The Wayback Machine shows it began cataloging this page in 2012, so I’ve just been unaware of it. I’m going to guess I’m not alone.
Citations are typically listed on the individual experiment page, but this results section makes it a heck of a lot easier to search.
Clicking the link takes you to the above page that highlights accomplishments by various categories. I found the Android mobile version of this page doesn’t show the above side bar in the same way, so you’ll likely need to be on a computer to see it this feature. Lame.
Scroll down to “Browse Results Publications (to date) by” and click on a category. Doing so takes you to this page:
Above is an example of the “Microbiology” section with experiment name in bold and the citations below. Choosing the experiment name takes you to a NASA page with information about the experiment.
If available, citations are then listed below the experiment name with a link to the publication. As of writing this, there are close to 1,800 publications documented on this page.
CASIS also has a listing of their sponsored publications as well as a searchable database of ISS research cataloging ~1,400 publications. About 60% of the CASIS sponsored publications are ground based research, so just be aware of that if you’re looking specifically for ISS projects. Also, their database of ISS research is arranged in order of year, but the order of the individual projects changes when the page is refreshed. No idea why.
Overall, these are both great consolidated additions for researchers that typically scour PubMed, Google Scholar, etc for ISS research results. I haven’t gone through these links yet to see if there is any fillers (i.e. posters, conference presentations). So please let me know if you see anything like that.
Now if we could only get prints or .pdf’s of the papers themselves since many of these are paywalled or in obscure journals that a lot of us don’t have access to. But, I’ll probably see someone land on Mars before that happens.
Wow. 2017 was a busy year on the ISS! 4 Dragons, 2 Cygnus (Cygni?) and 3 Progress spacecraft delivered ~140 new experiments to 12 bustling crew members living on the orbiting outpost during the year. In other words, of all the payloads ever delivered to the ISS, ~11% were delivered in just this year.
These are in no special order, just off the top of my head. My selection criteria was: projects I think improved ISS micro-g research capabilities, created new opportunities to the micro-g community or had high chance for meaningful results.
Which ISS payloads do you think were significant in 2017?
Yulin Deng, Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT), Beijing, China
NanoRacks, LLC, Webster, TX, United States
Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
The science behind this project was like most experiments going to the ISS: basic, but has potential for important results. So why was it the first one I thought of?
Because one of the barriers to micro-g research is access. This project introduced a new route for researchers that wasn’t there before.
Yes, Chinese researchers have access through its own space program, but their launches are infrequent and research opportunities even more so. We have ~10 launches per year traveling to a multi-billion dollar micro-g research platform orbiting the planet with the word “international” explicitly in its name. Why can’t China participate?
Worried that China would take advantage of technology transfer (Google “intelsat 708 china ITAR”), Virginia Representative Frank Wolf inserted a clause into the 2011 U.S. budget stating,
“(Sec. 539) Prohibits the use of any NASA or OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy) funds to participate in any way in any program with China or any Chinese-owned company, unless specifically authorized by law.”
Since NanoRacks is a separate commercial entity, this project was therefore legal. After getting acceptance from all ISS partners, U.S. Congress, and ensuring no data transfer was possible, the project was then allowed to fly to the ISS.
I’m positive you will see more collaborations of commercial companies and non-traditional ISS researchers on the ISS. Let the democratization of space begin!
Gioia D. Massa, Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL, United States
Howard G. Levine, Ph.D., NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
A continuation of the successful Vegetable Production System (a.k.a. Veggie) installed in 2014, this year the crew grew more variety than ever: Waldmann’s green lettuce, mizuna mustard and Outredgeous Red Romaine lettuce. The crew was also allowed to eat the lettuce they grew.
I really have nothing else to say about it. As a home vegetable gardener this project always thrills me and with every new vegetable they grow, we get closer to a sustainable food source in space. I’m eager to see them grow tomatoes!
Sarah Wallace, Ph.D., NASA JSC, Houston, TX, United States
Boeing, Huntsville, AL, United States
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States
Like peanut butter and chocolate, the marriage of these two research devices on the ISS was a perfect match.
In what was by far the most exciting experiment to me in 2017, astronaut Peggy Whitson picked microbial colonies from an agar plate, extracted DNA from them, amplified the DNA in the samples using the miniPCR and then ran those PCR products through the MinION DNA sequencer.
It’s important to note that colonies on the plate were grown from swab samples collected around the ISS, so the Johnson Space Center researchers that designed the experiment didn’t know what DNA sequences they were going to see. This was not a tech demo like last year, but an actual “we don’t know what we are going to find” experiment!
Both PCR thermocyclers and DNA sequencers are common Earth life science lab equipment and performing the assay Peggy completed is an almost trivial process on the ground, but had never been done collectively like this on the ISS.
I really hope to continue seeing the cross utilization of fundamental life science hardware like this on the ISS. And, since there have now been several demonstrations that pipetting small volumes of liquids in micro-g is not the nightmare once thought, I guarantee you there will be more experiments like this in the future. The ISS National Lab will finally start behaving like an actual lab.
EcAMSat (E. coli AntiMicrobial Satellite)
A.C. Matin, Ph.D., Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, United States
This project got little fan-fair, but I thought it was important. The first to use the new “doublewide” cubesat format launched from the ISS, EcAMSat set out to test bacterial antibiotic resistance in microgravity.
As several lines of evidence now show, the trend of bacterial populations requiring higher concentrations of antibiotics than on earth poses a dangerous future for space travel.
The shoe box (if you wear 12 EEE) sized autonomous satellite housed fluid reservoirs, a 48 well sample holder, pumps, LED temperature control, detectors and solar panels.
Following a growth period for the E. coli, the antibiotic gentamicin was introduced to the samples, then a blue dye was injected into the wells to measure the viability of the E. coli. Living E. coli metabolizes the dye and turns it pink.
