Figure 1. The MFC facilities : a view inside the Columbus Orbital Facility (COF)
The Microgravity Facilities for Columbus Programme was formally confirmed in January 1997. However, most of the necessary preparatory activities had already been initiated over the last few years, building on the Agency's more than two decades of experience in conducting microgravity experiments in space. The Programme is the largest ESA contribution to the utilisation of the International Space Station and the experiments that will be carried out in its facilities will provide a much-needed boost to the European scientific community. Equally importantly, they will greatly increase the competitiveness of European Industry by fostering innovative research, which is a major priority for both ESA and the European Union as we approach the new millennium.
The European participation in the International Space Station Programme was confirmed at the ESA Council Meeting at Ministerial Level in Toulouse in October 1995. In the framework of this participation, the Ministers approved several elements, including the development of the Columbus Orbital Facility (COF) and the programme to develop the facilities required for conducting microgravity experiments in the COF. The latter development effort is known as the 'Microgravity Facilities for Columbus (MFC) Programme'.
Microgravity research covers a wide range of activities such as fundamental physics, solidification physics (e.g. crystal growth, metallurgy), physical chemistry, fluid science, biology, biotechnology, human physiology and medicine. Until 1996 the microgravity effort was funded only via the European Microgravity Research Programmes EMIR-1 and - 2. In January 1997 the MFC programme has been initiated, complementing EMIR-2; it covers the development of a set of multi-user microgravity facilities to be accommodated in the International Space Station , i.e. in the Columbus Orbital Facility [COF] and via Cooperative Agreements with NASA in the US Laboratory. The objective of the MFC Programme is to have, following the launch of the COF, the four disciplines (i.e. material and fluid sciences, biology and human physiology) constantly present on the International Space Station to maximise the return to the European scientists (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. The MFC facilities : a view inside the Columbus
Orbital Facility (COF)
The MFC Programme is the most important European contribution to the Space Station's utilisation and it will continue throughout the Station's lifetime, the first phase covering the years 1997 to 2003. It is anticipated that the Programme will give a strong boost to Europe-wide research and development efforts in the above-identified fields, because of the novelty of the research to be carried out and the possibility to run long-term experiments on the Station rather than the short-term experiments typical of the earlier Spacelab missions.
The first phase of the MFC Programme (1997-2003) includes:
Figure 2 shows the above facilities, together with their planned launch dates.
Figure 2. The MFC facilities and their launch dates
The activities required to support the scientific operation of the MFC facilities will be covered by the next phase of the MFC Programme.
The multi-user facilities will be modular in design to allow for upgrading and easy refurbishment and repair because of the long-term operations foreseen in the Space-Station era. The facilities are presently all in the development (Phase-B) stage, with the exception of the EPMs, which will shortly enter the design (Phase-A) stage.
Each facility is supported by a dedicated science team that will follow its development and advise the Agency on its best scientific use. A major challenge of the Programme is to ensure that the scientific performances of the facilities respond to the scientists' needs. To achieve this, the scientists are attending all of the main design-phase reviews, and they have access to the critical breadboards (e.g. for Biolab the microscope and the observation system, for FSL the interferometric diagnostics) for testing purposes.
The maximum of synergy with the Agency's Technology Programmes has been sought in order to reduce development costs (e.g. experiment-container technology for Biolab, heater technology for MSL). The ESA approach has been to minimise the cost of experiment development by incorporating complex features in the facility design (e.g. advanced diagnostics). This serves to increase both the number of proposals submitted and the eventual scientific return. The experiments to be carried out in each facility will be selected from the proposals received in response to the relevant Announcements of Opportunity (AOs).
