master thesis project proposal

SPACE SAMPLE RETURN FACILITYMaster’s Project Proposal

This is a Master’s Project proposal for a new, high-level clean/ high containment state-of-the-art facility to receive exobiological samples from planetary missions.

There will be two aspects of the new facility that offer an architectural challenge:

- Designing a highly specialized containment lab while incorporating a large public viewing area .- Creating an iconic building that will be a symbol of national pride and prestige emanating its involvement in the future of space exploration.

Master’s Project Proposal by Darrell Westcott | University of Houston | Fall 2010

1

Table of Contents:

3 Introduction

7 Proposal Program

8-9 - The Program Dichotomy

10-11 - Preliminary Program

13 Site Analysis

18-21 - Site Photos

22 - Solar Studies

23 - Massing Studies

24-25 - Weather Data

28-33 Case Study 1- Galveston National Laboratory

34-39 Case Study 2- Lunar Receiving Laboratory & Lunar Sample Laboratory

40-47 Case Study 3- CosmoCaixa Science Museum

48-55 Case Study 4- San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

57 Proposal Bibliography

59-67 Research Paper

68 Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations

69 Research Bibliography

3

INTRODUCTION

5

NASA’s ambitious plans for solar system exploration in the coming decade, as well as the privatization of the space industry, will lead to an explosion in planetary exploration. NASA’s plans include a series of robotic missions to Mars to explore the planets geochemical, geophysical, and atmospheric features; to seek evidence for water either past or present; and eventually return samples of soil and rock to earth for further study.1 As these plans get closer to becoming reality, it is essential preparations are made to facilitate the unknown materials from our solar system with a focus on public education and considerations of potential cross contamination. According to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, all space exploration must be done in a way that avoids harmful contamination to celestial bodies or adverse changes in the environment of Earth from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter.2 Planetary samples returned to earth on future missions will be handled under strict biological containment with the possibility that they may contain life. In addition, the research to be done on the return samples requires that they be handled under extremely clean conditions to maximize their scientific value, especially to avoid false positives for the detection of life. Other reasons biocontainment and quarantine will be required will be to determine if the returned materials are harmful in any way to earth’s biota or ecosystems. Combining the two requirements (biological containment and extreme cleanliness) in a geological sample laboratory has never been done.

With the search for life in our solar system comes a fascination that will certainly keep the sample return facility under close scrutiny of the public. Being the only facility in the world where the public can view space samples, it will quickly become a destination for everyone who has ever dreamed about outer space. More than likely, the existence of extraterrestrial life will not be found during the planetary mission, but found in microorganisms brought back on the space samples. This facility is where humans will discover life on other planets. This offers the architectural challenge to design a highly specialized facility that has the ability to protect researchers, protect the sample, and offer the public an opportunity to view ‘things from outer space’. It will be a symbol and icon of space exploration in the 21st century.

The project site will be located on the border of Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center utilizing the potential for both public and private access points. Case studies will include speicalized laboratories and museums with a focus on phenomenology and museology.

1 Margaret S. Race, Mars Sample Return and Biocontainment, p.30.2 United Nations: 1967. Outer Space Treaty.

Introduction:

7

PROJECT PROGRAM

8

The Research:

- Much can be learned about how to handle extraterrestrial materials by analyzing containment approaches used by the biomedical and genetic engineering sectors. More specifically, the analysis of BSL4 Laboratories and Class 10 Clean Rooms. In addition, the conceptual and operational approaches used during the Apollo program to build the Lunar Receiving Laboratory and the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility are still applicable, albeit with considerable updating in technology.1 Although there were some problems in handling early samples from the moon, the quarantine facilities and testing protocols that were used ultimately accomplished their objective of safely containing and screening incoming materials to determine whether they could eventually be released.2

- At the sample receiving facility, exobiological sample containment can be accomplished with the combination of two levels: primary and secondary. The primary containment will house a Level 3 Biosafety Cabinet or Glovebox (p.39). The secondary containment should have High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration, personal showers, and waste water sterilization. The specific testing and analysis to be done on the samples have implications for biosafety as well, because they will affect the size of the laboratory, the type of equipment required inside and outside containment, and the number of personnel who will work with the samples directly or indirectly. These test protocols should include a wide variety of chemical analyses, geochemical characterizations, microscopy and biohazard challenge tests. Tissue culture and cell lines, as well as effective sterilization methods that can be used on the materials with the least impact on the samples or their scientific interpretation, will also be required.

- One of the largest programmatic aspects of the laboratory will be the support spaces. This will include two levels of interstitial space out side the containment barrier which will allow the maintenance of equipment within the containment barrier without entering the laboratory. Other essential support aspects will be focused on research personnel which will include training labs, conference rooms and offices.

1 Margaret S. Race, Mars Sample Return and Biocontainment, p.31.2 J.H.. Alton, Lessons Learned During Apollo Lunar Sample Quarantine and Sample Curation, 1998.

The program dichotomy: the facility can be thought of as two parts: research and exploration

Scientific Research + Experiential Exploration | Science + Meditation | Objectivity + Subjectivity

9

The Exploration:

A museum of science is a space devoted to providing stimuli, for any citizen whatsoever, in favour of scientific knowledge, scientific method and scientific opinion, which is achieved by firstly using reality (real objects and phenomena) in conversation with itself and with the visitors.1

- As a space devoted to knowledge and exploration, the sample facility will raise questions about what we don’t know, and contemplations about our future and what we could know tomorrow. The public portion of the Space Sample Return Facility will provide stimulation aimed at provoking deep thought and contemplation about the origins and the future of life. The success of the museum will weigh heavily on the combination of both physical and mental interactions positioned to move the patron through the space and engage in different parts of the facility telling a story, or teaching a lesson.