The PI also flew E. coli with a rpoS gene mutation. The rpoS gene produces a protein that helps defend against the bacteria against gentamicin. A detector measures the amount of bacteria that are alive (pink) and dead (blue) over time, therefore measuring the efficacy of the antibiotic.
Why a cubesat instead of staying on the ISS? Other than setting up the deployers for launch, there is no crew handling required. The ISS can be a relatively noisy micro-g environment, with fans, crew exercising, ship docking bumps, etc. that causes unwanted vibrations or jostling of your experiment. A cubesat is very quiescent, allowing for a more definitive micro-g experiment.
Also, this project builds upon a previous NASA Ames cubesat called PharmaSat that launched in 2009. I believe Ames and other PI’s are looking to launch cubesats on longer duration and deep space biological space experiments (i.e. BioSentinel ) and will use the experience of this project as mission assurance for future designs.
Experiments like these provide important steps in understanding how and what we need to adapt to life in space for long duration. It would suck to overcome all the significant technological hurdles of long duration spaceflight just to be taken out by lowly microbes.
Subha Govind, The Graduate Center of CUNY and Biology Department The City College of New York, New York, NY, United States
Sharmila Bhattacharya, Ph.D., NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, United States
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, United States
I know these are two experiments, but they both use the same hardware and I found the combination of a great model organism with low tech flight hardware a noteworthy achievement in micro-g science.
First flown during the Heart Effect Analysis Research Team conducting FLy Investigations and Experiments in Spaceflight (HEART FLIES) project in 2014, this is the third flight of their modular fly hotel system. It is a small 1.5U (15 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm), passive module and only requires specific launch and return orientations. FFL-02 used temperature control, but it’s modular design that fits nicely into BioServe’s SABL incubator.
Why is this important? The well-studied, model organism Drosophila melanogaster is a great animal to investigate the effects of microgravity on living things. They have a short life cycle and genetically they are ~60% similar to humans with about 75% of human disease genes having a match to a fly gene.
Each Fruit Fly Inn contains small, 1.25” x 4“ tubes that have a food blob on one end and a cotton plug in the other. A few flies are placed into the tubes before launch, then once in space, they enjoy their deluxe accommodation in the sky by eating and mating. Within a few weeks you have a new generation of flies that developed and lived their whole life exclusively in space.
Keep in mind that there each module has 15 tubes, so you can send hundreds of flies to the ISS and return thousands using a small volume of space. Add the fact that the modules can be passive and you have a low tech, cost effective, high science impact experiment.
Overall, Sharmila, Karen and their collaborators have studied the effects of microgravity on fruit fly heart formation, the effect of a pathogen on the immune system of Drosophila, and neurobehavioral changes in the flies during spaceflight, all with these simple modules.
My favorite quote from Sharmila is “The access to quality microgravity has changed. I have flown more experiments in the past three years than I did 12 years prior.”
It sure has and I eagerly anticipate to see what 2018 brings.
Uber, Lyft. Both are rideshare services. Why do some people use one or the other? It’s typically differences like service availability, pricing variations, or car/driver personalities.
Dragon, Cygnus. Both are rides to the International Space Station (ISS), so why do some payloads fly on one and not the other? Are they really that different? Does one have a furry pink mustache on the grill and the other doesn’t?
For a researcher flying a microgravity payload to the ISS, it’s good to know the similarities and differences when working with a payload developer. Here are some background, stats, and capabilities that can help clarify which may be the best one for your rideshare to space!
Orbital ATK Cygnus
Cygnus is an expendable cargo spacecraft currently launching to the ISS and was developed by Orbital Sciences ATK headquartered in Dulles, Virginia. Orbital ATK is a commercial company contracted by NASA through its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) agreements to design, build and fly Cygnus. Orbital ATK was recently awarded a portion of the second phase of CRS, called CRS-2, to fly cargo to the ISS at least until 2014.
Nine Cygnus spacecraft have been launched since September 2013, with eight arriving at the ISS and seven delivering science cargo. The initial flight was a demo flight and in October 2014 one vehicle was destroyed when the the booster rocket failed shortly after launch.
Having the capacity to launch 3,500 kg in it’s ~25 m3 cylindrical (some say it looks like a beer keg) pressurized section, Cygnus can haul a lot of mail. While it has mostly been using only its pressurized payload volume for cargo, Cygnus has recently been flying cubesat deployers on the outside.
Cygnus can provide a standard suite of temperature control hardware, typically called “cold stowage,” for your samples or payload on the ride up. Temperatures ranging from -95C to +40C can be accommodated. They can even provide specialty temperatures, if needed.
When it comes time to hand over your payload to NASA or your payload developer, two time slots are available: nominal load or late load time. These deadlines are written as “L (for launch) – (minus) (days/hours/weeks/months.)”
For example, the nominal load time for Cygnus is L-8 weeks, meaning you turn over your nominal payload 8 weeks before the scheduled launch date.
A nominal load time typically means your payload doesn’t have any special time critical storage requirements before or during the ride to the ISS. This loading time is commonly used for instruments, tools, crew clothing, or spare ISS parts for example.
Late load time is the latest a payload can be delivered before launch for stowage on the spacecraft. Payloads needing this option have specific requirements, typically due to perishable items that have an expiration date or require a temperature controlled environment.
Examples of this may be life science experiments or food items. These are special cases and, because of that, are space limited. For many life science applications, late load is almost a given, but you still must articulate a need for it before receiving this service.
For Cygnus, the late load time is currently at ~L-5 days. The cargo loading process for Cygnus is done while the spacecraft is horizontal and loading is done front to back, either by hand or sometimes with a small crane to carry larger or heavier payloads inside. The cargo crew then attaches your project or clean underwear for the astronauts or whatever to the interior wall of the vehicle.
