Space Station Backers Warn NASA To Bring Costs Down To Earth
By Chuck McCutcheon, CQ Staff Writer
(CQ, May 9) -- After months of venting anger over the rising cost of the international space station, supporters of the project in Congress are demanding that NASA develop a solution soon.
As a House Science Committee hearing on the space station May 6 made clear, such a solution presents both financial and diplomatic challenges. The Clinton administration must come up with a politically acceptable cost estimate for the station before the fiscal 1999 appropriations cycle gets under way, while at the same time coaxing Russia to honor its commitment to pay for part of the project.
The catalyst for the effort comes from a panel of outside experts picked by NASA to audit the space station project. The panel concluded in a report last month that the total cost through assembly of the station could be $24 billion -- $3 billion more than the space agency now projects and $7 billion more than it predicted in 1993. The task force also determined that the station could take as much as three years longer to build than currently forecast -- December 2006 rather than December 2003.
The panel of seven military and civilian experts, headed by aerospace consultant Jay W. Chabrow, estimated that NASA will need an extra $130 million to $250 million a year over the next seven years to cover the expected increased costs.
"Our finding is that cost and schedule projections provided by NASA are optimistic and consistent with our opinion that the program has been planned too aggressively for a technical task of this magnitude," Chabrow told the committee.
Critics of the space station have pointed to the report as further evidence that the project should be killed. Although they came within one vote of doing so in the House in 1993, they have failed to come close in either chamber since then.
Nevertheless, both Democratic and Republican backers of the station on the Science Committee fear dire consequences if NASA's problems continue.
"We've been resting on our laurels with rather comfortable margins in support of the station for the last couple of years," said committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis. "Cost overruns erode that political support."
"It's time for us to get down to the nitty-gritty and correct these mistakes," agreed George E. Brown Jr. of California, the committee's ranking Democrat.
NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin promised to respond to the task force report by mid-June. He also said the agency is reviewing the extent of Russia's involvement in the project.
For now, Goldin acknowledged that his agency anticipates "some growth" in the space station's cost and schedule, but said "it will not be as large or as long" as the Chabrow panel forecast.
The Senate has joined the House in stepping up concern over the space station. In March, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee clamped a $21.9 billion price cap on the project's cost in approving legislation (S1250) to reauthorize NASA for fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
Rising Expectations
Described as the most complex structure ever put in orbit, the space station is a joint venture among the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan, Brazil and the 11 member nations of the European Space Agency. Supporters say it will advance scientific understanding, space exploration and international cooperation. The United States and Russia are handling the bulk of the project.
In 1993, the Clinton administration estimated that the station would cost $17.4 billion to develop, launch and assemble in orbit. That estimate began rising as Russia signed on as a partner the following year -- a move administration officials initially said would reduce costs and speed up construction because Russia was the only other country with a manned space program.
Sensenbrenner, a space station supporter who has been among NASA's most vocal critics, laid down three major concerns for the agency and the Clinton administration to address before his committee holds another hearing on the project next month.
First, he said, the Office of Management and Budget must become "an active participant" in developing a solution. Outgoing budget director Franklin D. Raines did not accept a committee invitation to testify at the space station hearing, infuriating Sensenbrenner, who left an empty chair at the witness table with Raines' name on a placard.
Raines submitted written testimony pledging that if additional funding is needed, the administration will look first within NASA's human space flight account, which funds the space station and space shuttle programs.
Sensenbrenner called Raines' proposal unacceptable, saying it could lead to layoffs or cancellations of shuttle flights. Earlier this year, after Congress refused to let NASA transfer $200 million from various internal accounts to the space station, the agency shifted money from the shuttle program, causing some layoffs.
"I don't want to see all the science and technology that is currently funded through the human space flight account be canceled out," Sensenbrenner said. "So in that case, somebody is going to have to step up to the plate and be honest in saying how we're going to get the money."
Russian Reliability
Sensenbrenner said NASA must develop a "credible plan" to deal with problems stemming from Russia's inability to live up to its commitment to build parts of the station. During a visit to Russia last month, Sensenbrenner said he learned that the Russian Space Agency has not yet received all funds expected for 1997 from the Russian government and has no firm commitment for this year.
Since then, Russian President Boris Yeltsin has ordered the government to fulfill its obligations to the space station project, his spokesman told Reuters on May 5. Representatives from Russia and other countries are expected to meet with NASA officials later this month to discuss a new launch timetable for the station.
Several committee members were openly skeptical that Russia will follow through. "Let's quit giving these fellows the benefit of the doubt," said Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who chairs the Subcommittee on Space. "It's costing us so much money."
If Russia's financial problems persist, Sensenbrenner suggested, perhaps fewer of its crew members should be allowed aboard the station. "Why should they get the full benefits that were agreed to when they don't pay their share of the costs?" he asked.
Other committee members said they want the Clinton administration to show more vigilance in guarding against the sale of Russian missile technology to Iran. The House passed legislation (HR2709 -- H Rept 105-375) in November that would require economic sanctions against overseas companies or research institutes -- mainly Russian -- that have helped Iran develop ballistic missiles.
The Senate is expected to take up the bill this month. Some senators have expressed concern that further evidence of sales could jeopardize U.S.-Russian cooperation on the space station.
"If the Russians don't deliver on the station, how in the hell can we believe they're going to deliver on Iranian missile technology?" asked Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., at a NASA appropriations hearing April 23. The issue "could sink the space station, and it could create a very serious diplomatic situation," she warned.
Sensenbrenner's final concern was that NASA avoid delays in developing an alternative for producing one of the station's first main components -- the Russian-built service module, which would house astronauts and use small rockets to keep the station from falling out of orbit.
Goldin acknowledged that he made a mistake in allowing Russia to take on construction of the service module.
Although Goldin emphasized that he remains committed to keeping Russia as a partner in the station, he repeatedly assured Science Committee members that he shares their frustrations.
"We were too naive in expecting them to act like we act," Goldin said.
© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
News
Click here