Three multi-user laboratories, as indicated above, are planned for launch inside the COF by the end of the year 2002 (Fig. 1). Together with these laboratories, there will be an allocated stowage volume (e.g. one quarter of the stowage rack for each facility) to upload a minimum set of spares for the initial maintenance, as well as the requisite experiment hardware (containers, cartridges, etc.). In the framework of the Space Station Agreements with the USA, ESA is allocated 51% usage of the COF, which is equivalent to five racks. The baseline composition for the first COF utilisation phase is: the Biolab, the Fluid Science Laboratory, the European Physiology Modules, a Stowage Rack and a European Drawer Rack. The MFC Programme will use up to 75% of the stowage volume allocated to ESA in the COF for the first launch, given that the Drawer Rack and one quarter of the Stowage Rack are not assigned to the MFC Programme.
The development schedule for each facility is indicated in Table 1. All facilities with the exception of the MSL in the US Lab. will make use of the Japanese International Standard Payload Racks (ISPRs) and also the Standard Payload Outfitting Equipment (SPOE) (e.g. standard payload computers, smoke sensors, remote power distribution unit, etc.) developed through the Utilisation Programme. Table 2 indicates the technical features common to all facilities. It is planned to present the main features of these facilities on the World Wide Web to increase awareness of the possibilities that will be offered to the science community once they are operational.
Table 1. The MFC development schedule
Table 2: MFC Facilities scientfic/technical feature
BIOLAB MSL FSL EPM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Field - Cell culture - Solidification Physics - Bubble formation and growth - Metabolic Functions
- Micro-organisms - Composite materials - Condensation phenomena - Cardiovascular
- Small plants - Crystal growth - Thermophysical parameters - Muscular/skeleton system
- Small invertebrates - Measurement of - Directional solidification - Neuroscience
- Mechanism of radiation material properties
damage in cells and tissue
Automation Complete experiment Complete experiment Experiment execution When feasible to shorten
execution including analysis execution including analysis including analysis experiment set-up and
by using handling mechanism teardown times
Telescience All automatic features can All Automatic features can All automatic features can be Experiment procedures
be altered from ground be altered from ground altered from ground can be modified at any time
Advanced Diagnostics - Microscope - Seebeck effect - Particle image velocimetry - Analysis on-board of
- Spectrophotometer - Sample resistance (electrical) - Thermographic mapping boold, urine and saliva
- High-res. thermocouples - Interferometric observation
- Peltier Pulse Marking
Modularity/Serviceability - Modular design of the facility - Modular design of the facility - Modular design of thefacility - Modules can be
- Experiments in standard - Furnace module can be - Experiements in standard exchanged and operated
container box replaced in orbit container box in other space Station
locations
Experiment Container 60x60x100mm³: standard 20-30mm¹) 400x270x280mm³ N/A
Box/Cartridge Size 130x133x170mm³: large 120mm²) for LGF³)
250mm²) for SQF(sup 4))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Diameter of heated cavity 2) Length of heated cavity
3) Low Gradient Furnace 4) Solidification and Quenching Furnace
Scientific objectives
Life-science experiments in space are aimed at identifying
the role that microgravity plays at all levels of life, from
the organisation of a single cell to the nature of gravity
resisting and detecting mechanisms in the more highly
developed organisms, including man. Whilst the effects of
microgravity on man will also be investigated by other
facilities (e.g. EPMs), it is also important to start the
investigation with the smaller elements of the biological
structure. At the science community's behest, ESA has always
had a strong involvement in supporting (e.g. with Biorack on
the Space Shuttle and Biobox on a Russian carrier) the
investigation of biological samples. The scientific results
from these flights can certainly influence our everyday lives,
particularly in the areas of immunology, bone
demineralisation, cellular signal transduction and cellular
repair capabilities. Such results could eventually have a
strong bearing on critical products in the medical,
pharmacological and biotechnological fields.
With a view to continuing this research work in future years, in 1988 ESA initiated scientific/feasibility studies for the definition of a facility known as the 'Biolab' which could support biological research during the Space Station era.