Next, Cygnus is enclosed in a fairing that surrounds and protects it from aerodynamic, acoustic and thermal forces during launch. This 4 m x 10 m structure is normally jettisoned ~4 minutes after launch.
Lastly, there is what’s called the loiter phase. After launch, there is a time between reaching orbit and catching up with the ISS. So the spacecraft “loiters” during this time. Average loiter time for Cygnus is 3.4 (± 1.2) days over seven missions.
The challenge for researchers is that the late load and loiter times for Cygnus are currently the longest for both vehicles. This can add up quickly. If you have a life science project with a specific shelf life and you handover at L-5 days, plus the 3-4 days loiter time, then another day before the astronauts unload and begin your experiment, it can be 9-10 days before it is started on the ISS.
While Cygnus may burn up on re-entry, it is far from being wasteful and can carry a lot of ISS garbage along with it. Orbital ATK has also been working with companies and researchers that want to utilize the vehicle after it leaves the ISS.
The Houston based aerospace company NanoRacks has been deploying cubesats from Cygnus after it leaves the ISS since November of 2016 and NASA researchers have used it for a series of microgravity fire projects called Spacecraft Fire Experiment (SAFFIRE).
Overall, in it’s current configuration, Cygnus can haul a lot of pressurized cargo up to the ISS. It’s lengthy pre-processing flow doesn’t allow for many perishable science items to fly on it, but it has gotten better.
It also seems this spacecraft has plenty of potential uses for researchers and tech demos in the future and I look forward to seeing how it adapts to fit customer’s needs over the coming years.
The Dragon spacecraft is constructed and flown by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California under the same NASA COTS and CRS/CRS-2 contracts. Like Cygnus, SpaceX is obligated to fly additional cargo flights to the ISS at least until 2024.
Dragon first arrived at the ISS with cargo in May of 2012 and there have been 10 more since, with one failure and loss of vehicle during its ascent in June of 2015.
Dragon has a gumdrop shaped pressurized capsule for internal payloads and a cylindrical external un-pressurized cargo section called a trunk. It can carry a whopping total of 6,000 kg of cargo in combination of internal and external payloads. The usable internal and external volumes are 11 m3 and 14 m3, respectively, for a combined usable payload volume of 25 m3.
Dragon is loaded with nominal payloads while it is vertical, then late load is installed while horizontal. Its nominal load time is L-6 weeks.
Dragon doesn’t have a fairing like Cygnus, allowing for payloads to be packed relatively soon before it’s rolled out to the pad. Sometimes, when the weather allows, Dragon/Falcon are horizontal at the pad while loading late cargo.
Also in contrast to Cygnus, Dragon has relatively reasonable late load times of L-72h, L-48h and L-28h. The only vehicle that ever came close to that was the Space Shuttle at L-24h and with some extreme cases even closer to launch time.
Loiter time for Dragon is also, on average, better than Cygnus, at 2.3 (± 0.7) days over 11 flights. Temperature control for your samples/payload is available for all phases of flight.
The other important service Dragon performs is that it’s currently the only cargo vehicle capable of returning a significant about of items back to Earth. Returning up to 3,000 kg of payloads, samples and hardware, Dragon performs a vital service to the ISS microgravity research community.
There is a gotcha with this, though: after splashdown off the southern coast of California, the spacecraft is loaded onto a boat and rides to port. Lately, it has been arriving in port at about 24-30h after splashdown, but it can be up to three days, depending on weather and sea state. For many projects, especially live rodents, this can possibly alter your micro-g results.
The good news is, once Dragon arrives in port you have the option of picking up your payload right there or have your payload developer overnight ship it to you. If you don’t need it that quickly, your project can be returned in 4-6 weeks, sometimes sooner. I have handed researchers their payload at the port and had them texting me pictures and data within a couple hours of pick up. I love seeing that.
Dragon has some overlapping capacities as Cygnus, but has some distinct differences as well. The late load time and return services make it attractive to many researchers. The external trunk portion of Dragon is great for hauling projects that need to be mounted on the outside of the ISS. So far, Bigelow Aerospace has made the most use of the trunk with it’s Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), taking up the entire trunk volume and weighing in at 1, 413 kg.
One of the most difficult parts of planning for a microgravity research project is when a launch scrubs. This all too common occurrence adds precious time to an already long work flow and is unfortunately one of the many deal breakers for life science payloads.
Some life science projects like seeds or samples that can be frozen indefinitely are well suited for this, but others like cell samples, microbiology, or protein crystal growth just don’t like sitting around for a long duration.
The main distinction between Dragon and Cygnus for scrub scenarios is, as mentioned previously, the Dragon capsule is accessible through the side hatch when the rocket is horizontal. After a launch attempt or two, the rocket is made safe, brought horizontal and sensitive samples are swapped out. 12-15 hours after the scrub the investigator or payload developer gets 15-30 min to swap hardware or samples and they are reloaded onto Dragon.
The fairing around Cygnus lacks an access port, so there is no way to enter the vehicle with it installed. The rocket has to be rolled back to the processing facility and the whole fairing has to be removed.
How long does this take? I don’t know. While there have been delays and scrubs for Cygnus, in eight launch attempts a full rollback and re-load has only ever been done once during Orb-1. And that roll back and de-stow was ollowed by a 23 day delay until it launched.
Which Spacecraft Is Right for Your Research Payload?
When you work with a payload developer, they will help you with this decision process. There is a whole suite of paperwork and matrices that NASA and its contractors use to determine what vehicle is best for you and when there is room on the manifest for it.
So, all of the above was just to say: it really comes down to how delicate your samples are.
Are they stable or can be stabilized for at least 10 days or more? Then Cygnus or Dragon will work for you.
If you absolutely require the latest load time available or need your samples back, then Dragon is the only ship for you.
