has an uncompleted milestone left over from CCiCap.

Flights

As of January 2017 NASA has ordered twelve commercial post-certification missions to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station, six with each supplier. Astronaut selections for the first four missions were announced on August 2, 2018.

Spacecraft	Mission	Description	Crew	Date
Dragon 2	SpX-DM1	Uncrewed test flight	None	January 2019
CST-100	Boe-OFT	Uncrewed test flight	None	March 2019
Dragon 2		In-flight abort test at max Q	None	May 2019
Dragon 2	SpX-DM2	Crewed test flight	Robert Behnken, Douglas Hurley	June 2019
CST-100	Boe-CFT	Crewed test flight	Eric Boe, Christopher Ferguson, Nicole Aunapu Mann	August 2019
Dragon 2	Crew-1	First Dragon mission to ISS	Victor J. Glover, Michael S. Hopkins	September 2019
CST-100	CTS-1	First Starliner mission to ISS	Josh Cassada, Sunita Williams	February 2020

Funding summary

The funding of all commercial crew contractors for each phase of the CCP program is as follows—CCtCap values are maxima and include post-development operational flights.

Funding Summary (millions of US$)

Round (years)	CCDev1 (2010–2011)	CCDev2(2011–2012)	CCiCap (2012–2014)	CPC1 (2013–2014)	CCtCap	Total (2010–2017)
Manufacturers of spacecraft
The Boeing Company	18.0	92.3 + 20.61	460.0 + 203	9.9	4,200.0	4,820.9
Blue Origin	3.7	22.0	–	–	–	25.7
Sierra Nevada Corporation	20.0	80.0 + 25.61	212.5 + 153	10.0	–	362.1
SpaceX	–	75.0	440.0 + 203	9.6	2,600.0	3,144.6
Excalibur Almaz	–	02	–	–	–	0
Manufacturers of launch vehicles
United Launch Alliance	6.7	0	–	–	–	6.7
Alliant Techsystems (ATK)	–	0	–	–	–	0
Others
Paragon Space Development Corporation	1.4	–	–	–	–	1.4
Total:	49.8	315.5	1,167.5	29.6	6,800.0	8,362.4
1 Additional amount awarded in 2011. 2 Space Act Agreement signed in 2011 in the frame of CCDev2. 3 Additional amount awarded in 2013.