Jay C. Buckey, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas served as an alternate payload specialist astronaut for the Spacelab Life Sciences 2 Space Shuttle Mission from January 1992 through December 1993. This report summarizes his opinions on the mission and offers suggestions in the areas of selection, training, simulations, baseline data collection and mission operations. The report recognizes the contributions of the commander, payload commander and mission management team to the success of the mission. Dr. Buckey's main accomplishments during the mission are listed

Buckey, Jay C.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

NASA CR-188279
SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES - 2
POST MISSION REPORT
by Jay C. Buckey, Jr., M.D., Alternate
Payload Specialist
(NASA-CR-/_>_/q SPACELAB LIFE N94-27410
SCIENCES Z POSIMISSION REPORT
Final Report, 16 Jan. - 30 Nov.
1993 (Texas Univ.) IO p Unclas
G3/$4 0210657
Final Report for Contract NAS 9-18736 "SLS-2 Payload Specialist Support" to
the University of Texas-Southwestern Medical Center
Alternate Payload Specialist
14 January 1994
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940022907 2020-06-16T13:26:36+00:00Z
P_I_EENt'_I i_GJE IILaU'_ btOT FK!_I.._.j
Buckey, SLS-2 Post-Mission Report Page- 2
The SLS-2 mission achieved tremendous success both operationally
and scientifically. The excellent leadership of Commander John Blaha,
Payload Commander Rhea Seddon, and the Mission Management team made
this success possible, and I would like to start my report by acknowledging the
debt owed to them.
Commander Blaha formed a smoothly running team from a group of
disparate individuals. He was respectful of all points of view and labored
constantly to make the best decisions for the mission. He brought out the best
in each team member, and he taught me volumes about management,
working with people, and, most importantly, leadership. His approach to
payload specialists should be the model for NASA to follow. He made every
effort to insure that all the payload specialists on the flight, prime and
alternate, knew that they were part of the crew and part of the team. He did
this by following the guideline he set at the beginning of the project-treat
everyone equally. If the rest of the crew had photos, launch invitations, etc.
he made sure the payload specialists had these things as well. He supported
me in my efforts to work with the Urine Monitoring System CUMS) and Body
Mass Measurement Device (BMMD), projects that took considerable time and
effort away from other activities.
Payload Commander Seddon worked tirelessly and successfully to
balance the scientific needs of the experiments against hard operational
realities. Her job was particularly challenging because the payload could easily
fill all the time available on the mission. Her complete honesty and integrity
won her the confidence of both the crew and the investigators, allowing her
to arrange for a very productive but not exhausting timeline. She taught me
to appreciate the constraints and difficulties inherent in on-orbit activities.
Mission Manager Lele Newkirk and Operations Manager Susan Brand
deserve tremendous credit for their mastery of the innumerable details
involved in this mission. Their support at critical times (e.g. bringing UMS
syringes back from KSC, throughout the mission at Huntsville) allowed me
to successfully complete my projects. They are extremely effective, capable
managers, and the mission owes them a great debt.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS SUMMARY
The team effort that was fostered allowed each crewmember to use
his/her special talents and background to improve the mission. My
background in engineering, medicine, and scientific research was very useful
in several mission-related areas. In addition to training for the mission,
validating procedures and communicating during the flight, I made
contributions in the following areas:
1. Worked with the investigators, crew and Human Research Policy and
Procedures Committee (HRPPC) representative M. Fettman, to reduce the
isotope dosages administered to the crew.
Buckey, SLS-2Post-Mission Report Page- 3
2. Worked with Flight medicine to provide custom-made magnifying glasses
for the crew to employ as needed.
3. Worked with the investigator teams and Life Science Project Division to
identify and correct calibration problems with the Urine Monitoring System
(UMS). This resulted in a completely new calibration procedure and new
equipment that was used despite the very short time available for
development. Numerous investigations were critically dependent on
accurate data from the UMS.
4. Worked with the investigator teams and Life Science Project Division to
test, modify and validate the Body Mass Measurement Device (BMMD)
calibration procedure. This involved an end-to-end test of the unit at KSC in
the Spacelab with the flight unit. Due to this effort the ground was able to
have complete confidence during the mission that good data was being
produced with the BMMD.