Here is a nice side by side comparison of the vehicles:
But Wait, There’s More! New ISS Cargo Transport Option on the Horizon!
One of my biggest gripes with the current capabilities of these cargo ships is that there is currently only one that has reasonable late load times and can return a substantial amount of pressurized cargo back to Earth.
Well, I’m hoping those challenges of the research community will be eased in a new cargo vehicle: Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser Cargo System. Allow me to swoon a bit.
Awarded as part of the second phase of the CRS funding selections in January 2016, Sierra Nevada is obligated to provide six flights to the ISS.
Dream Chaser is a lifting body type spacecraft that looks like a baby shuttle. It will be even be reusable like a shuttle in that it can return from space with a gentle 1.5g flight path and land on a 3, 000 m runway.
With wings that fold up, it will be able to fit into the fairing of several types of rockets. To get around the shortcoming that Cygnus has, the fairing will have an access port so that late load payloads can be added far into the launch preparations, even possibly while on the pad.
Sierra Nevada is advertising Dream Chaser will have the capacity to lift up to 5,500 kg of pressurized and 500 kg un-pressurized cargo to the ISS. It will also be able to return 1,750 kg of payloads from the ISS and since the spacecraft will also use non-toxic chemicals for its systems, so safing the vehicle after landing will allow for very quick recovery of time critical payloads.
Dream Chaser Cargo just had its first successful glide test and is on target for its first flight to the ISS in 2020. The value of having a cargo vehicle that can do all of that will be a great asset to the microgravity research community and I simply cannot wait.
While there are certainly many space conferences nowadays, there is only one dedicated to only space research: the annual American Society for Gravitational and Space Research (ASGSR) meeting.
Last week wrapped up an eventful 33rd annual meeting of ASGSR in beautiful Seattle, Washington. Formed in 1984, the goal of ASGSR is to support and foster the multidisciplinary scientists and engineers involved in the field of space research. ASGSR also has a large student focus to promote education and mentor professional development.
There were over 600 attendees this year, with at least ⅓ attending for the first time. Certainly not the thousands you would see at megaconferences such as the AIAA SciTech, ENDO or BIO, but a respectable amount for a niche research field.
This year had the usual focus on physical and life sciences as well as the technology involved in research of those fields. It kicked off with two workshops: one by the Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) for Rodent Research opportunities; the other was by NanoRacks and Blue Origin, highlighting their suborbital payload services collaboration as well as their stand alone service options.
There were also many intriguing symposia: “Farming in Space,”an update on the Chinese “Manned” Space Program, and “Gravity Across the Continuum” with talks from research using the various types of gravitational platforms, to name a few.
Many of these symposia were webcast live and are usually archived for future viewing. That’s good, since there are always some that I miss.The 2017 webcasts (as well as previous years) are available on the ASGSR website.
Throughout the week, there were also over 200 talks during 30 concurrent sessions, each with a specific focus such as “Microgravity Combustion” or “Musculoskeletal Systems.” I sat in on several of these, maybe I’ll find time to eke out a blog post or two about them. There were several poster sessions, as well.
An exhibitor hall allowed participants to interact and “shop” around with ~20 various vendor booths. I’ve watched this hall grow in the past 5-6 years from about a dozen well established usuals, to now several new companies such as Space Tango, STEM Cultures and Applied Dexterity, to name a few. This is excellent for researchers as their options for whom and what they use for their microgravity project continues to grow, allowing for better pricing competition and driving fresh hardware designs. You know, like a real commercial marketplace. ;0)
There were also tours available of Blue Origin facility in Kent, WA as well as the Boeing 737 factory right next door to the hotel. Attendees unfortunately had to choose one or the other, which kinda stunk. I chose Blue, of course.
While it has grown in the past years, I did leave the conference with the feeling that this field and its body of work would be larger and more confluent if there was even a minor increase in funding for it. I’m seeing a lot of young researchers that get involved at an undergraduate or graduate level, but don’t continue with the field because the options for running a microgravity research only lab or even as a sub-focus in a lab are very limited. Maybe next year there could be a panel or series of talks on establishing funding or creating a continuous funding mechanism in the style of an NIH RO1.
Despite the funding woes, ASGSR’s yearly meeting always has a re-invigorating effect on me. While I may learn about the exciting microgravity and space research going on throughout the year through various media outlets, it’s easy to be trapped in your work bubble. This meeting is always a chance to hear about these diverse investigations from the actual researcher’s themselves. It certainly keeps me looking up!
The third launch of Cygnus using an Atlas V-401 booster commenced successfully on Tuesday April 18th from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and berthed nominally to the ISS almost four days later.
OA-7 sees the return of refrigeration/freezing (i.e. Polar) stowage, an asset missing since Orb-3, which helps offset the increased late load for those science experiments that can be frozen. Because of the fairing surrounding Cygnus, it has a 10+ day late load capability and hasn’t been used much for perishable science that requires a short duration between handover and berthing/de-stow.
For reference, late load science for this mission was handed over and stowed on Cygnus during the first week of March (when the launch date was March 24th). Late load for biologicals on Dragon can be as late as 28 hours before launch.
Cargo By the Numbers
The science cargo mass (table below) is a little higher than previous missions, likely due to the refrigeration support hardware and the Saffire-III experiment, both which are large and heavy. Crazy to see that the Atlas V 401-Enhanced Cygnus config allows for 64% more total pressurized mass to LEO than the Antares 230-Enhanced Cygnus, yet about the same amount of science mass on both. With an average of 1,513 lb, the science mass carried on Cygnus for OA-7 is comparable to the average amount carried by SpaceX’s Dragon at 1,375 lb.
