Case Number: 429
Case Mnemonic: STATION
Case Name: INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
A permanent space station has been a dream of space enthusiasts for decades. If NASA, the European Space Agency and a few others have their way, it may yet become a reality. However, in the rush to create an outpost in space, the environmental risks involved have not been widely discussed. As the recent problems on Mir illustrate, environmental risks associated with space stations can harm not only the structures themselves, but their crews as well. ("Vapor Leak Plagues Crew of Mir Space Station")
The International Space Station is being designed, constructed and paid for by a consortium of countries and agencies, most notably, the United States and NASA, members of the EU and the European Space Agency, as well as Russia, Japan, Canada and their respective space agencies. ("International Space Station: Creating a World-class Orbiting Laboratory") Each country is responsible for a different portion of the station and its cost. All are driven by the need to stay in the forefront of space exploration and research.
The International Space Station (ISS) was originally the idea of NASA, which had the following goals (among others) in mind:
These same goals exist today. However, it is interesting to note that when the space shuttle Challenger crashed, NASA suspended commercial payloads on the remaining space shuttles. (Jane's Space Directory 1993-94 107) These would need to be resumed if the ISS is to be used for commercial purposes.
Officials representing space station interests are happy to explain about all of the advances that will be made in the different sciences as a result of research to be conducted aboard the station: possible cures for cancer, AIDS, and other diseases; secrets of the universe revealed; the birth of new technologies. However, many scientists wonder whether or not the conditions necessary to do any truly promising research will actually exist on the station and its surrounding environment. They fear the station will be a monument to politics and bureaucracy rather than the research station of the future, as the Station's several incarnations have shown. ("International Space Station: Creating a World-Class Orbiting Laboratory" and Jane's Space Directory 1993-94 127)
Like any other high-tech research facility, the space station will create certain amounts of waste products from the experiments conducted on board, as well as its inhabitants. In addition, the space station faces some special challenges in the form of its location, miles above the earth. Added to the waste problems of research facilities on the planet below, are the additional problems of how to dispose of its waste products in a space environment (where the term "biodegradable" does not apply), the pollution caused by the exhaust of transports going to and from the station, and the release into the environment of toxic compounds by the station due to the decay of its outer hull as a result of its contact with the space environment. (Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station)
Because of the cost of supply mission and its distance from earth, the station must be as self-reliant as possible. Therefore, much positive research has gone into finding ways to recycle water, oxygen and certain waste products back into reusable forms. Several schemes for reclaiming water from perspiration of the astronauts, recycling air, and so forth have been developed. However, disposing of certain types of waste such as chemical byproducts of experiments has proven harder to accomplish. Because of the station's location, scientists must devise schemes for storing and recycling such waste aboard the station itself, dumping it into space, or for returning it to earth. (Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station 2-17) The cost of the final suggestion, of course, would be astronomical: the cost per pound to transport items on a shuttle can run into the thousands of dollars. Dumping the waste into the space environment would only exacerbate the problem of space debris: waste does not degrade in a vacuum. Storing such waste on the station could be potentially harmful to the astronauts aboard, as danger from leaking storage units could be quite high. Therefore, recycling the waste into non-harmful and/or reusable items should be, and is, the focus of current research.
The emissions given off by the station and the spacecraft used to supply it are composed of chemicals and compounds which have been proven harmful to the earth's atmosphere. Most significantly, the CFCs and other chemicals given off by space shuttles' exhaust. (Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station 4-5 to 4-8 and How Things Work in Space 76-79) In addition, it is estimated that it will take 44 Space Shuttle missions to assemble the International Space Station ("Space Station Parameters"), which is significant since NASA has found that "by the year 2000, solid-fueled rocket launches will be the principal source of new inputs to ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere." (Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station 4-4) Another important factor is the station's outer hull, which will decay with time due to exposure to the sun's rays, space debris, excess energy from the station solar power panels, and so forth, releasing harmful chemicals into the surrounding area. (Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station 2-22 and Young) All of these problems are important due to the location of the station's orbit -- close enough to do potentially serious damage to Earth's ozone layer.
As a result of the problems mentioned above, many scientists believe that the station will be surrounded by a gaseous cloud composed of many dangerous compounds that will be harmful, not only to the integrity of the station's hull, but will also negatively impact any experiments conducted in the area immediately surrounding the station.(McDonough 86) For example, astronauts embarking on a spacewalk to conduct research in the "clean vacuum of space" will find that the station has created its own mini atmosphere full of toxic chemicals which will negatively affect the research, if not void it. However, a partial solution does exist:
"McDonnell Douglas engineers [have] developed a new process to prevent liquids or gasses from leaking into space from tubing joints by using a thin coating of malleable metal such as silver, gold or tin to act as a seal. NASA has patented the process, which was developed for the international space station project." (Anselmo 62)
As one can see, the potential environmental damage from the International Space Station is quite significant. Unfortunately, the problems discussed here are rarely dealt with in public debate. NASA is to be commended for undertaking a review of potential environmental impacts, but more needs to be done to develop alternatives to space shuttle exhaust systems, station hull degradation effects, and economical and safe disposal of station waste.