In view of the results achieved to date, the ESA Microgravity Advisory Committee (MAC) has recommended continuing the life-science by focussing on a well-defined defined list of fields, including the following related to biology:
The current Biolab concept is that of a multi-user facility for conducting biological experiments of the above type in the COF on cells, micro-organisms, small plants and small invertebrates. The design respects the MAC's recommendations, the outcome of the scientific and feasibility studies (e.g. Phase-A) performed, the experience gained from facilities flown previously, and the requirements of and possibilities offered by the utilisation of the Space Station.
Facility description
The Biolab facility (Fig. 3) is integrated into an
International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR) and will be flown
to the Space Station as part of the initial payload complement
of the COF, into which it will already be integrated on the
ground.
Figure 3. The Biolab's design with one centrifuge extracted and
its experiment container
Biolab is divided physically and functionally into two sections: the automatic section in the left side of the rack, and the manual section in the right side of the rack. In the automatic section, also known as the 'Core Unit', all activities are performed automatically by the facility, after manual sample loading by the crew. By implementing such a high level of automation, the demand on crew time is drastically reduced. The manual section, in which all activities are performed by the crew themselves, is mainly devoted to sample storage and specific crew activities.
The biological samples are contained in standard 'Experiment Containers' (Fig. 4) which have standard external interfaces with the Biolab, an approach that has been well proven with the Biorack. The internal volume available to experimenters is 60 x 60 x 100 mm³ for the standard container, but a larger one is also available.
Figure 4. Handling-Mechanisms breadboard for Biolab
The main features of the Biolab are as follows:
Biolab operations
The biological samples, with their ancillary items, will
be transported from the ground to Biolab either already in the
Experiment Containers, or in small vials if they require
transportation and storage temperatures as low as -80°C,
taking advantage of the ESA-developed Freezer [MELFI]. Once in
orbit, samples already in Experiment Containers will be
manually placed into the Biolab facility for processing, while
those transported at -80°C will need to be prepared in
the Bioglovebox.
Once the manual loading has been completed, the automatic processing of the experiments can start. These experiments will be run in parallel on the centrifuges, one in 0-g and the other one in 1-g for reference. At the end of the experiment, the handling mechanism will transport the samples to the diagnostic instruments provided by Biolab. With the aid of teleoperations, the scientist on the ground will be able to interact with this preliminary analysis process. Typical experiment durations can be between a few days and a few months.
Industrial organisation/status
The Biolab design study (Phase-B) is currently being
carried out by a consortium of industries led by Matra Marconi
Space of Toulouse (F) (see Table 3). It will be completed this
Spring, while the facility's main development phase
(Phase-C/D) is planned to start in the second half of 1997.
Table 3. Industrial participants in the MFC Multi-User
Facilities Phase-B activities
Challenges
While the individual subsystems of the Biolab facility do
not present a major technological challenge, the integration
of the numerous subsystems into such a limited volume as an
ISPR is indeed a difficult task. Much attention is therefore
being paid to ensuring that all of the subsystems fit together
well to form a homogeneous facility.
The challenge of the high level of automation has been met by developing a fully representative Handling Mechanism breadboard (Fig. 5), including its interfaces with a functioning breadboard of the Automatic Temperature Controlled Stowage (ATCS).
Figure 5. The Material Science Laboratory in US Lab
configuration
Scientific objectives
Material Science experiments in space are aimed at
providing us with a clear understanding of the behaviour of
crystallisation and solidification phenomena in microgravity,
these phenomena being studied in conjunction with precision
measurements of specific thermophysical properties (e.g.
temperature, resistivity, etc). Research in this field is
important to obtain data useful for ground-based process
optimisation and to understand phenomena critical for ground-
based production.
The Agency has flown various types of furnaces on its Eureca free-flying platform (e.g. Automatic Mirror Furnace [AMF], Multi Furnace Assembly [MFA]) as well on the Space Shuttle (e.g. Advanced Gradient Heating Facility [AGHF]). In order to be able to continue such material-science research work in the Space Station era, the Agency started the definition of the Material Science Laboratory. Four priority areas of research were identified by the Microgravity Advisory Committee:
Eight furnaces were initially examined in two conceptual studies, but cuts in Space-Station resources and budget limitations reduced the final number under study to two: the Solidification and Quenching Furnace (SQF), and the Low Gradient Furnace (LGF).