- There exists an interesting dynamic between the private laboratory space you are viewing and the public space from which you are viewing the private. The mental impact to a visitor the laboratory space will have is insurmountable because of the potential impact that laboratory might have in the future. Discoveries that are made in that specific lab will question everything we think we know about the existence of life. It is in this laboratory where, if life outside of our world exists, will be discovered. The emotional and psychological impact these findings will have on the entire planet cannot be measured. It will be these contemplations and more that each viewer will experience. The public portion should accommodate and invoke thought, meditation, and foster the opportunity for intellectual development.

- To create stimuli you will need support spaces that go beyond the objects themselves, but offer a platform for discussion and debate. Classrooms, lecture halls, and public spaces are essential to take the experience and form it into a discussion, and developmental concepts. A sense of surrealism and concepts too big for mental contemplation could occur in which case specific spaces should be used as anchors to bring the user into an environment they recognize and can relate. Only with this mental safe haven that triggers a sense of present tense reality will, those who are having difficulty understanding their own meditations, will some people be able to begin contemplation what they just experienced.

- The viewing areas are essential in not only teaching the general public about the current exploration, findings and the processes inherent in space exploration and sample return, but also to provide a sense of security to the public eye to minimize the negative public reaction of bringing unknown space samples back to earth. There will need to be a very visual and physical barrier between the research laboratory and public viewers so they will be free to their contemplations without the intrusion of fears that might arise with the unknown events associated with extraterrestrial samples coming to earth.

1 Terradas Architects, CosmoCaixa: The Total Museum Through Conversation Between Architects and Museologists, p.26.

10

Within the Containment Barrier:

Preliminary Exam Lab- 1800sf clean tools and equipment, verify cleanliness, final sterilization of sample

Bio Exam Lab- 1800sf examination of sample for any signs of life, final test to determine if sample can be released

Air Buffer Perimeter- 1000sfOuter Change/ Inner Change(2)- 2400sf male and female pass thru showers, high velocity air vestibules, and chemical showers

Receiving Vestibule- 225sfTransfer Vestibule(2)- 300sfSample Cleaning- 1040sfSample Receiving and Extraction- 500sfGamma Sterilizer- 150sfSample Vault- 400sfPreliminary Exam Storage- 520sfStatus Control- 280sfBio-Pack Decon- 200sfBio Exam Lab Storage- 850sfBio Exam Lab Support- 1080sf

Within Security Perimeter

Receiving Dock- 1000sfLoading Dock- 1000sfEquipment Yard- 2000sfMonitoring Lab (2)- 1840SFTraining Lab- 1600sfStaff Restrooms- 800sfCubicles (25)- 1600sfOffices (25)- 3600sfConference Rooms (3)- 1800sfData Center- 1040sfClean Storage- 900sfMechanical Room- 2000sfElectrical Room- 500sfInterstitial Support Spaces- 20000sfSecurity Booth 500sfPrivate Parking (100 spaces)- 30000SF

- The laboratory portion will have 40 permanent staff members, a number of support staff, and visiting scientists.

BUILDING TOTAL (private):52,725SFOVERALL TOTAL: 82,725SF

Preliminary Program:

11

Outside the Security Perimeter:

Visitor Viewing- 3000sfVisitor Restrooms- 1000sfGift Shop- 2000sfLibrary- 3000sfCafé- 2500sfExhibition Space- 15000sfAuditorium- 4000sfClassrooms- 1000sfOffices- 2500sfLobby- 2000sfSecurity Booth- 500sfParking (200 spaces)- 50000sf

BUILDING TOTAL (public): 36,500SFOVERALL TOTAL: 86,500SF

* The public portion of the facility will have a normal stream of visitors common to small/ medium sized museums. Spaces will range from single access to overall access providing the visitor with many different opportunities to learn and discover..

Preliminary Building Overall Square Footage: 90,000 sf

Preliminary Program:

The building program and architecture will keep public safety its highest priority by implementing strategies in case of natural disaster, terrorist attack and security breach. Levels of containment must be established to limit access between visitor and the secure laboratory environment.

Different Levels of Containment

Public Interaction

Public Viewing

Security Barrier

Containment Barrier

Clean Room

13

SITE ANALYSIS

14

Location:

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA ParkwayHouston, TX, 77586

This site is located on the boundary edge of Johnson Space Center adjacent to the existing Lunar Sample Laboratory. The location of the site, on the Johnson Space Center perimeter makes it ideal to accommodate both a public and private program.

SITE

Johnson Space Center

nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

Johnson Space Center currently requires: - LEED silver rating or higher for all new construction projects.

Currently there are no underground utilities or waste water passageways located within the site boundary.

Johnson Space Center History:Johnson Space Center (JSC) was established in 1961 as the Manned Spacecraft Center and, in 1973, renamed in honor of the late President and Texas native, Lyndon B. Johnson. JSC contin-ues to lead NASA’s efforts in human space exploration. The JSC civil service workforce consists of about 3,000 employees, the majority of whom are professional engineers and scientists. Of these, approximately 110 of these are astronauts. About 50 companies provide contractor personnel to JSC. More than 12,000 contractors work onsite or in nearby office buildings.

15

Lunar Sample Laboratory

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

CommercialResidentialJohnson Space Center

hotelSITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

Site Dimensions Surrounding Land UseSite Area: 2.5 million sf

Lunar Sample Laboratory adjacency Right-Of-Ways, Building Setbacks and Waterways

right-of-way

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

setback

waterway/ easement

1865’-0”

2196

’-0”

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

16

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

SITE


nasa parkway

5th street

avenue b

Traffic Volume and Direction

Major Vegetation

Contour and Drainage Patterns

Potential Access Locations

17

Existing Buildings

100 year and 500 year Flood Plain

Land Parcel Division

18

5.4.

3.2.

1.

1.

2.

Views to the Site

19

3.

4.

5.

20

5.4.

3.2.

1.

Views from the Site

1.

2.

21

5.

3.

4.