5. Encouraged instituting debriefs about communications with the Crew
Interface Coordinators (CIC's), Alternate Payload Specialists (APS's) and crew
immediately after simulations, and was supported by Commander Blaha.
These sessions helped to identify problems in both the Payload Operations
Control Center (POCC) and crew.
6. Encouraged reviews of data immediately following a simulation. These
provided immediate feedback to the crew on how the simulation went.
7. Identified communication problems with the Science Monitoring Area.
Solved the problem by requiring the investigator teams to communicate on
the CIC loop. The investigators would give ongoing information about data
quality, session progress and problems. This system was implemented during
the flight and allowed for much more rapid communication with the crew
about ongoing sessions.
8. Helped to bring an important U.S. investigation into the Bio-specimen
sharing plan. Changes in procedures were tested and validated with the Ames
Research Center (ARC) training team that proved the feasibility of
incorporating tibial cartilage samples into the in-flight dissection. Dr. Jackie
Duke was able to get specimens from SLS-2 because of this effort.
9. Helped in the writing and preparation of STS-58 Mission Highlights, the
pamphlet that NASA will use to summarize and publicize the
accomplishments on SLS-2.
Buckey, SLS-2Post-Mission Report Page- 4
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Although the mission was highly successful, in any project this size
there are some items that could be improved or where a different perspective
may be useful. This report will focus primarily on areas that need
improvement. These comments should not cloud the main point, however,
which is that the mission was a notable success.
SELECTION
The payload specialist program began as a way for scientists and
investigators to work on scientific projects in space. At the beginning of the
Space Shuttle program, the use of payload specialists in space was considered
by some to be the "central new feature of the Shuttle Space Transportation
System" (Dr. Hans Mark, Former Deputy Director of NASA, 1977). Over time,
the program has evolved to the point where many, if not most, payload
specialists serve only a ground role. While the use of highly-trained scientists
to serve as communicators for Shuttle missions may have some benefits to
NASA, this is not what was intended when the payload specialist program
began.
At the time of SLS-2 selection, many issues were not addressed about
what the non-flying payload specialist(s) would do. As a result, the role of the
alternate payload specialist was often unclear.
Recommendation 1. Define the role of the alternate payload
specialist. Specify who the alternate would be backing up. Is the
alternate there to backup all the individuals with intensive
payload training or just selected individuals? For example,
would a backup be used whenever a prime payload crewmember
could not continue? Or would a substitute crewmember be
recruited from the mission specialist office? The payload
specialist candidates should know at the time of application who
they would backup if they should become alternates.
The payload specialist candidates underwent a ten month competitive
period for one flying slot. When the candidates applied for the positions,
there were two flying slots for payload specialists. One slot was filled from the
astronaut office without any competition.
Recommendation 2. Establish clear, objective guidelines for
selecting payload specialists and limit the evaluation period to a
more reasonable length. If payload specialists are assigned from
the astronaut office, they should compete with the other
candidates and be evaluated by the same standards. In addition,
if more than one alternate is chosen, the alternates should be
ranked in advance according to who would be used first.
Buckey, SLS-2 Post-Mission Report Page- 5
Recommendation 3. The procedure of having the payload
specialists selected and voted on by the investigators should be
retained. This system does work. The investigators should have
the people they want working on the experiments.
TRAINING
Overall, the training was superb. All the trainers worked extremely
hard to make sure the crew was up to date on changes and proficient on the
major tasks. I have the following comments:
Recommendation 1. Establish a closer working relationship with
the P.I. teams. Visits to the P.I. laboratories were key and must be
continued. The crew must understand the scientific reasons for
the experiments and not just learn procedures. Frequent reviews
of data products with the P.L teams are essential. Whenever
these took place, they were very worthwhile.
Recommendation 2. Provide In Flight Maintenance (IFM)
training to the APS's. This was done on SLS-2 on Commander
Blaha's suggestion and was very useful. The APS's became
familiar with the format and procedures necessary for a
successful IFM.
Recommendation 3. Shorten POCC training. The POCC training,
while useful, depended heavily on lengthy classroom sessions.
