1. EXPLORATION COMMITTEE and Ad hoc BIOMEDICAL COMMITTEE October 16, 2008 NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL

2. NAC Exploration Committee  LTGEN James Abrahamson (Chair)  Dr. Ken Ford  Dr. Don Fraser  Capt. Rick Hauck  Dr. David Longnecker  Dr. Stephen Katz  Dr. John Logsdon  Executive Secretary: Dr. Louis Ostrach  Admin Assistant: Ms. Jane Parham  LTGEN James Abrahamson (Chair)  Dr. Ken Ford  Dr. Don Fraser  Capt. Rick Hauck  Dr. David Longnecker  Dr. Stephen Katz  Dr. John Logsdon  Executive Secretary: Dr. Louis Ostrach  Admin Assistant: Ms. Jane Parham 2 Page 2

3. 3 3 Exploration Committee Fact-Finding Session  ISS National Laboratory Biotechnology Review with Space Operations Committee  NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Update  ISS National Laboratory Biotechnology Review with Space Operations Committee  NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Update Page 3

4. Status Status Report  ISS National Laboratory  Human Research Program  Lunar Radiation Risks  ISS National Laboratory  Human Research Program  Lunar Radiation Risks Page 4

5. ISS National Laboratory Congressional Direction to NASA to advance a concept for use of the ISS as a National Laboratory NAC – initiated interagency meeting to introduce the concept (Dec 2006) Congressional Direction to NASA to advance a concept for use of the ISS as a National Laboratory NAC – initiated interagency meeting to introduce the concept (Dec 2006) Page 5

6. ISS National Laboratory  Interagency Agreements  NIH  USDA  Commercial Agreements  Bioserve (vaccine, cell development)  Zero-G (plant/animal cell development)  SpaceHab (vaccine)  Biotechnology Space Research Alliance  Interagency Agreements  NIH  USDA  Commercial Agreements  Bioserve (vaccine, cell development)  Zero-G (plant/animal cell development)  SpaceHab (vaccine)  Biotechnology Space Research Alliance Page 6

7. Human Research Program  HRP Integrated Research Plan initiated  Health Standards>Deliverables  Risk Mitigation Assessment Tool (quantitative measure of risk and risk reduction)  Research announcements/awards in  Ground-based research  Flight-based research  HRP Integrated Research Plan initiated  Health Standards>Deliverables  Risk Mitigation Assessment Tool (quantitative measure of risk and risk reduction)  Research announcements/awards in  Ground-based research  Flight-based research Page 7

8. Lunar Radiation Risks  Radiation Hazards result from two principal areas: Background GCR and SPE  Biological Risks are manifested as cellular and organ damage, both acute (e.g., CNS) and chronic (e.g., cancer)  Radiation Hazards result from two principal areas: Background GCR and SPE  Biological Risks are manifested as cellular and organ damage, both acute (e.g., CNS) and chronic (e.g., cancer) Page 8

9. Lunar Radiation Risks  2008 NRC Report: “The [NRC] committee finds that lack of knowledge about the biological effects of and responses to space radiation is the single most important factor limiting the prediction of radiation risk associated with human space exploration.”  2008 NRC Report: “The [NRC] committee finds that lack of knowledge about the biological effects of and responses to space radiation is the single most important factor limiting the prediction of radiation risk associated with human space exploration.” Page 9

10. Biomedical Committee Assessment  Based on reviews of the radiation risks presented in fact-finding sessions at the July NAC meeting, the recent report from the NRC, and informal input from several sources in the radiation scientific community… Page 10

11. Biomedical Committee Assessment  …the Committee recommends that NASA sponsor a NAC-convened workshop to assess both current knowledge and the research plan to address the health risks associated with human space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit. Such review must be timely, in order to inform both vehicle and operational requirements for future space exploration. Page 11

12. NAC Evaluation of Ares Progress  Background  The NASA Advisory Council (NAC) has reviewed the overall status of the Ares Program with a special emphasis on plans, requirements, and architectures. We particularly commend the ESMD management team on the quality of their efforts to analyze various architectural options. Toward that end, NASA has reviewed well over a thousand different launch vehicle and operational concepts. The NAC is confident that the current plan is viable and represents a well-considered approach given the constraints of budget, schedule and achievable technology.  Background  The NASA Advisory Council (NAC) has reviewed the overall status of the Ares Program with a special emphasis on plans, requirements, and architectures. We particularly commend the ESMD management team on the quality of their efforts to analyze various architectural options. Toward that end, NASA has reviewed well over a thousand different launch vehicle and operational concepts. The NAC is confident that the current plan is viable and represents a well-considered approach given the constraints of budget, schedule and achievable technology. Page 12

13. NAC Evaluation of Ares Progress  Observation  Given the quality of NASA’s analysis, and the project’s momentum it is imperative to maintain stability and continuing progress on execution of the current plan. The Ares project is well underway with an established baseline and provides a solid foundation for the Constellation Program. The current Exploration Program has strong and accelerating international support and participation.  Observation  Given the quality of NASA’s analysis, and the project’s momentum it is imperative to maintain stability and continuing progress on execution of the current plan. The Ares project is well underway with an established baseline and provides a solid foundation for the Constellation Program. The current Exploration Program has strong and accelerating international support and participation. Page 13

14. NAC Evaluation of Ares Progress  Significance  Funding shortfalls or significant programmatic revisions will cause substantial cost penalties and lengthen the gap in U.S. access to space  Significance  Funding shortfalls or significant programmatic revisions will cause substantial cost penalties and lengthen the gap in U.S. access to space Page 14