22

Solar Study: Summer Solstice

Solar Study: Winter Solstice

N

N

23

program space90,000 sf

200’-0” blast radiuspublic parking

private parking

Building Area Mass and relationship to site

Massing Studies

24

1 0 k m/ h

20 k m/ h

30 k m/ h

40 k m/ h

50 k m/ h h rs334+3002672332001 671 331 0066

<33

W ind Fre que nc y (H rs)

1 0 k m/ h

20 k m/ h

30 k m/ h

40 k m/ h

50 k m/ h °C45+40353025201 51 05

<0

Av e rage W ind T e mpe ra tu re s

1 0 k m/ h

20 k m/ h

30 k m/ h

40 k m/ h

50 k m/ h %95+857565554535251 5<5

Av e rage R e la tiv e H umid ity

1 0 k m/ h

20 k m/ h

30 k m/ h

40 k m/ h

50 k m/ h mm391 .0+351 .931 2.8273.7234.61 95.51 56.41 1 7.378.2

<39.1

Av e rage R a in fa ll (mm)

Wind Data Comparison

Location: Houston Ellington AFB, Clear Lake, USA (29.6°, -95.1°)Date: 1st January - 30th DecemberTime: 00:00 - 24:00

25

LEGEND

Temperature

Rel.Humidity

Direct Solar

Diffuse Solar

Wind Speed Cloud Cover

Comfort: Thermal Neutrality

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-10 0.0k

0 0.2k

10 0.4k

20 0.6k

30 0.8k

40 1.0k

°C W/ m²MONTHLY DIURNAL AVERAGES - Houston Ellington Afb Clear L, USA

Average Temperature (°C) W k

H r

° C

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

48

1 21 6

2 02 4

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

W k

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2 Relative Humidity (%) W k

H r

%

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

48

1 21 6

2 02 4

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

W k

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

Direct Solar Radiation (W/ m²) W k

H r

W / m ²

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

48

1 21 6

2 02 4

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 0 0 0

W k

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2Diffuse Solar Radiation (W/ m²) W k

H r

W / m ²

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

48

1 21 6

2 02 4

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 0 0 0

W k

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

Average Wind Speed (km/ h) W k

H r

k m / h

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

48

1 21 6

2 02 4

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

W k

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2 Average Cloud Cover (%) W k

H r

%

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

48

1 21 6

2 02 4

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

W k

48

1 21 6 2 0

2 42 8

3 23 6

4 04 4

4 85 2

Monthly Diurnal Averages

Weekly Data Comparison

27

CASE STUDIES

28

Most Secure Laboratory on EarthGalveston National Laboratory: Galveston, Texas

Project: Galveston National LaboratorySquare Footage: 194,000Project Completion: October 2008Architect: Perkins+Will

The Galveston National Laboratory (GNL) is one of only two such facilities funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that will serves as part of a national biodefense network.

This state-of-the-art biocontainment research facility provides much-needed laboratory space for researchers from around the United States. Work inside the facility focuses on developing therapies, vaccines and diagnostic tests for microbes that might be used by bioterrorists, as well as on naturally occurring emerging infections such as SARS and West Nile virus. GNL includes Biological Safety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratories, as well as supporting BSL-3, BSL-2 laboratories and BSL-4, BSL- 3, and BSL-2 animal laboratories. The 194,000 square foot facility is adjacent to and connected with the existing Keiller Building and BSL-4 laboratory addition completed in late 2003. The highly complex facility is supported by redundant mechanical, electrical and waste treatment systems in addition to a comprehensive security system.

Containment of space materials must be designed to protect those working with samples, as well the earth’s biota and ecosystems. With this main objective, using the successful methods currently in operation at GNL will ensure the best environment to study exobiological samples. The mineral separations, chemical treatments, and instrumental sensitivities required for key geochronological, chemical and biological measurements make remotely operated instruments impractical and point to earth-based analyses as best means for meeting the stated objectives for exobiological sample analyses. Measurements made in situ should be used to supplement rather than replace analyses performed in laboratories on earth.

It has been abundantly demonstrated with meteorites and lunar rocks that planetary samples remain fertile sources of new information that are limited only by the sensitivity and power of the analytical tools that are applied to them. In addition, laboratory analyses of samples permit the greatest possible flexibility in responding to unanticipated properties. Unlike automated instruments of fixed design, laboratory analyses can use preliminary results to guide the re-design of experiments in order to achieve analyses of the highest possible precision and accuracy.

Drawings from Perkins+Will, Houston. Images courtesy of University of Texas Medical Branch.

Case Study 1:

29

The exact protocols for studying and analyzing returned samples have not yet been developed, although a conceptual approach and recommended types of tests have been identifies. Findings from the comprehensive sample analyses will ultimately be used to determine whether materials can be released from containment for distribution to researches elsewhere, or whether they warrant continued containment. Multiple lines of investigation will be required to determine whether any living entities or parts of putative organisms from space are contained in returned materials. Test protocols should include a wide variety of chemical analyses,

geochemical characterizations, microscopy and biohazard tests.1

1 Margaret S. Race, Mars Sample Return and Biocontainment, p.32.

30

Proposed New Addition

Exis ting Ke ille r Building& BSL-4 Facility

SERVICE

SERVICE

LEGEND

OPERABLE VEHICLE SECURITY BOLLARDS ORWEDGE BARRIER

VEHICLE SECURITY PLANTER BOLLARDS

ORNAMENTAL METAL SECURITY FENCE

SECURITY BOOTH WITH TRAFFIC CONTROL GATES

SLIDING SECURITY GATE

HARDENED FACADE

GNL

Exis ting Ke ille r Building& BSL-4 Facility

GNL has made many provisions for public safety including: 200 ft blast radius to stop vehicles from getting too close to the laboratory, the building utilizes blast resistant materials and the laboratories are located above the flood plain.