The MSL was required to adopt a highly modular design concept, thus alleviating the limitations imposed by budgetary and carrier constraints by offering increased flexibility for heater reconfiguration in orbit. In this way, most of the scientific objectives for the MSL can be satisfied within the scope of the present development effort.
All activities involved in the definition and design of the MSL elements are regularly monitored by a scientific advisory team, which also supported the redirections of effort described above.
Facility description
The MSL is highly modular in concept, with the greatest
level of modularity incorporated in the facility
'infrastructure modules' offering the environment,
intelligence, and resources for the operation of scientific
'Furnace Modules'. At present, two such infrastructure modules
are being developed:
The two infrastructure modules are presented schematically in Figures 6 (US Lab-based configuration) and 7 (COF-based configuration). There is a high degree of commonality between the two facilities and a kernel composed of gas, power, vacuum and 'furnace modules' has therefore been defined to minimise development costs.
Figure 6. The Material Science Laboratory in COF configuration
Figure 7. The Material Science Laboratory Development Logic
The operational flexibility demanded by the science comes in at the level of the 'furnace modules', each of which is characterised by a specific heater arrangement with dedicated thermal performance. They are therefore being designed with a specific group of scientific experiments in mind. However, the utilisation of any such module is not restricted to the 'target' science, but they are open to any scientist who can make use of their specific performances.
The development logic of the Material Science Laboratory is presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Typical furnace cartridge (AGHF facility)
Two furnace modules are under detailed study under the present MSL Phase-B contract:
Additional furnace modules could be developed by NASA or other national entities to meet other specific scientific requirements.
It is a key feature of the Materials Science Laboratory that all furnace modules can be integrated in orbit into either of the facility infrastructures. This capability is at the heart of the MSL modularity concept, since it enables the flight configuration to be reconfigured according to changing scientific requirements and programmatic constraints. For example, the LGF is currently being planned to be integrated into Facility 1 at launch, while the SQF is planned to reside in Facility 2. However, should the programmatic boundary conditions change, then this allocation could be reversed at relatively short notice, or both furnace modules could even be operated sequentially in either facility infrastructure. The maximum operating temperatures of both the LGF and SQF are set at 1600°C, with restricted operation above 1500°C. The temperature stability of the LGF heaters will be better than ±0.02 K, while for the SQF ±0.2 K is considered sufficient. Both furnaces are designed to achieve high radial uniformity of heating (less than 1 K effective temperature variation over the circumference), and the LGF additionally requires homogeneity of the 'central' heaters of better than 1K over 80% of the heater length.
The diameter of both the LGF and SQF heater cavities is set at 30 mm, and they vary in length from 250 mm (SQF) to 120 mm (LGF 'cold' cavity). For the SQF, the diameter of both the insulating zone and the liquid metal ring adapter can be varied to allow the processing of experiment cartridges with diameters down to 10 mm. This is necessary for the generation of large thermal gradients in highly-conducting materials. A typical experiment cartridge is shown in Figure 9 (AGHF cartridge). Diagnostics and stimuli are embedded in the facility infrastructures and are thus independent of the choice of furnace module. Typical diagnostics are the Seebeck Voltage Measurement and the Peltier element and thermocouples.