(1): SPACEGAR: Space Garbage Case
(2): SPACEMIN: Space Mining Case
(3): SST: SST Ozone Case
(4): WEATHER: Weather Modification
(5): VDT: Video Display Terminals
(6): MONTREAL: Montreal Protocol
(1): Trade Product = Manufactures
(2): Geography = SPACE
(3): Environmental Problem = Pollution Air (POLA)
Caren Saxe
Thirteen countries have agreed to cooperate in building the space station. Each is responsible for providing different components and economic backing for the station. Russia's role has recently been decreased due to the country's financial woes and uncertain political climate. However, unless something drastic should happen in the near future, Russia should remain a participant in the station program.
The agreement to build the international space station is multi- lateral in nature with parties from several countries and regions of the world taking part.
Number of Parties Affected: 13 (approximately)
This number represents the countries that have agreed to take part in creating and maintaining the space station. However political and economic changes affect the depth of participation by any one country. The parties to the agreement are: the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
While the countries listed above are linked directly to the success of failure of actually making the station a reality, the entire world will be affected negatively by its impact on the earth's atmosphere, and positively by any successful research conducted on the station.
Standing: TREATY
A. Continental Domain: SPACE
B. Geographic Site: SPACE
C. Geographic Impact: SPACE
SUB-STATE: NO
Type of Measure: Treaty
The environment in space has directly affected the design of the International Space Station, which must be able to withstand external pressures which exist in space. In addition, how the parties involved in the ISS project finally decide to create it will directly affect how the finished product will affect the space environment in turn.
A. Directly Related to Product: YES Space Use Products
B. Indirectly Related to Product: NO
C. Not Related to Product: NO
D. Related to Process: YES Habitat
The ISS is being created through economic cooperation, not trade measures per se. However, if one party, such as Russia, should not be able to fulfill its part of the agreement, then the entire project may become unfeasible. The design of the station as a whole and its component parts will directly and indirectly (respectively) affect the space environment. In addition, shuttle missions which are involved with the process of building the station directly affect the environment through ozone depletion and so forth.
Product Type: SPACE STATION
Industry Output ($): 30 Billion (1995 estimate) (Hearing on NASA Space Station Program 1)
Employment: 15,400 U.S. jobs directly involved in the ISS program
70,000-100,000 U.S. jobs in secondary employment (Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station 4-2)
Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: Low
The station hull will be constructed of some type of fabricated metal product. However, the machinery used to make the station run falls under many different industrial categories.
While the US is undoubtedly the largest partner is the space station endeavor, each participant is responsible for some section of the product. For example, Canada will provide a mobile servicing system, Russia will provide a service module, crew transfer vehicles, research module, and other components, and the US will provide a laboratory, a habitation module, shuttle service, and other items.
Contributions:
United States ~$2.1 billion/year
Russia ~$2 billion total
Other partners ~$4 billion to date (Hearing on the NASA Space Station Program 38-39)
Environmental Problem Type: OZONE
The emissions from the space station and the spacecraft used to support it release chemicals known to adversely affect the ozone layer of the earth's atmosphere. In addition, the emissions are harmful to the station itself, as they will hasten the decay of its hull and solar power panels.
24. Substitutes: Degradable Products
Substitutes for the more environmentally harmful components of the space station need to be found.
Culture: NO
Human Rights: NO
Trans-Border: YES
The international space station is a result of an agreement between several nations. The success of the program hinges upon each party in the agreement fulfilling their responsibilities in this matter. Discord in the past has arisen over countries' ability to fund their portions. As a result, the station has become not just a science project, but an important exercise in international negotiation and cooperation.
Andrew Wilson, ed. Jane's Space Directory 1993-1994. 9th ed. Alexandria, Virginia: Jane's
Information Group Inc., 1993.
Anselmo, Joseph C. "In Orbit." Aviation Week & Space Technology. 26 Feb. 1996: 62.
"Chapter 3 - Space Station Parameters." < http://www.nas.edu/cets/aseb/coss5.html> (24 Apr. 1997).
How Things Work in Space. Alexandria, Virginia: Time- Life Books, 1991.
"International Space Station: Creating a World-Class Orbiting Laboratory." International Space Station Fact Sheet. 1995.
<http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HQ/HTML/FS-004-HQ.html> (24 Apr. 1997).
McDonough, Thomas R. Space: The Next Twenty-Five Years. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station. Washington: Space Station Program Office, Office of Space Flight, 1996.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Space Plans and Scenarios to 2000 and Beyond. Washington: Noyues Publications, 1986.
United States. Cong. Senate. Hearing on the NASA Space Station Program. 104th Cong., 1st, sess. S. Hrg. 104-181. Washington: GPO, 1995.
"Vapor Leak Plagues Crew of Mir Space Station." The Detroit News. 23 Apr. 1997.
<http://detnews.com:80/1997/nation/9704/23/04230077.htm> (24 Apr. 1997).
Young, A. Thomas. Space Station Letter Report. 1995.
<http://www.nas.edu/cets/aseb/station4.html> (24 Apr. 1997).