Glauco Souza, Ph.D., Nano3D Biosciences, Inc., Houston, TX, United States
BioServe Space Technologies, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, United States
Culturing cells in 3D has gained significant attention in Earth labs over the past decade. The technique removes cells from the standard two dimensional monolayer methods used since the 1800’s and attempts to create a more natural three dimensional growing environment that facilitates the cell-cell communication and structures that tissues would normally physiologically experience. Drug efficacy can be different between cells grown in 2D and 3D and it has therefore captured notable interest, especially in the biopharma world.
Growing 3D cell cultures typically requires special plates, a bioreactor or gel scaffold, but in 2008 researchers at Rice University and at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, Texas, developed a way to levitate cells using magnets, so that they can grow three dimensionally. This magnetic levitation method (MLM) has since been commercialized by those researchers with a company named Nano3D Biosciences (n3D).
This CASIS funded experiment is a technology demonstration/validation of n3D’s technology as a tool for growing and handling cells in microgravity. Lung carcinoma cells are launched frozen, thawed and the crew will inject them into media before incubation. At some point the crew will manipulate them with the n3D magnetic technology and observed with on-board microscopes. The samples will be then be fixed, frozen and returned at a later time.
It’s unclear what the manipulations will be, since MLM is beneficial for 3D cell growth in 1g, yet that’s not necessary in a microgravity environment. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Sourav Sinha, Oncolinx LLC, Boston, MA, United States
BioServe Space Technologies, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, United States
Oncolinx was founded in 2014 as a spin off company from the technology accelerator Center for Advancing Innovation in Bethesda, Maryland. Partnered with the National Cancer Institute,
Oncolinx has developed and patented antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) azonafides, a class of DNA intercalating anticancer compounds.
Oncolinx has won several grant funding competitions such as 43North Startup Competition, Breast Cancer Startup Challenge, and the MassChallenge, to name a few. They currently have partnership agreements with eighteen universities and pharma companies and are scheduled to start human trials in 2017.
ADC’s are a relatively new type of anticancer drug delivery method, where like a Trojan horse, a drug is attached to an antibody that is designed to target a cancer cell type. The cancer cell readily recognizes and absorbs the ADC where the drug is then released and kills the cell. This strategy removes the nonspecific “kill em all, let the body sort em out” drugs employed in standard chemotherapy. While incredibly promising, there are currently only two ADC’s approved by the FDA.
The experiment hopes to shed light on the mechanism of ADC azonafides in cells grown in microgravity. Expectations of how this will be different than Earth 3D cultures isn’t mentioned. This and the previous CASIS funded experiment are related in that they are both using Nano3D Biosciences technology and lung cancer cells.
Like most microgravity cell biology experiments, the protocol is rather simple. Frozen cells and drug are launched to the ISS, where they will be thawed and introduced into media with BioServe’s multi-well BioCell hardware. They’ll be incubated and manipulated with n3D technology, observed microscopically during growth and then fixed, frozen and returned to Earth for further study.
Aleksander Ostrogorsky, Sc.D., Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, United States
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, United States; NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, United States; Tec-Masters Inc., AL, United States
In another double project, these experiments are funded by CASIS Materials Science Investigations released in 2014. The Solidification Using a Baffle in Sealed Ampoules (SUBSA) furnace has been brought out of 15 year storage and updated for another flight.
SUBSA’s first flight to the ISS was in 2002 (and by coincidence, when astronaut Peggy Whitson was on board) and while the researchers “grew eight single crystals of indium antimonide (InSb), doped with tellurium (Te) or zinc (Zn)” there were several technical issues reported with SUBSA and the newly arrived Microgravity Science Glovebox that may have reduced the experiment’s main goals.
Churilov and Ostrogorsky are also the same researchers that flew is 2002, but this time they will be testing the crystal growth of two different materials: Cs2LiYCl6:Ce (CLYC) and indium iodide (InI), respectively, both of which are important materials used in radiation detection. They wish to grow quality, less flawed crystals in microgravity as well as gather data for a better understanding of the microgravity crystallization process.
These data will be used to increase the detector material’s performance by optimizing certain processes during their manufacture on Earth. These materials have use in “homeland security and nuclear non-proliferation applications, oil and gas exploration, particle and space physics, non-destructive testing, and scientific instruments.”
John Dec, Ph.D., Terminal Velocity Aerospace, LLC, Atlanta, GA, United States
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, United States
Terminal Velocity Aerospace, LLC, Atlanta, GA, United States
Great balls of fire! Bet the researchers never heard that one before. Terminal Velocity Aerospace, LLC hopes this experiment will allow us to better understand how objects behave during orbital re-entry. Awarded two Small business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants since 2014, TVA also hopes to increase options for payload return from the ISS by developing 10small payload return capsules.
Even as relatively common as re-entry is, there is still little actual data about what a spacecraft experiences during its fiery demise. Knowing this could help build better models and design objects be destroyed or saved during re-entry.
Three soccer ball sized experiments will ride with Cygnus as it breaks up upon re-entry and send location, temperature, pressure and acceleration telemetry to the Iridium network as it happens. The REDs are also covered in thermocouples and several types of thermal protection materials that will test their performance after they leave the charred, smoldering remains of Cygnus.
Bryan G. Onate, Kennedy Space Center, FL, United States
NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Orbital Technologies Corporation, Madison, WI, United States
Plant growth chambers have come a long way since the little Oasis plant systems used on Salyut 7. In the eventual goal of providing sustainable farming for spaceflight missions, the Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) is a companion to the successful VEGGIE project and it brings some lessons learned as well as new plant growth features to the ISS.
VEGGIE was open to cabin air and this environment can be quite variable and cause unwanted effects to plant growth experiments. Examples of this was increased concentrations of the plant hormone ethylene altering wheat and Arabidopsis growth during the Shuttle-Mir Greenhouse and STS-84 projects, respectively.