Figure 9. Breadboard used for the definition of Material
Science Laboratory servicing
MSL operation
The experiment cartridges will be loaded manually (by the
astronaut) into the MSL facility. The facility will then
perform automatic verification of the predefined experiment
processing parameters and of its own configuration. Experiment
processing will take place in a vacuum of better than 10-
4mbar. After positive verification, the facility will
introduce a holding time to enable the scientist and ground
crew to update the processing parameters if desired. After
this holding period, the processing and ground crew will
receive continuous (subject to ground-link coverage)
scientific data and information on the facility's health. If
so wished, the process can be modified on-line at any time
during processing. However, the facility will reject commands
which are incompatible with the current processing conditions
or would violate the allocated resources. The process will
terminate automatically and the facility will perform an
automatic final health check. If this is successful, the
facility will allow the processing chamber to be opened for
another manual sample exchange or for furnace reconfiguration
(e.g. exchange of LGF with SQF). After each experiment
processing, the process chamber is to be cooled down and
flushed with argon gas. The actual experiment run time can
vary between a matter of hours and several days.
Industrial organisation/status
The current Phase-B activities are being led by DASA
R-Dornier from Germany (Table 3 shows the Phase-B industrial
team for all MFC multi-user facilities). They will be
completed this Autumn, while the Phase-C/D for MSL in the US
Laboratory is planned to start by the end of 1997.
Challenges
One of the major challenges for the MSL lies in the
development of Facility 1 for cooperative utilisation with
NASA, since both NASA and ESA have furnace development
programmes in progress and the scientific objectives are very
similar. Also technically the coordination of facility
resources and interfaces in the new environment of the Space-
Station requires major efforts from both Partners.
New technical challenges arise from the long durations of facility operation on the Space Station which are unprecedented for microgravity payloads. This problem is particularly relevant for MSL due to the limited lifetime of most items exposed to high temperatures. The modular design of MSL is expected to dramatically improve its in-orbit servicing, and the technical feasibility of most servicing operations in a flight rack environment has been demonstrated. Figure 10 shows a breadboard used for the definition of servicing. However, much work remains to optimise the MSL design for both reliability and servicing and to demonstrate that both requirements combine to support safe and scientifically meaningful operation over the projected lifetime of the facility.
Figure 10. The Fluid Science Laboratory's design with its
experiment test container
Last but not least, the optimisation of MSL performance remains a continuous challenge. Thus technology development has been initiated to extend the upper temperature limit of the MSL furnaces to 1800°C. SQF is expected to be the first furnace to benefit from this. On the diagnostics front also, efforts are being made to advance and improve the maturity of the design. The current study to validate the performance of the Seebeck diagnostics for the LGF (i.e. for insight into the nature and dynamics of solidification processes), which CNES is conducting under ESA funding, is a prominent example of this.
Scientific objectives
Fluid-science experiments in space are designed to study
dynamic phenomena in the absence of gravitational forces.
Under microgravity conditions, such forces are virtually
eliminated, including their effects in fluid media (e.g.
gravity-driven convection, sedimentation and stratification,
and fluid static pressure). This allows one to study fluid
dynamic effects that are normally masked by gravitation, e.g.
the diffusion-controlled (rather than convective-flow-
dominated) heat and mass transfer in crystallisation
processes; their absence resulting in reduced defect density.
The absence of gravity-driven convection eliminates the negative effects of density gradients (inhomogeneous mass distribution), which always arise on Earth in processes involving heat treatment, phase transitions, diffusive transport, or chemical reactions (i.e. convection in earthbound processes is perceived as a strong perturbing factor, the effects of which are seldom predictable with great accuracy and dominate heat and mass transfer in fluids).
The ability to control such processes is still limited; their full understanding requires further fundamental research by conducting well-defined model experiments for the testing and development of related theories under microgravity. This will allow the optimisation of manufacturing processes on Earth and improvement of the quality of such high-vlaue products as semiconductors.
ESA has already been involved in the study of fluid-science phenomena under microgravity conditions for several years, notably with the BDPU (Bubble, Drop, and Particle Unit) facility which has already been flown several times on Spacelab missions with important results. The Microgravity Advisory Committee has now recommended research priorities for the future scientific work to be carried out on the Space Station using the Fluid Science Laboratory, these being:
Two of the above-mentioned items are also relevant to the Material Science field (e.g. crystal growth, directional solidification), but the approach is different.