31

4SCALE: 0 32 FT.168

4SCALE: 0 32 FT.168

BSL-4

BSL-4 Animal

Existing BSL-4

LEGEND:

BSL-4 LabsBSL-4 AnimalBSL-4/3 Clinica lBSL-3 AnimalBSL-3 LabsBSL-2 LabsAnimal SupportOffice / Office SupportLunch RoomConfe rence RoomStorageBuilding Support / LoadingBuilding Entry

LEGEND:


LEVEL 1Receiving

Effluent TreatmentAnimal Support

BSL-2 (3) LaboratoriesLaboratory Support

LEVEL 2BSL-4 Laboratories

BSL-4 Animal LaboratoriesBSL-3 Clinical

32

4SCALE: 0 32 FT.168

4SCALE: 0 32 FT.168

LEGEND:


LEGEND:


LEVEL 3HVAC HEPA Filter

LEVEL 5Typical BSL-3 & BSL-2 LaboratoriesLaboratory Support

33

Photos Courtesy of: University of Texas Medical Branch

LEGEND:


34

Earth’s Lunar Receiving FacilityLyndon B. Johnson Space Center: Houston, Texas

Project: Lunar Receiving Laboratory and Lunar Sample LaboratorySquare Footage: 86,000 and 14,000Project Completion: 1967 and 1979Architect: LRL Program Office Committee

Forty-one years ago, rocks from the Moon were delivered to a laboratory in Houston that was a marked contrast to the methodical, almost serene laboratory in which the Moon rocks are curated today.

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory had four stated functions: 1) distribution of samples to the scientific community, 2) perform time-critical sample measurements, 3) permanently store under vacuum a portion of each sample, and 4) quarantine testing of samples, spacecraft and astronauts.1

Today, the functions of Lunar Sample Laboratory are: 1) keep the samples pure, 2) preserve accurate historical information about the samples, 3) examine and classify samples, 4) publish information about newly-available samples, and 5) prepare and distribute samples for research and education.2

Lunar Receiving FacilityAs early as 1959, the Working Group on Lunar Exploration within NASA advocated that “one of the prime objectives of the first

lunar landing mission should be the collection of samples for return to Earth, where they could be subjected to detailed study and analysis.” Within NASA, neither this group nor any other scientists were concerned about back contamination issues. At this stage, NASA scientists did not recommend a specific type of facility to handle lunar samples either, as they were focused on more general goals, namely with making sure that the space program contained significant and explicit scientific goals. In this case, the objective was to collect Moon rocks, not how NASA scientists would process these samples once they arrived on Earth.3

Scientists knew too little about the Moon and the vast universe beyond Earth during the 1960s to risk potentially destroying the world as they knew it. Even today, as the United States and other countries plan to collect samples from planets and other extraterrestrial bodies far beyond the Earth, there is a need to learn the lessons of the Lunar Receiving Facility and be prepared to both protect the Earth from unknown threats and safeguard the scientific value of future samples.4

Lunar Sample FacilityBuilding 31N at Johnson Space Center was constructed from 1977 to 1979 and opened in 1979 to provide for permanent

storage of the lunar sample collection in a physically secure and non-contaminating environment. The purpose of the facility is to maintain in pristine condition the lunar samples that comprise a priceless national and scientific resource while making the samples available to approved scientists and educators.

The facility features storage vaults that stand elevated above anticipated storm-surge sea level heights to protect the samples from threats posed by hurricanes and tornadoes. All materials used in constructing and equipping the building (including floor coverings, walls, plumbing, light fixtures, and paint) were carefully screened to exclude chemical elements that would pose unacceptable contamination threats to the lunar samples.

Preparation of samples for shipment to authorized recipients is conducted in stainless steel environmental cabinets purged by high-purity nitrogen that is continuously monitored for oxygen and moisture contents. The facility also includes rooms to support sample examinations and experiments by visiting scientists. More than 60 research laboratories around the world actively pursue studies of the samples and approximately 400 samples are prepared and sent to investigators each year. Samples that are not consumed in analysis are retrieved by NASA as “returned” samples that are recycled to other users as appropriate.

1 J.C. McLane, Jr.: Lunar Receiving Laboratory, et. al. 1967.2 Office of the Curator, et. al. 1992.3 Susan Mangus: Lunar Receiving Laboratory Project History, p.3.4 Mangus, p.56.

Case Study 2:

35

First lunar samples arriving at Lunar Receiving Facility

Lunar Receiving Facility

36

Transportation to and from Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Lunar Receiving Laboratory program adjacencies

37

Lunar Receiving Laboratory sample operations area

Images and drawings from: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lun-fac.cfm

38

Inside Sample Receiving Laboratory

39

Class III Bio-Safety Cabinet (BSC) or Glovebox

40

A Study in MuseologyCosmoCaixa- Science Museum: Barcelona, Spain

Project: Cosmo Caixa Science MuseumSquare Footage: 440,000Project Completion: 2005Architect: Terradas Architects

One of the largest museums in Spain (at 30,000 m2 ), Cosmo Caixa is a hands-on museum with many different scientific disciplines explained didactically and interactively. Cosmo Caixa is an innovative center of scientific education calling for a joint collaboration between architecture and museology.

The site, located in the upper part of Barcelona with views of the sea, the city and Montjuic, lent itself to putting underground a large part of the expansion of the CosmoCaixa Science Museum, with the aim of creating a new urban landscape. The historical memory of the place was preserved and the city was enriched with a new park, the theme of which would be science.

The program required enlarging the constructed area of the museum by more than 45,000 square meters, of which the

main foyer and cafe-restaurant would account for 4,000; temporary and permanent exhibitions for 6,500; classrooms, workshops and planetarium for 3,000; the 350-seat auditorium and agora for 1,500; internal services for 3,000; offices for 2,000; and laboratories, archives and storage for more than 1,000. The facility was completed with 2,000 square meters of logistic space and another 7,000 square meters of parking.