Fewer, intense, hands-on sessions would be more effective.
Recommendation 4. Send the APS's to work in Mission Control.
This was also done on SLS-2 on the recommendation of
Commander Blaha and Payload Commander Seddon and helped
greatly. The interaction between the Flight Director and Capcom
has many parallels to the POD, CIC relationship.
Recommendation 5. Feedback from the P.I.s during training
should be available. This was always worthwhile.
On SLS-1 some controversy developed about having payload specialists
from an investigator's laboratory. In some quarters it was felt a payload
specialist from a particular lab might show favoritism toward his/her
experiment. Although I didn't agree with this criticism (after all, the
investigators get to choose the payload specialists and know them well), I was
concerned that criticism like this could be damaging to the payload specialist
program. As a result, throughout SLS-2 I made every effort not to get
involved in issues related to experiment 294 (Experiment- "Cardiovascular
Buckey, SLS-2 Post-Mission Report Page- 6
Adaptation to Zero-Gravity" which I worked on for many years). Only later in
the mission, when I was specifically asked, did I get involved in echo training
and in some issues related to CVP measurements. In retrospect, I probably
could have been helpful with a variety of experiment 294 issues, and future
payload specialists should not feel so constrained. The mission management
team should feel comfortable assigning payload specialists to work on issues
related to their experiments.
Recommendation 6. Assign Payload Specialists to work on issues
related to their experiments if their background and experience
would be useful.
SIMULATIONS
The simulations provided the beSt mission-like training. Different
groups often had different opinions on what the goal of the simulation
should be. The crew sometimes felt that the goal was to "exercise the POCC,"
and so they would not behave as they would in-flight. Instead of proposing
solutions to problems they would wait for the POCC to resolve the problem.
This often led to misunderstandings between the POCC and the crew, with
the POCC wondering why the crew did not make a suggestion and the crew
wondering why the POCC was taking so long. These misunderstandings often
could lead to bad communication. Good communication between the POCC
and the crew is absolutely critical to mission success. I suggested to
Commander Blaha that we have a short debriefs about communications right
after each simulation to talk honestly about problems. This was done and was
useful.
Recommendation 1. Have a short debrief on communications
with the crew, CIC and POD (and no one else) immediately after
the simulation. In this way, misunderstandings can be quickly
resolved.
The scientific data are the final product of the mission and the main
reason for the flight. Since the debriefs were often two days after the
simulation, the P.I. teams were not available for the debriefs, and their data
were not reviewed. The data must be reviewed after each simulation. I, along
with others, encouraged this. When it was done it gave the crewmembers
immediate, useful feedback.
Recommendation 2. During each simulation the data should be
evaluated in real time by the P.I. teams and debriefed with the
crew immediately after the simulation. The P.I. team often
cannot stay in Houston for one or two more days to do a debrief
Buckey, SLS-2 Post-Mission Report Page- 7
at a later time. Feedback on data quality has to be given in a
small group with just the P.I. team, trainer and crew.
The two debriefs on communications and data should be the two top
priorities immediately after a simulation.
MISSION OPERATIONS
The mission went smoothly and there were few major problems. One
communication change that occurred late in the pre-flight period and carried
through the flight was requiring the P.I. teams to report about their activities
on the CIC loop. I had encouraged the P.I. teams to report major milestones
on the CIC loop while their experiments were ongoing. This allowed for
quick reports to the crew when things were going well and rapid responses
when malfunctions developed. The use of the CIC loop to accomplish this
worked well on SLS-2.
Recommendation 1. Train the P.I. teams to talk on the CIC loop.
The P.I. teams need to be more involved in simulations and
should be required to make some calls about data quality and
session completion.
BASELINE DATA COLLECTION
Although, by necessity, most of the preparation and training for the
mission is devoted to the flight itself, from the scientific viewpoint the pre-
and post-flight data are at least as important as the data from space.
Considering the complexity of the arrangements, the data collection went
very well. Although the data collection periods were long, they were well
organized and necessary for the success of the mission.
Although as an alternate I did not have to participate as a subject in
landing day (R+0) data collection, it should be noted that the problems with
R+0 data collection (lengthy day, transportation problems) could have been
alleviated if the crew had remained at the landing site for seven days as was
done successfully on SLS-1 and had been repeatedly and consistently
recommended by the investigators for nearly a decade.