Facility description
The Fluid Science Laboratory (Fig. 11) is integrated into
an International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR) and will be
flown in the ESA COF as part of the initial COF payload
complement. The kernel of the Facility is made up of the
Optical Diagnostics Modules (ODM) and the Central Experiment
Module (CEM), into which the Experiment Test Containers (ETC)
are sequentially inserted and operated. Together, these
Modules represent the core of the experiment-dedicated
facility, which is complemented by the functional subsystems
for system and experiment control, power distribution,
environmental conditioning, and data processing and
management.
Figure 11. Comparison of FSL and BDPU experiment test
containers
In order to cope with the experiment observation requirements, the optical diagnostic equipment includes:
The design implements modularity by applying a drawer concept for all subsystems. This serves to facilitate in- flight reconfiguration of the system and the science protocols and supports scheduled maintenance as well as contingency activities. To this end, a Reference Test Container (RTC) is carried along as flight-support equipment providing reference functions, interfaces, and optical targets for calibration, interface re-verification, and potential trouble-shooting.
Facility operation
For each experiment or experiment category, an
individually
developed Experiment Test Container (ETC) will be used (the
provisional planning foresees only a limited number of ETCs
for the first FSL mission increment). Stored in the COF
Stowage Rack during non-operational phases, each ETC will be
manually inserted by the crew into the CEM drawer, where it
will undergo an experiment and diagnostics calibration cycle
prior to any process activation. Each ETC, with its standard
dimensions of 400 x 270 x 280 mm³, provides ample volume
for the accommodation of the actual fluid cell and the process
stimuli and control electronics (Fig. 12). It may additionally
be equipped with dedicated experiment diagnostics
complementary to the standard diagnostics provided within the
facility itself as described above.
Figure 12. The European Physiology Module's design
The control concept for system and experiment operation provides for alternative modes comprising fully autonomous experiment processing even during certain communication outage phases like regular LOS (Loss of Signal), semi-autonomous processing of defined experiment subroutines, and fully interactive step-by-step command keying. All operating modes can be activated either by the flight crew or from the ground, thus ensuring the possibility of quasi-real-time teleoperation ('telescience'). Typical experiment durations will vary between a few hours and a few days.
Industrial organisation/status
The currently running Phase-B, led by Alenia Spazio (I),
will be completed by the second half of 1997, with the
Phase-C/D planned to start in early 1998. Table 3 identifies
the industrial teams for the Phase-B of all MFC multi-user
facilities.
Challenges
Major challenges exist in the area of the diagnostics for
convertible interferometers, the combination of which
represents a new approach. Being highly susceptible to thermo-
mechanical dilatation, the alignment, alignment stability, and
active alignment control of the optical path between and
within the interferometers and the object cell within the
Experiment Test Container require thorough optical end-to-end
analysis and corresponding breadboarding for identification
and verification of adequate design solutions. The breadboard
foreseen in this respect comprises the whole facility core
element as shown in Figure 13. The science team will make use
of this breadboard to test different diagnostic techniques.
Figure 13. The Euromir-95 RMS-II experiment
Much attention is also being paid to the microgravity perturbation potential inherent in the secondary water cooling subsystem, to which the ETCs will be directly connected. This subsystem was introduced to provide a decoupling of the facility kernel control from the COF primary cooling loop, as its temperature variation and flow fluctuations might induce unacceptable perturbations for certain fluid-science experiments. The essential part of the secondary cooling loop will therefore be breadboarded, including the pumps and simulated valve switching, in order to determine the perturbation level to be expected and to test design solutions for corresponding suppression and damping.