Not only did the project conserve the modernista building in its entirety, but it also sought to enhance those parts which the previous museology had, in a certain manner, hidden. This building houses the management, the administration, the study areas and the library. The basement, with its cross vaults, has been restored and turned into a cafe and restaurant. Situated on a main thoroughfare, the Modernista building still acts as the first entrance to the museum; it is only after crossing it that one gets a glimpse of the extent of the intervention.

Given the depth of the exhibition hall, it became essential to provide the means for the introduction of natural light which would both orient visitors on their way around the museum and produce changing shades, altering, over the course of the day, the perception of space. The problem was solved with the design of two long crack-like skylights arranged in parallel, one of which forms part of the paving of the square above.

Foreseeing that views of the ongoing activity inside the museum would raise the interest of passers-by on the Science Square, several vantage points were included from which people on the outside could look down into the exhibition hall: a set of footbridges, the skylight-cracks and a viewing deck next to the cafe. The square can also be accessed from the lower street by means of zigzagging footpaths up an artificial hill which recreates a Mediterranean woodland.

Building images and drawings from: Terradas Architects: CosmoCaixa: The Total Museum Through a Conversation Between Architects and Museologists.

Case Study 3:

41

The square, which can either be the start or the finish of the route through science, summarizes the entire project: in a glance, the Modernista building, the foyer building, the skylights and the emergent Amazon forest synthesize, in a series of transparencies, the fusion between science and man.

42

A glazed concourse connects the Modernista building to the elevated foyer building, a slender, horizontal parallelepiped volume, designed as a visual counterpoint to the powerful, upright volume of the old building. The space sits on slender posts, such that it appears to float over the square and houses the museum shop and controlled entrance. From here, visitors can access the large exhibition hall by escalator, or ramp that surrounds the Vertical City, also known as the Tree of Life, so called because, in it, the museum seeks to explain some of the habitats of the Amazon forest.

47

By digging into the hillside to house the spacious exhibition hall, the roof would provide a surface for a park (or square) where, unlike traditional parks in which the vegetation generally plays a predominant role, science would preside over the intervention providing citizen with ‘hints’, ‘citations’ and ‘elements’ associated with the different branches of science. Using transparency as a design tool, made possible the succession of lines of vision, allowing visitors to see from any place in the museum what the next place held for them. This transparency also seeks to express the idea of science which is intended to underline the entire range of exhibitions: a clear, transparent science, one which strives to find an explanation for everything and which constantly questions its own premises.

48

Museum SpiritualitySan Francisco Museum of Modern Art: San Francisco, California

Project: San Francisco Museum of Modern ArtSquare Footage: 220,000Project Completion: 1995Architect: Mario Botta

Regarded as the Cathedral for Modern Art, Mario Botta describes museums as a modern day temple, a gathering place where people seek grace. The design focus was based on the interaction and experience people have when exploring the spaces within. The building successfully creates an experience analogous to the cathedrals of yesterday.

In a space that could one day shatter some of the preconceptions of our world and our place in the universe, you must provide an environment that promotes meditation and enables an individual to experience thoughts a feelings deep within as they contemplate the origins of life and the future of the universe. It must be a place where people gather to seek grace.

The San Francisco Modern Art Museum (SFMOMA) is not only perfectly symmetrical but it conforms to a volumetric hierarchy, with the highest point at the center, then falling away towards the sides. The building can be considered akin to an ancient temple, Mayan pyramid, or Mesopotamian ziggurat. The central large atrium solved the problem of visitors having a clear understanding of the layout of exhibition rooms. This central atrium interconnects all the rooms, enabling visitors to orient themselves and choose the rooms they wish to visit. The logic behind the modest entry is evident as one passes through the doorways into the grand volume of the atrium, bathed in a wave of daylight pouring through the circular skylight, at one hundred thirty-five feet, the highest point of the museum.

The lot for the museum has an area of 60,000 square feet while the total built-up surface is 220,000 square feet. In addition to the exhibition rooms, it comprises a 200-seat auditorium, multiple-use event spaces, library, book store, workshops, conservation areas, offices, and a cafeteria.

Although the building has six floors, Botta has achieved one of his original goals: to illuminate most of the rooms with natural top-lighting. This was made possible by using a ‘staggered’ design. On the ground floor are all the independent areas, such as the bookshop, cafeteria, temporary exhibition area, and main hall. The exhibition rooms are situated on the upper floors. Botta uses this staggered structure, from the main facade back to the rear, to situate the rooms only at the sides that have no upper floor, leaving the rest for the offices or conversation rooms. Thus, the exhibition areas form a staircase and the lower volumes are taken up with the remaining facilities.

The interior gestures Botta uses causes visitors to look skyward towards the heavens, and maybe contemplate the outside world and beyond. It is a church that celebrates the creative human endeavor, a transcendent building that succeeds in attaining a kind of spiritual truth through the powerful grace of its architecture.

Images and drawings from Francisco Carver, Architecture of Museums.

Case Study 4:

51

“In today’s city, the museum plays a role analogous to that of the cathedral of yesterday, a place we require in order to challenge the hopes and contradictions of our times. In fact, it might be possible to interpret the museum as a space dedicated to witnessing and searching for a new religiosity, which promotes and enriches those spiritual values that we so strongly need.” – Mario Botta

53

Unlike most modern museums, the vast majority of which are built on the outskirts of cities, the SFMOMA is situated in a city center. Botta explained that the densely built-up surroundings led him to design a large atrium.

54

First Floor Fourth Floor

Second Floor Fifth Floor

Third Floor

57

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

(1992) Office of the Curator, NASA/JSC, brochure published by Manager, Office of the Curator, code SN2, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058.

Allton, J.H., Bagby, J.R., Jr. and Stabehis, P.D., 1998. Lessons Learned During Apollo Lunar Sample Quarantine and Sample Curation. In Press. Advances in Space Research

B2HK-Smith Carter; CCRD Partners (2000, May) Planetary Receiving Facility Feasibility Study, Houston, TX: unpublished contractor report for NASA-Johnson Space Center.