The APH has a contained growth chamber with air scrubbers, gas mixture, temperature and humidity controls as well as an active watering system. There are variable wavelength LEDs for different light requirements of an assortment of plant types and light sensors that can measure light from the canopy to the roots.
APH will provide real time telemetry to researchers through a package called Plant Habitat Avionics Real-Time Manager in EXPRESS Rack (PHARMER..ha!) They certainly didn’t spare any expense and I think this will likely be one of the most productive microgravity plant habitats yet.
David Scott Copeland, The Boeing Company, Pasadena, TX, United States
Boeing, Houston, TX, United States; miniPCR, Cambridge, MA, United States
Genes in Space is a yearly science contest where students submit their microgravity experiment ideas of how they would use the miniPCR thermocycler on the ISS. 2016’s winner, Julian Rubinfien, a student at Stuyvesant High School in New York City, proposed a PCR method of measuring telomere length on the ISS. Be sure to catch the announcement of 2017’s winner in July at the ISS R&D conference in Washington, D.C.
As evidence builds that stress is a factor influencing telomere length, it’s not surprising that the stress and radiation of spaceflight may be affecting them as well. Susan Bailey, a researcher on the NASA Twins study, even raised a lot of eyebrows earlier this year when she released preliminary data stating that astronaut Scott Kelly’s telomeres may have even grown longer during the recent one year mission, when compared to his brother.
Since the ISS currently lacks ways to implement some of the more involved methods to measure telomere length, Julian proposed using a simpler Earth lab standard technique called Universal Single Telomere Length Analysis (STELA). While STELA typically requires a bit of optimization work on the front end, it requires minimal hardware to run and a great option to try on the ISS.
This proof of concept experiment is quick and easy: his samples will arrive on the ISS frozen, thawed and run on the miniPCR thermocycler. They’ll then be returned to earth for further analysis. Hopefully the results will lead to a standard test that astronauts can use during long duration spaceflight.
Sarah Wallace, Ph.D., NASA JSC, Houston, TX, United States
Boeing, Huntsville, AL, United States
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States
In a natural match of molecular biology hardware, this experiment uses the miniPCR and the MinION DNA sequencer (flown to the ISS last year) as a technique demo for possibly testing microbial samples found in the ISS.
Current methods require crew to collect air and surface samples, plate them, place them in a warm spot for five days and then send pics to the JSC lab for analysis. If crew can get samples, prep them with the miniPCR and then run them on the MinION, they could possibly detect what is living there genetically.
Whether this is less work for the crew remains to be seen, but it’s a nice demonstration that researchers can use these two devices together for other types of experiments on the ISS. It could also be used during long duration spaceflight for monitoring crew health or samples while on a Mars mission.
David L. Urban, Ph.D., Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
Until previously, microgravity combustion experiments on the ISS, such as the Burning and Suppression of Solids (BASS) series, have focused on somewhat small scale test objects of about 10 cm. The Saffire series hopes to provide insight on how fire burns in microgravity on a large scale.
Saffire-III builds upon the two mostly identical experiments flown last year on Cygnus, where meter long pieces of common spacecraft materials such as Nomex and plexiglass are set ablaze. The hardware rides inside Cygnus and isn’t started until long after un-berthing from the ISS.
The fire is recorded visually and with a suite of thermocouples, CO2 and pressure sensors to name a few. The data is then downlinked to the researchers on Earth before Cygnus reenters the atmosphere. It’s really great that Cygnus will be delivering valuable science data all the way up until the end.
The QB50 Project is a constellation of science cubesats to measure phenomena in an often overlooked region of Earth’s lower atmosphere. Run by the Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics and funded by the European Commission, 36 cubesats from 21 countries will be eventually be launched into Earth and Sun Synchronous orbits.
28 cubesats will be deployed from the ISS using NanoRacks’ Cubesat Deployer where they will collect data in Earth orbit for 4-8 months. The remaining 8 cubesats will be placed in a sun synchronous orbit to be launched from an Indian PSLV rocket in late May.
These data will collected by three main types of sensors found on the cubesats: ion/neutral mass spectrometer, a flux probe and a multineedle Langmuir probe. I won’t even pretend to know how all of this works, but there is a significant amount of information in the links below.
NASA’s Space Shuttle mission STS-47 had many accomplishments: the 50th Space Shuttle flight; Astronaut Mae Jemison became the 1st African-American female in space; Mamoru Mohri was the first Japanese astronaut to fly on the Space Shuttle; Marc Lee and Jan Davis became the first (and last) husband and wife to fly on the same mission; and the first and only Japanese sponsored Spacelab module (SL-J).
Of the 43 experiments on board STS-47, one was particularly interesting to me: it was the first time frogs were handled in space. I know, I’m easily amused.
Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride Because of their relatively small size, easy care and a several analogous physiological similarities, frogs have long been involved in biomedical research. It was therefore a natural leap to use these same advantages in helping us understand human adaptations to spaceflight.
Frogonaut history starts in 1961 with the Soviet satellite Korabl-Sputnik 4. I couldn’t find any information on what the frogs were doing on there research-wise, but since this was the penultimate test flight of the Vostok spacecraft before Yuri Gagarin’s famous flight, it was likely for basic survivability/life support testing.
Frogs were also aboard NASA’s Biosatellite I and II un-crewed program between 1966 and 1969. Biosatellite I failed to return due to a failed retro rocket. Biosatellite II had re-flight experiments from Biosatellite I and included frog embryos, similar to the experiment on STS-47. An ambitious NASA program launched in 1970 called “Orbiting Frog Otolith” tested the response of the gravity sensing organs called otoliths of two male bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana).
In 1990, Japan’s first ever citizen in space, cosmonaut/tourist/journalist Toyohiro Akiyama observed the behavior of six Japanese tree frogs (Hyla japonica) to see how they would adapt to microgravity.