Scientific objectives
Investigations of the effect of microgravity on the human
body have been conducted for many years and ESA in particular
has successfully flown related facilities on several Spacelab
missions (e.g. Sled, Anthrorack, etc). For the International
Space Station, the Agency's Microgravity Advisory Committee
has identified the following as being the priority research
areas:
These research fields have important applications back on Earth for the treatment of cardiovascular, respiratory and neurological diseases, as well as for diseases that primarily affect elderly people (e.g. bone decalcification). The European Physiology Modules (EPMs) facility to be launched inside the COF will support a broad selection of the above research.
Facility description
It is planned that the EPMs facility will incorporate
instruments from various programme sources, including the
Agency's EMIR-2 and national programmes in particular. A
preliminary list of candidate instruments to be considered for
incorporation within the EPMs facility has been compiled in
consultation with representatives of the respective agencies
of the Member States. A Facility Science Team, consisting of
representatives of the scientific user community, will be
established to follow the EPM facility's development from its
Phase-A onwards in order to advise the Agency on science-related matters connected with its development.
An important aspect of the EPMs facility design will be the adoption of a modular accommodation approach, allowing later exchanges of instruments and hence updating of the facility's capabilities (Fig. 12).
The preliminary list of potential candidate instruments includes the following :
Figure 14. The Euromir-95 BDM experiment
The BMAS design will be based on the use of commercial analytical instruments.
Facility operation
The astronauts will serve as both the test operators and
the test subjects, and this will often require two of them to
be involved at the same time. They will follow well-defined
procedures for each experiment and the principal investigators
on the ground will be able to view the data being generated,
allowing them to make changes in real-time. Typical experiment
durations will vary between a few days and a few months.
Industrial organisation/status
The Phase-A study for the EPM facility will be a
competitive tender action, with the Invitation to Tender (ITT)
to be released in the second half of 1997. The Phase-B design
effort will be initiated in 1998, while the full development
process will start only in 1999.
Challenges
The main challenge will be to select a homogeneous and
complementary set of instruments for the facility, trying to
avoid overlap with instrumentation being placed within the
Space Station by the other Space Station Partners.
In order to optimise facility design, the science teams, astronauts and user representatives will be involved in the development phases. Final acceptance of the FSL, Biolab, MSL and EPMs is planned to take place using the Rack Level Test Facility (RLTF), which will simulate all the COF interfaces. The MSL will be delivered to NASA for integration into the US Lab following its preliminary acceptance in Europe. The FSL, Biolab, MSL and EPMs will be integrated into the COF and launched with it.
The experiments to be executed in each laboratory will be selected on the basis of an Announcement of Opportunity which will be released in time to prepare the actual experiments (e.g. test containers for FSL and experiment Container for Biolab, cartridges for MSL, experiment procedures for the EPMs).
Figure 15 shows a scenario for the scientific operation of the multi-user facilities. Each laboratory is expected to be operated scientifically by a dedicated Facility Responsible Centre (FRC) that will serve as the interface between all of the users of these facilities and the appropriate payload control centre (eg. the COF or the US Lab). These FRCs will also prepare the timelining for the experiments and perform the first level of troubleshooting should problems occur during the facility's operation. The prime contractor for each facility will be available to support a second level of troubleshooting and provide sustaining engineering support.
Figure 15. Science Operations for Multi-User Facilities
Experiments may be executed from the User Home Bases (UHBs) which will primarily be universities and research centres, with overall coordination by the FRC. This decentralised payload processing is seen as the most efficient approach for Columbus Utilisation implementation.
Each mission increment will lasts three to six months and the selection of successive complements of experiments will follow a similar schedule. The equipment required to carry out the experiments selected will be uploaded by the Mini Pressurised Logistics Module (MPLM) launched by the Space Shuttle. The MPLM will be the standard logistic carrier in the Space Station era.
The Space Station will offer many unique capabilities for microgravity experiments, including long flight durations, good data-gathering capabilities (statistics), reconfigurability, telescience operation and automation capabilities. The last feature is particularly important given the restricted crew time available for carrying out the wealth of scientific experiments that are being planned.
ESA Bulletin Nr. 90.