Carter, Kent Moon Rocks and Moon Germs: A History of NASA’s Lunar Receiving Laboratory, in Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration 33 (Winter 2001): 234-250.

Cerver, Francisco Asensio, The Architecture of Museums. New York: Arco, 1997.

Cohen, Marc M., (2001). Astrobiology Sample Analysis as a Design Driver, Science and Human Exploration Workshop, January 11-12, 2001, NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1089/ cohen.pdf

Cohen, Marc M. (2000, July 10-13). Design Development Strategy for the Mars Surface Astrobiological Laboratory, SAE 2000-1- 2344, Toulouse, France, 30th .ICES.

Cohen, Marc M. (2002 July). Mission Architecture Considerations for Mars Returned Sample Handling Facilities (SAE 2002-01-2469). 32nd International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), San Antonio, Texas, USA, 15-18 July 2002. Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers. PDF

Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), Space Studies Board, National Research Council (2002). The Quarantine and Certification of Mars Samples, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075718/html/ index.html.

Mangus, Susan and William Larson (2004 June). Lunar Receiving Laboratory Project History (NASA/CR–2004–208938).

McLane J. C. Jr., King E. A., Flory D. A., Richardson K. A., Dawson J. P., Kemmerer W. W., and Wooley B. C. (1967) Lunar Receiving Laboratory, in Science, v. 155, No. 3762, pp. 525-529.

Race, Margaret S., (1998). Mars Sample Return and Biocontainment, Journal of the American Biological Safety Association, 3(1) pp. 30-32.

Space Studies Board, 1997. Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. United Nations: 1967. Outer Space Treaty. U.N. Doc. A/RES/222(XXI); TIAS No. 6347, NY.

Terradas Architects, CosmoCaixa: The Total Museum Through Conversation Between Architects and Museologists. Barcelona: Sacyr, 2006.

United Nations: 1967. Outer Space Treaty. U.N. Doc. A/RES/222(XXI); TIAS No. 6347, NY.

59

RESEARCH PAPER

61

The world’s Space Science Community is on the verge of a Golden Age of Space Sample Return. In an era of constrained budgets for human spaceflight, sample return will be the next great step in space exploration. Many countries and agencies are now planning to send spacecraft to other space bodies and returning samples that could contain biota. Within the next decade we could see a dozen or more nations joining the Great Solar System Exploration of the 21st century. Many of these missions will seek to return samples from small bodies and planets as a point of national pride and prestige. A sample return facility that offers a contained environment to study the samples as well as an environment to learn must be addressed. The challenges will be to symbolize a new era of space exploration while providing a state-of-the-art environment for the viewing and study of newly returned samples back to earth.

Planetary samples returned to earth on future missions will be handled under strict biological containment with the understanding the samples might contain life. In addition, the return samples must be handled under extremely clean conditions to maximize their scientific value. Combining the two requirements (biological containment and extreme cleanliness) in a geological sample laboratory has never been done.

Given the research nature of this facility, it will be here, not in space, where we will discover extraterrestrial life. Most might view this facility as close to a sacred space, where they can experience the curiosity and fascination as we try to answer the question: What lies beyond the earths atmosphere? It will be the environment where society will be able to interact with the up and coming Golden Age of Space Exploration.

This research will take a closer look at three separate attributes that will affect the experience of the Space Sample Return Facility: laboratory design, museology, and phenomenology.

Introduction:

62

Much can be learned about how to handle extraterrestrial materials by analyzing existing containment approaches used by the biomedical engineering sectors. Much like the current biocontainment laboratories today, the containment of space materials must be designed to protect those working with samples, as well the earth’s biota and ecosystems.

The mineral separations, chemical treatments, and instrumental sensitivities required for key geochronological, chemical and biological measurements make remotely operated instruments impractical and point to earth-based analyses as best means for meeting the stated objectives. There are a myriad of variables involved if samples were analyzed in an unknown environment like outer space. Not having the capacity for unlimited space or personnel to assist in unknown situations that might arise with these unknown substances, it is only practical to return space samples back to earth. Measurements made in situ should be used to supplement rather than replace analyses performed in laboratories on earth.

It has been abundantly demonstrated with meteorites and lunar rocks that planetary samples remain fertile sources of new information that are limited only by the sensitivity and power of the analytical tools that are applied to them. In addition, laboratory analyses of samples permit the greatest possible flexibility in responding to unanticipated properties. Unlike automated instruments of fixed design, laboratory analyses can use preliminary results to guide the re-design of experiments in order to achieve analyses of the highest possible precision and accuracy.

The exact protocols for studying and analyzing returned samples have not yet been developed, although a conceptual approach and recommended types of tests have been identified. Analytical and testing requirements have implications for biosafety and containment because they will affect the size of the laboratory and type of equipment required within the quarantine area, as well as the types and numbers of personnel who will work on the sample. Findings from the comprehensive sample analyses will ultimately be used to determine whether materials can be released from containment for distribution to researches elsewhere, or whether they warrant continued containment. Multiple lines of investigation will be required to determine whether any living entities or parts of putative organisms from space are contained in returned materials. Test protocols should include a wide variety of chemical analyses, geochemical characterizations, microscopy, and biohazard tests.

Containment environments are used to manage infectious materials in the laboratory environment. The purpose of containment is to reduce or eliminate exposure of laboratory workers, other persons, and the outside environment to potentially hazardous agents. Primary containment, the protection of personnel and the immediate laboratory environment from exposure to infectious agents, is provided by both good microbiological technique and the use of appropriate safety equipment. Secondary containment, the protection of the environment external to the laboratory from exposure to infectious materials, is provided by a combination of facility design and operational practices. Therefore, the three (3) elements of containment include: laboratory practice and technique, safety equipment, and facility design. In addition to conventional techniques used for containment laboratory design and operations, the Space Sample Return Facility will incorporate criteria for a clean processing environment to protect the returned planetary samples.