The decision to have the alternates participate in data collection pre-
flight was reasonable if the alternates did indeed serve as backups for all of the
payload crewmembers. This, however, was never made clear.
OBSERVATIONS
I was able to use my scientific and engineering backgrounds working
on the UMS and BMMD. Both the Mission Management organization and
the Life Science Project Division provided excellent support with the work
necessary on these devices. These kind of projects are well suited to payload
Buckey, SLS-2 Post-Mission Report Page- 8
specialists, who have the scientific background and interest in the
experiments to work on them.
The payload specialists on the flight were underutilized in this regard.
All of the payload specialists had long experience in scientific presentations
and scientific work and could have applied this experience to SLS-2.
Recommendation 1. Use the scientific background of the payload
specialist. Payload specialists should be encouraged to find areas
where the scientific goals are not being met and to work on
fixing the problems. Also, payload specialists often have
experience in giving talks and presentations to scientific
audiences. NASA should use this experience to reach skeptical
groups.
CONCLUSIONS
SLS-2 was a very productive mission. Personally, I had the opportunity
to learn about all the key details and complex arrangements that must take
place to have a successful space mission. Scientifically, the data from both
Spacelab Life Sciences-1 and Spacelab Life Sciences-2 are already radically
changing our understanding of how humans adapt to spaceflight. This
knowledge will be helpful, not only for planning longer and more
challenging spaceflights, but also for understanding health problems here on
Earth.
Buckey, SLS-2 Post-Mission Report Page- 9
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARC
APS
BMMD
CAPCOM
CIC
CVP
HRPPC
IFM
KSC
PI
IK)CC
POD
PS
R+0
SLS-1
SLS-2
STS-58
UMS
Ames Research Center
Alternate Payload Specialist
Body Mass Measurement Device
Capsule Communicators
Crew Interface Coordinators
Central Venous Pressure
Human Research Policy and Procedures Committee
In Flight Maintenance
Kennedy Space Center
Principal Investigator
Payload Operations Control Center
Payload Operations Director
Payload Specialist
Recovery plus 0 days, i.e. landing day
Spacelab Life Sciences-1
Spacelab Life Sciences-2
Space Transportation System Flight #58, a.k.a. SLS-2
Urine Monitoring System
U.S. Gov't
Report Documentahon Page
1. Reporl No.
2. Government Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES - 2
POST MISSION REPORT
by Jay C. Buckey, Jr., M.D., Alternate Payload Specialist
Final Report for Contract NAS 9-18736 "SLS-2 Payload Specialist
Support" to The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Author(s)
Jay C. Buckey, M.D.
Alternate Payload Specialist
9. Performing Organization Name and Addre_
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
5323 Harry Hines Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75235
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Addre_
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Johnson Space Center
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
b. Hepo_ uate
January 14, 1994
6. Pedorming Organization Code
8. Performing Organization Report No.
1
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
NAS 9-18736
13. Type o| Report and Period Covered
Final - 1/16/93 - 11/30/93
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
S_jpplementary Notes
Abstract
Jay C. buckey, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center at Dallas served as an alternate payload specialist astronaut for the Spacelab Life Sciences 2 Space
Shuttle Mission from January 1992 through December 1993. This report summarizes his opinions on the
mission and offers suggestions in the ares of selection, training, simulations, baseline data collection and
mission operations. The report recognizes the contributions of the commander, payload commander and
mission management team to the success of the mission. Dr. Buckey's main accomplishments during the
mission are listed.
17. Key Words(Suggested by Author(s))
AEROSPACE-MEDICINE, WEIGHTLESSNESS, SPACE-FLIGHT,
SPACE SHUTTLE, SPACELAB, LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH,
PAYLOAD SPECIALIST, ASTRONAUT, SPACELAB LIFE
SCIENCES TWO, SLS-2
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
18. DistributionStatement
Uncl assfied, unlimited
Security Classif. Iof this page)
21. No. ol pages
9
22. Price
NASA FORM 1626 OCT 86


Spacelab life sciences 2 post mission report

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server