The Great Leap Forward
Frogs have large, readily observable embryos that can be fertilized outside of their body, facilitating a commonly studied model of embryo development on Earth. Frogs from the genus Xenopus have been used in embryo development research since the early part of the 20th century.
An experiment aboard STS-47’s Spacelab module called “Effect of Weightlessness on Development of Amphibian Eggs” wished to understand if gravity is necessary for the normal development of amphibian embryos.
Even if rotated on Earth, a frog embryo’s rapidly dividing animal cells and more slowly dividing vegetal cells always align with the normal gravity vector, such that the animal cells are “up” and the vegetal cells are “down.”
The location of these two cell types within the embryo are eventually responsible for their differentiation into the various tissues of an organism as well as dorsal and ventral body structures (i.e. limbs, fins). The researchers simply wanted to know if the lack of a gravity vector in the free fall of orbit would alter this polar alignment and therefore change the embryo’s normal development.
The method of project is where it gets interesting. Previous projects, such as that on Biosatellite II, had fertilized the embryos long before launch. In order to start the experiment while in a microgravity environment, the investigators flew four live female South African three-clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis). 18 hours after arriving in orbit, the crew subcutaneously injected the frogs with an ovulating hormone called chorionic gonadotropin. Then, 16 hours later the eggs were collected and placed in small incubation chambers and fertilized with sperm solution.
If you’ve ever tried to catch a frog on Earth, it’s a slippery affair requiring quick reflexes and a large catalog of curses and obscenities. At least in 1g, the frog’s escape parameters are constrained roughly to jumping and squirming in a two dimensional coordinate system.
Give the frog a third dimension to squirm and jump in microgravity and handling it is about as much fun as it sounds. The gif below says it all. This had to be done multiple times!
Despite the squirmy start, the rest of the experiment hopped along well, with some of the embryos being placed in a 1g centrifuge and the rest staying in a microgravity incubator. Embryos were fixed at certain time-points to be sectioned and stained after the flight.
Results: Toadally Normal?
The successful fertilization of the embryos supported previous investigator findings that fertilization could properly occur in microgravity.
There were slight differences between the micro-g and 1g timepoint embryos, showing slight cell thickening in the micro-g blastocoel layer and a minor change in location of the vegetal cells in the micro-g samples. The researchers give several reasons for these differences, but notice that they were eventually corrected during development to the tadpole stage and “no significant differences in morphology were observed.”
As for the tadpoles, the only significant change was that the micro-g tadpoles had undersized lungs. On Earth, tadpoles typically come to the surface to fill their lungs with air within 2-3 days after hatching. The authors explain that since there were no gravitational clues, the tadpoles simply didn’t know where the surface was and therefore didn’t fill their lungs with air. This behavior was corrected after the tadpoles returned to Earth, but it’s unclear if this would have been detrimental to the frog reaching full maturity.
Overall, this project support previous observations that gravity is not necessary for the fertilization of embryos and, while there were some slight, unexplained differences during development, embryogenesis in microgravity proceeded without observable physiological effects.
STS-47 returned after a successful 8 day mission and the tadpoles and samples were safely returned to the researchers at Ames Research Center. The tadpoles that returned fully metamorphosed and matured normally, living long healthy lives in a nice pad in central California until they one day croaked.
SpaceX successfully launched CRS-10 into orbit on Sunday from the historic Launch Complex 39-A at Kennedy Space Center, the first launch from that pad since STS-135 in 2011. This launch is the second for SpaceX in 2017 and their first for NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services contract to the ISS since July of 2016.
They also stuck the landing at LZ-1 at KSC making their first daytime landing there. After an abort on the initial approach to the ISS on the 22nd, Dragon was successfully captured and berthed to the ISS on February 23rd.
Dragon is carrying slightly above the average amount of science cargo on CRS-10. Total capsule mass is listed as 5,490 lbs of which 1,614 lbs of that were science investigations and its support hardware.
Principal Investigator:Paul Reichert, M.S., Merck Research Laboratories, Kenilworth, NJ, United States
Hardware/Payload Developer:Handheld HDPCG, The University of Alabama at Birmingham
On board are several protein crystal growth experiments flying with CASIS funding, including a continuing project with Paul Reichert and Merck. This is Reichert’s 15th microgravity protein crystal growth experiment (PCG), with his first on the space shuttle mission STS-51 in 1993.
“With this experiment, Merck Research Labs seeks to understand the impact of the microgravity environment on the structure, delivery method and purification of KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab) Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy. KEYTRUDA is a humanized monoclonal antibody that works by increasing the ability of the body’s immune system to help detect and fight tumor cells. Data from this experiment will provide insights on the future of drug delivery, product development and manufacturing. KEYTRUDA is being evaluated in over 30 tumor types in more than 400 clinical trials, at least half of which combine KEYTRUDA with other cancer treatments.”
The mention of KEYTRUDA is significant since it’s the first time I’ve seen Merck publicly mention a micro-g PCG drug target by name. They’ve typically stayed generic, like “alpha-interferon” or “monoclonal antibodies. It’s unclear if this drug was developed in micro-g though. Likely it wasn’t.
Principal Investigator:Eddie H. Snell, Ph.D., Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States Co-Investigator: Joseph R. Luft, M.S, Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, Buffalo, NY, United States
Hardware/Payload Developer: Light Microscopy Module; ZIN Technologies Incorporated, Cleveland, OH, United States, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
Dr. Larry DeLucas continues with his series of PCG experiments also started in the early days of the space shuttle program and Dr. Eddie Snell returns to micro-g PCG research that began with STS-65 in 1995. While great to see micro-g PCG projects still flying, it’s discouraging to see no new or other returning researchers.