Laboratory:

63

This additional criterion will be met utilizing a Class 10 Clean Room environment housed within the containment area where samples will be manipulated inside contained nitrogen gloveboxes (Page 39). The Space Sample Return Facility will be an invaluable, national scientific resource. As a result, the planetary samples must be stored and scientifically manipulated in such a manner that the state of preservation would not be compromised or degraded.

The first element of protection will be based on gaseous contaminants. Atmospheric gases, especially oxygen and water, react with planetary sample materials to form various products that degrade the samples and produce mineralogical and compositional characteristics not inherent to their place of origin, thereby compromising research. To accomplish this level of containment, the samples must be sealed in leak-tight containers. The first line of protection will be a series of stainless-steel cabinets that will be continuously flushed with a positive pressure of high-purity nitrogen gas. These cabinets will be housed in a clean room environment within the containment area. The second stage of protection will be based on particulate contamination. If chemical contaminants from earth are incorporated unknowingly into a planetary sample, the terrestrial materials could badly confuse analytical results. The steps necessary to preclude particulate contamination are: multiple sealing in specially cleaned containers, control of the materials brought into the proximity of the samples, proper procedures in cleaning equipment and handling samples, proper housekeeping capabilities and procedures for the vaults. In normal planetary sample handling operations, samples will be exposed only to stainless steel and Teflon. It is required that the inside of the laboratory should, as far as possible, be of the same two materials, to preclude even the possibility of multiple-stage transfer of foreign particles. During operations, the containment area must be protected from ambient conditions to prevent environmental dust and terrestrial organisms from entering the facility. Entering suited workers will be required to undergo a chemical shower, a water rinse, and an air shower dry. Exiting the lab, suited workers will go through the same chemical shower/rinse to remove particulates that might have contaminated the exterior surfaces of the suits in the containment laboratory.

The dead mode of operation is utilized to protect against catastrophic occurrence. In this mode the containment facility self-seals from the outside world. Under such circumstances the multiple levels of containment provided would limit the rate of degradation inside the cabinets. All systems should be suitably designed to seal tightly, and the containment “envelope” should provide sufficient structural integrity to allow thermal stability for a reasonable time period during dead mode operation. All materials, finishes, and equipment must be reliable and long-lived so as not to subject the samples to hazards by their failure. Support spaces for the high containment laboratory portion will need to also have the capability to operate under dead mode of operation. Given the frequency of air exchange rates, and mechanical support systems for the many different types of equipment, the mechanical interstitial space to provide support for the laboratory will be almost twice as large as the laboratory itself. To protect the laboratory itself from outside containment, all mechanical systems must have the ability to be maintained without entering into the lab itself.

The laboratory portion of the Space Sample Return Facility will be required to have the highest level of biocontainment known to man, as well as a clean room environment, these two requirements in a single laboratory environment will be the first of its kind. The containment and clean room aspects are essential for protecting the biosphere and protecting the integrity of the space samples.

64

A museum is a space devoted to knowledge. A museum of science is a space devoted to providing stimuli, for any citizen whatsoever, in favor of scientific knowledge, scientific method and scientific opinion. Using reality (real objects and phenomena) in conversation with itself and with the visitors is how science can achieve stimuli.1

Museology invokes the separation of mind and matter. It offers a dynamic experience involving the creative-knowledge and the object knowledge, the subjective and the objective. The visitor will view the object and experience the stimuli that object invokes. This stimuli is what creates the phenomena, or subjective contemplation. In the Space Sample Return Facility, the laboratory and the objects being studied within are the objects that will create stimuli. The phenomenon to follow will, at the very least, be a rumination of the origins of life.

When a visitor views an object from outer space, before it is studied, it is only a rock from outer space; an object that invokes nothing phenomenal except proving there are other rocks in the solar system. When that simple rock from outer space is placed in a research environment with the capability of proving that it is actually home to a complex extraterrestrial microorganism, the experience is immediately changed. With this anticipation ever-present, the viewing area is now a platform for the interaction between object and phenomenon, object knowledge and creative knowledge, objectivity and subjectivity.

The main function of a museum is to provide a stimulating experience that, if successful, will change your life. The impact of a single experience in a museum can change the way you think and feel. Having more questions than you had before experiencing the museum is a sign the experience was successful. The museum can be used as a tool for social change. A museum that accepts the provision of stimuli for the visitor as a first priority focuses its undertaking on creating a difference between the before and after of a visit.

Furthering scientific opinion is another important aspect the museum must offer its visitors. This is achieved through the credibility and prestige its exhibitions give to the rest of the activities undertaken in the museum: lectures, debates, seminars, congresses and classes.2

In order for a museum to also be successful it must have both manual interaction and mental interaction. The first sort of scientific emotion is based on experience. The visitor is an active element in the exhibition, he uses his hands to provoke nature and contemplates with emotion the way in which nature responds. In mental interaction, the visitor’s mind undergoes a clear change between the before and the after. The mind comes up against some challenge which causes it trouble. To have something to resolve, to hit upon a new analogy, to detect a paradox or contradiction, to glimpse a new idea, to suffer the assault of a new suspicion, to register a new datum, to plan a new experience- all this will trigger activity between the mind and reality by way of reflection.

1 Terradas Architects, CosmoCaixa: The Total Museum Through a Conversation Between Architects and Museologists, p.98.2 Terradas Architects, p.98.

Museology:

65

The museum is a collective space (although it may be enjoyed individually) and defines a hierarchy of values in the museum spaces by the number of visitors who can have access to it simultaneously:1

Level 1: all visitors have accessLevel 2: groups or families have accessLevel 3: single visitor access

By using this hierarchy, different spaces are created that invoke different experiences. The encounters that take place as people physically share a single space depend on spatial volume design characteristics. The single space invokes reflection, group spaces invoke conversation and all access spaces create the informal gathering.

