As some of you heard in our meeting today, we’re writing a manuscript to describe the up-and-coming SPLASH database, to be published (or put on a preprint server) around the same time as the public release of SPLASH.
To help make the case for the existence of SPLASH and to provide accurate context, we’d love to hear from you:
In a world without the SPLASH database, how do experimenters (especially those new to space sciences) find out about spaceflight hardware to plan experiments?
What are cases in which it’s really important to have full information (metadata) about the hardware used for an experiment?
Do we have any anecdotes or evidence about how important open data is for the design of spaceflight hardware? Maybe examples of how someone wasted resources redesigning the wheel?
What are other existing repositories of information about spaceflight instruments, or terrestrial hardware databases, that we should know about and compare SPLASH to?
If you have any information that could address any of these questions, please share!
In a world without the SPLASH database, how do experimenters (especially those new to space sciences) find out about spaceflight hardware to plan experiments?
Currently, there is no single centralized location where all spaceflight hardware information is collected. So new experimenters mostly rely on,
Legacy NASA documentations like ISS Payload Developer’s guides, mission-specific hardware documents, scattered PDFs from different NASA centers (problem: These files may be outdated and inconsistent, different documents use different units or terminology, and limited accessibility.)
Contacting directly the hardware experts, previous mission teams and Principal Investigators. (problem: May not be available, not easy to contact)
For commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware like cameras, sensors, incubators, experimenters go through vendor catalogues, product brochures, spec sheets. (problem: specs may not include spaceflight constraints like radiation tolerance, vibration, hardware that works perfectly on Earth may fail in space or require unplanned modifications)
Researchers look for previous spaceflight experiment papers which has some information about hardware used. (problem: papers do not include full hardware details, no metadata standards, and are time-consuming)
2. What are cases in which it’s really important to have full information (metadata) about the hardware used for an experiment?
Complete metadata about hardware is required in the following situations:
To replicate or build upon a previous experiment, researchers must know the exact instrument model, configuration, calibration, and any modifications.
Flight safety and hardware review process relies on accurate metadata to verify that hardware meets the requirements.
During the experiment design and resource planning, detailed metadata specs prevent resource conflicts, incompatible payloads from being selected.
If hardware fails or behaves unexpectedly in space, metadata enables efficient, accurate diagnosis and mitigation.
Standardized metadata ensures that future researchers can reuse the hardware’s data correctly.
For 3rd one, there are lots of case studies related to how open data is important (in general)… so trying to collect it specifically for spaceflight hardware
On metadata: The metadata should explicitly describe the context in which the experiment was conducted.
It is of key importance to consider the influence of microgravity on the conduct of experiments. This has to play a role significantly in fluid flow.
These reasons should warrant the creation of a spaceflight hardware database, given the uniqueness of the equipment to adapt to spaceflight conditions.
Without the SPLASH database, experimenters must look in many different places to learn about space hardware. They search NASA websites, read old mission reports, and check guides that list the tools already on the International Space Station (NASA, 2021). New scientists often have to ask experts because all the information is spread out and hard to find (NASA, 2024)
It is really important to have full hardware information, called metadata, when a tool can change how an experiment behaves. For example, scientists need to know the exact temperature, light, motion, and settings a device uses, because even tiny changes can affect plant growth or cell behavior (NASA OSDR, 2023). Clear metadata also helps other scientists repeat the experiment safely and correctly, just like following all the steps in a recipe (NASA, 2021).
Yes, open data is very important because it helps scientists see what has already been built, so they don’t waste time making the same tool again. In science and engineering, teams have sometimes spent lots of money rebuilding devices simply because the designs were not shared or easy to find (NASA Open Science, 2022). Studies show that using shared, open hardware designs can save almost all of the cost compared to starting from scratch, which proves how helpful open data can be (Pearce, 2014). This shows that when information is not open, people can accidentally “redo the same work” without knowing it.
There are a few other places scientist look for information about space tools. One is the ISS Researcher’s Guide and the ISS Facilities Director, which show what equipment is already on the space station (NASA, 2021). Another is the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), which lists the hardware used in many space biology experiments (NASA OSDR, 2023). For Earth based tools, scientists sometimes use big instrument catalogs like the WMO OSCAR database, which lists instruments on Earth observing satellites (WMO, 2023). These are helpful, but none of them focus only on hardware metadata the way SPLASH will.