There was a lot of pre-flight hoopla about the Gene-RADAR® experiment since it contains samples of the deadly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain. While the media had fun with catchy click-bait titles, this is not the first time MRSA has flown to the ISS. It does represent the maximum biologic safety limit that NASA will allow (BSL 2), though.
It’s confusing to me why this experiment couldn’t have been tested first on the ground, but it certainly got a lot of PR and maybe it just costs less to fly things the ISS nowadays.
A relatively simple, but important stem cell experiment from the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Zubair is looking at the ability to grow and expand mesenchymal, hematopoietic and leukemia cancer stem cells on the ISS. The researcher hopes to establish a long hoped for method of cultivate large batches of stem cells for regeneration or disease therapy.
Previous stem cell experiments have focused on either genetic up/down regulation of growing in micro-g or DNA aberrations caused by cosmic radiation. Stem cells are a high maintenance cell line and these original experiments provided some evidence that stem cells may proliferate better in micro-g. A good review can be found here.
Hardware/Payload Developer: Petri plates, KSC Fixation Tubes; NASA Kennedy Space Center, Space Life Sciences Laboratory, Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
This experiment from prolific micro-g researchers Anna-Lisa Paul and Rob Ferl continues a series started on STS-93 in 1999. This investigation looks at (as the title tells you) whole genome epigentics using bisulfite sequencing and RNAseq of Arabidopsis seedlings after growing during spaceflight. The experiment series hopes to shed light on plant adaptations to microgravity for fundamental knowledge as well as the practical application of growing food and O2 production during long duration space missions.
Cool crowd sourced student plant experiment showing for the first time how cuttings of Ficuspumila will grow in microgravity. The Ficus cuttings are being used as a analog species for fruiting vegetables to better understand how cuttings instead of seeds can be propagated for food during long term spaceflight missions.
Microbial Methane Associated Research Strasbourg No. 1 (MMARS1) Investigators: Airbus DS in collaboration with its scientific partners the International Space University and the University of Strasbourg
Contractile Properties of Smooth Muscle in Microgravity Investigators: Craft Academy in collaboration with its scientific partner, Morehead St. University.
Medicinal Plants in Microgravity Investigator:Chappell Lab, University of Kentucky
Life Cycle of Arabidopsis thaliana in Microgravity Investigator: Student experiment led by Magnitude.IO
Space Tango is flying their first series of TangoLab customers after a shake down flight of their hardware last summer. Kris Kimmel has reported there are 18 payloads on this flight, but only eight are listed in their press release. The listed experiments range from several student experiments to microbial methane production in micro-g.
Tango’s presence on the ISS shows the blooming commercial market of microgravity research and hardware development services started by long established companies such as BioServe (1987), TechShot (1988) and NanoRacks (2009). It’s great to see that researchers now have more choices, and therefore leverage, than ever before to accomplish their science goals.
Easy peasy. “Total investigations from ISS Expeditions 0-44 is 2,060.” There. Finally, an answer I can give those who ask. But is an “investigation” the same as a payload? They give the definition of investigation in the paragraph above the table, but it’s kind of loose and doesn’t really say something is specifically a physical research payload or not.
NASA also maintains a website with a list of experiments by expedition (and a few other categories) and I thought of comparing the number of payloads on that site to the number above. After some Excel wrangling I came up with the following:
Well, the total of 3,818 from the data on that page is a bit larger than the 2,060 reported in the brochure. Even if you include the three additional expeditions since that publication, it only adds up to 2,609. Also, the values I have don’t match the values they have for “Total Investigations” during each expedition increment.
A quick check for duplicate values in the data (pink in the Excel sheet above) showed that many of the experiments are repeated through expeditions. For example, Made In Space’s 3D printer is listed three times in the data (shown as “3D Printing in Zero-G”) because it ran multiple times during several expeditions. I learned from a NASA friend that they call each payload use an “interaction” and as the data above shows, there can be several interactions with a payload over multiple increments. Still don’t know why the totals don’t match up, though. NASA’s data in their brochure doesn’t even match up with the data shown on their website. Alrighty.
Curiouser and curiouser (or more like: nerdier and nerdier), I edited out the duplicates and came up with what I think is a much more reasonable number.
OK, 1,062 payloads ~16 years seems like a more reasonable estimate to me. Plotted as a bar graph,
It’s great to see a slight upward trend in new payloads since late 2013-early 2014. Since I was already in the thralls of Excel ecstasy, I was wondering what caused the spikes of new payloads, especially between March 2014-September 2015. I plotted this data along with the number of visiting payload vehicles during the increment.
The peaks correlate nicely to a very busy time on the ISS between March 2014 and September 2015 with 12 vehicles arriving: SpaceX had 4 Dragon visits, Orbital had one Cygnus visit, there was 1 ESA ATV and JAXA HTV visit each, and finally 5 Progress vehicles (see below). The other peaks seen at October 2007-April 2008, April 2009-October 2009 and March 2011-September 2011 correlate to ATV-1, HTV-1, and STS-134, STS-135 ATV-3, respectively.
This certainly shows the value of Dragon and Cygnus at being able to carry a significant amount of science payloads. Dragon is particularity useful for life sciences, not only because of its ability to return samples, but because researchers can deliver their samples to be loaded in the capsule at ~30 hours before launch.
Overall, it looks like a reasonable number for the amount of research payloads flown to the ISS in 16 years is ~1,000. I hesitate to say the number is exactly 1,062 as calculated, because I may be missing something (maybe NASA has an explanation for the numbers they published) and some of the payloads listed on the NASA site are not really research payloads (such as “Crew Earth Observation” or “Story Time From Space”).
We can also see from these data the significant value Dragon and Cygnus bring to the research community. This value will no doubt increase again hopefully in 2019 when Sierra Nevada flies their Dream Chaser cargo vehicle to the ISS, adding more late sample loading and return capabilities. Now if we could just get more crew up there to work on all of this science…