Informal gatherings create individual conversations which foment individual reflection.

1 Terradas Architects, p.102.

66

Phenomenology:

“Sacred space constitutes itself following a rupture of the levels which make possible the communication with the trans-world, transcendent realities. Whence the enormous importance of sacred space in the life of all peoples: because it is such a space that man is able to communicate with the other world, the world of divine beings or ancestors.”1

Phenomenology is a 100-year-old European philosophical tradition that from its founding promoted the inclusion of subjective experiences into the objective sciences. This greatly pertains to a facility where extraterrestrial life might be found to exist. The impact this finding would have on the human psyche is greatly significant when designing the spatial experience and environment in which people will accept the fact they are not alone in this universe. Phenomenology’s assertion that subjective experience can be objectively applied in philosophical inquiry is pertinent to any discussion regarding the sensory experience of architecture, especially when that architecture will be the vessel in which life changing discoveries will be made.

The space from which you will experience phenomenology must have the ability to take the visitor out of the everyday. Through a choreography of space and sequence, light and shadow, the visitor must be brought from the present, and prepared for connections outside themselves.

In a setting in which our objective science will be turned upside-down by the discovery of extraterrestrial life, is it not fitting to have that environment designed such a way that you have the ability to subjectively experience that discovery? Having an objective science laboratory viewed from a space that offers subjective experiences could initiate a series of new perspectives and enlightenment one might often experience in a spiritual setting. The early phenomenologists argued that maintaining a distance between subject and object denied the subjectivity that is intrinsic to any cognitive activity and truncated the ability to fully experience (and subsequently understand) the observed phenomenon.2

This viewing environment, that would frame the room where we might discover we are not alone in this universe would inevitably enact deep questions about the origins of life and where we, individually, fit into that picture. This environment will provide the cognitive platform from which to experience the connection between object and subject, and conducive to the inevitable meditative contemplation and discussion.

In this environment, there must be a multi-sensory experience. This architecture must engage our senses, make us realize the impact this laboratory we are looking at might have in the future, and lead us into a deeper ontological engagement with the world. It will be a space of more ephemeral, intuitive, and psychic phenomena central to what might be described as a ‘religious experience’.3

The architecture must serve to illuminate our relationship to the universe.

1 Mircea Eliade, Symbolism, The Sacred and the Arts, p. 107.2 Thomas Barrie, The Sacred In-Between: The Mediating Roles of Architecture, p.21.3 Thomas Barrie, p.22.

67

Conclusion:

Solar system exploration in the coming decade will produce many opportunities for the study of extraterrestrial bodies with the possibility that they might contain life. The rigorous studies and tests needed to safely and correctly study those bodies must be done on earth where resources are abundant compared to an in situ laboratory. By focusing on laboratory design, museology and phenomenology, you have the beginning of an environment that not only has the ability to operate at the highest level of containment, but also invokes curiosity, provides knowledge and fosters meditation. The innovations associated with such an endeavor as the search for life outside the earth, must be expressed and felt throughout the entire design. In an environment with the potential to change the way we perceive our existence, you need a myriad of spaces that will foster both interaction and reflection. The rare interactions created within the space sample return facility will lead to exponential growth of our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

The space sample return facility architecture must not only create an interactive specialized laboratory dedicated to the study and detection of extraterrestrial life, but it must also recognize and respond to the deeper phenomenological, ontological, and symbolic roles that will emerge as a result of the interaction.

68

Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations

Back Contamination: biological contamination of Earth as a result of samples returned from solar system bodies.

Biota- the plant and animal life of a particular region or period

BSL: Bio-Safety Level (Centers for Disease Control, 1993)

BSL-4- is used for the diagnosis of exotic agents that pose a high risk of life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted by the aerosol route and for which there is no vaccine or therapy.

BSL-3- applies to agents that may be transmitted by the respiratory route, which can cause serious infection.

BSL-2- is appropriate for agents that can cause human disease, but whose potential for transmission is limited.

BSL-1- applies to agents that do not ordinarily cause human disease.

Cell Lines- cells grown in tissue culture and representing generations of a primary culture.

Containment- physical and biological isolation and handling of returned samples as specified for samples returned from particular Solar System bodies.

Exobiology- the study of life beyond the earth’s atmosphere, as on other planets

Forward Contamination- biological contamination of a solar system body from a sample return mission or other ‘contact’ mission.

LRL- Lunar Receiving Laboratory

LSF- Lunar Sample Facility

Museology- the systematic study of the organization, management, and function of a museum.

Ontology- metaphysical science or study of being.

Phenomenology- the way in which one perceives and interprets events and one’s relationship to them in contrast both to one’s objective responses to stimuli and to any inferred unconscious motivation for one’s behavior

Tissue Culture- the process or technique of making body tissue grow in a culture medium outside the organism; also : a culture of tissue

69

Bibliography:

Barrie, Thomas, The Sacred In-Between: The Mediating Roles of Architecture. New York, Routledge, 2010.

Cohen, Marc M. (2003 July). Global Overview: Returned Astrobiology Sample Mission Architectures (SAE 2003-01-2675). 33rd International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 7-10 July 2003. Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers. PDF

Eliade, Mircea, Symbolism, the Sacred and the Arts, ed. D. Apostolos-Cappadona, New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1992.

Space Science Board, NAS, “Conference on Potential Hazards of Back Contamination fromthe Planets, July 29-30, 1964 (advanced copy),” box 076-11, LRL Chronological files, University of Houston-Clear Lake Johnson Space Center Collection (hence UHCL).

Terradas Architects, CosmoCaixa: The Total Museum Through Conversation Between Architects and Museologists, Barcelona: Sacyr, 2006.

master thesis project proposal

Documents

space samples

case study

planetary samples

return samples

future of space exploration

planetary exploration

space industry

solar system exploration