New Role for Space Station - Enhanced Cooperation with Russia?
“When will we know what space station we are building?” -- Ralph Hall, Chairman of the House space subcommittee
The Clinton Administration’s recent discussions with Russia on enhanced space cooperation and a possible joint space station prompted a two-part hearing by the House science Subcommittee on Space, held on October 6 and 14. Subcommittee members, citing rumors and news stories about a joint station, questioned Presidential Science Advisor Jack Gibbons and NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin on the status of the proposed cooperation, and heard from additional witnesses regarding the feasibility of and support for the concept.
Gibbons, the first witness on October 6, reassured subcommittee members that no decision has yet been made on Russian cooperation, and that Congress would be consulted in the process. He explained that, after the Vancouver Summit, establishment of a Joint Commission headed by Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin provided an opportunity for enhanced cooperation in space, as well as in such other areas as energy, nuclear safety, the environment, business development, science and technology, and defense diversification. Gibbons testified that the study of a cooperative station program took place concurrently with NASA’s work on defining the redesigned US space station, now being referred to as “Alpha.” He affirmed that while Alpha’s modular design made it adaptable to a joint effort, it could “be built independent of any Russian participation.”
Gibbons reported that Russia and the US are considering a three-phase program of cooperation in space. Phase 1 involves astronaut-cosmonaut exchanges and shuttle rendezvous and docking missions with the Russian space station, MIR. Phase 2, use of an upgraded MIR with a US lab, serviced by the shuttle, would provide an interim human-tended capability before any US-led station is launched.
Phase 3, currently under study, is the potential joint station with Russia, the US, and the international partners. On November 1, Gibbons said, NASA and the Russian team would provide the study results to their respective governments. Gibbons hoped that a decision on the cooperation would be made “before the end of the calendar year.”
The second panel of witnesses had varying viewpoints on the project’s feasibility. Nicholas Johnson of Kaman Sciences Corporation, and Marcia Smith of the Congressional Research Service, raised such concerns as the lack of engineering detail, the transferability of Russian hardware, political stability in Russia, and its relations with Kazakhstan, where Russian launches take place. However, neither ruled out the possibility of effective cooperation. Louis Friedman, director of the Planetary Society, testified that after many years of denouncing the space station program, his society approves of the redesigned Alpha, and supports the decision to include Russia. All technological benefit, he said, “pales before the social and historical significance” of the cooperation.
John Fabian, an ex-astronaut whose company analyses Russian space capabilities for the US, recommended “that the US government move quickly to bring Russia in” to the space station program.
Goldin’s testimony followed a week later, on October 14, shortly after his return from discussions in Moscow with the Russian space agency. He reported that “initial estimates indicate” that a joint program would achieve permanent human capability in 2001 rather than 2003 as estimated for the US program, and potentially cost $3.5 billion less than the Alpha program. Goldin pointed out that the US could learn much from the Russian space program, whose recent launch record has been significantly better than that of the US. He stated that a joint space station would have to orbit at a higher inclination than planned for Alpha, but that the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM), just cancelled by the House, was not the only option for providing the necessary additional lift capacity for the shuttle. Goldin did not think the reduced US launch window of five minutes per day to the higher orbit was of major concern.
He also assured subcommittee members that the US’s international partners- Europe, Japan and Canada- were being kept informed of details of the proposed collaboration, and every effort was being made to keep to the intergovernmental agreements made with them.
Among space subcommittee members, who are mostly station supporters, a tug-of-war raged over the idea of using an expensive, troubled program as a foreign policy tool. Some see the historic opportunity of collaboration with Russia on such a major project as a turning point in history, a symbolic beginning of the post-Cold War era, and a powerful justification for a program which has for years struggled to justify itself. Others fear that those benefits are overwhelmed by the complications of working with Russia, particularly in light of its recent political instability. Some members agreed with Goldin that, by making use of Russian hardware, technical know-how, and space experience, a more capable station could be achieved in a shorter time for less cost. But others are wary of unanticipated costs and uncertainties involved in another radical redirection of the American program.
